Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pete Buttigieg

2019-04-19T02:33:51Z

JustinD:

[[File:Mr. and Mr. Buttigieg.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Mr. & Mr. Pete Buttigieg.]]
'''Pete Buttigieg''' (pron. ''Peter Boota-judge''<ref>[https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=242106 Buttigieg, Pete]</ref>) according to [[ABC]]'s ''[[The View]]'', is the "Mayor of Indiana." Buttigieg is mayor of the city which hosts [[Notre Dame University]], America's premier Catholic college. Buttigieg's father, a [[communist]], infiltrated Notre Dame's faculty in 1980.<ref>Larsen, Emily; Simonson, Joseph (April 2, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pete-buttigiegs-father-was-a-marxist-professor-who-lauded-the-communist-manifesto Pete Buttigieg's father was a Marxist professor who lauded the Communist Manifesto]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 2, 2019.</ref> In a harbinger of things to come, Buttigieg announced his candidacy for the [[Democratic party]] nomination in the [[2020 Presidential election]] on April 14, 2019.<ref>Moran, Sean (April 14, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/14/pete-buttigieg-announces-2020-democrat-presidential-campaign/ Pete Buttigieg Announces 2020 Democrat Presidential Campaign]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 14, 2019.</ref> The following day, April 15, 2019, Notre Dame's 800 year old namesake and symbol of [[Christian]] [[civilization]], the cathedral of Notre Dame in [[Paris]] was burnt down.

Buttigieg is running on a platform of uprooting traditional family values. Buttigieg is a [[Socialist holocaust denier]],<ref>https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/dem-2020-hopeful-pete-buttigieg-goes-on-the-view-and-destroys-gop-scare-tactics-about-socialism/</ref> backs the [[totalitarian]] [[Green New Deal]], a staunch supporter of the [[transgender]] bathroom crisis, and opposes the [[constitutional]] [[Electoral College]].<ref>Burke, Michael (April 14, 2019). [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438846-buttigieg-again-calls-for-eliminating-electoral-college Buttigieg slams Electoral College for overruling popular vote 'twice in my lifetime']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved April 14, 2019.</ref> Buttigieg calls himself an "intellectual" and claims Democrats respect "institutions and rules" and "fairplay." Buttigieg rejected calls for the resignation of the [[racist]] Democrat governor of Virginia [[Ralph Northam]]. He has attacked Bible-believing Christians for their beliefs,<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 8, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/04/08/pollak-mayor-pete-buttigieg-religious-bigotry/ Pollak: ‘Mayor Pete’ Buttigieg and Liberal Religious Bigotry]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 8, 2019.</ref> including [[Mike Pence]].<ref>Spiering, Charlie (April 8, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/08/pete-buttigieg-keeps-attacking-mike-pence-despite-history-of-respect/ Pete Buttigieg Keeps Attacking Mike Pence Despite History of Respect]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 8, 2019. See also:
*Daugherty, Owen (April 9, 2019). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/438132-karen-pence-responds-to-buttigieg-you-shouldnt-be-attacked-for Karen Pence responds to Buttigieg: 'You shouldn't be attacked' for your religious beliefs]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
*Brest, Mike (April 9, 2019). [https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/pence-family-religious-liberty-buttigieg/ Pence's Family Defends Religious Liberty, Pushes Back Against Buttigieg Criticism]. ''The Daily Caller''. Retrieved April 10, 2019.
Contrast with Pence's reaction to Buttigieg when he announced his homosexuality:
*Chang, Allie (June 17, 2015). [https://wsbt.com/news/local/gov-pence-talks-reelection-campaign-buttigiegs-coming-out Gov. Pence talks reelection campaign, Buttigieg's coming out]. ''WSBT''. Retrieved April 10, 2019.</ref> [[Liberal hypocrisy|This comes despite the fact]] he strongly supports [[abortion]] and [[same-sex "marriage"]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Brown, Michael L. (April 8, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-abortion-married-homosexual-professed-christian-pete-buttigieg-questions-trumps-faith Why it’s absurd for gay pro-abortion Pete Buttigieg to question Trump’s faith]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
*Byas, Steve (April 9, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31973-buttigieg-s-candidacy-advances-secularist-leftist-goals Buttigieg’s Candidacy Advances Secularist Leftist Goals]. ''The New American''. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
*Mainwaring, Doug (April 12, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/as-a-former-gay-man-i-know-pete-buttigiegs-midwest-wholesome-is-a-lie As a former gay man, I know Pete Buttigieg’s ‘Midwest wholesome’ is a lie]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
*Williams, Thomas D. (April 16, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/04/16/catholic-league-pete-buttigieg-loyal-soldier-war-religion/ Catholic League: Pete Buttigieg ‘Loyal Soldier in War on Religion’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 16, 2019.
*Buchanan, Patrick J. (April 16, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/32030-mayor-pete-and-the-crackup-of-christianity Mayor Pete and the Crackup of Christianity]. ''The New American''. Retrieved April 17, 2019.</ref> Buttigieg offers no [[hope]] to parents, young girls and women as a [[role model]] for [[heterosexual]]ity. Buttigieg's [[white privilege]] propelled him into the upper ranks of [[Democrat]] candidates and the [[mainstream media]] has visibly displayed its adoration for him<ref>Jasper, William F. (April 7, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31946-pete-buttigieg-for-president-the-dem-s-newest-media-anointed-phenom Pete Buttigieg for President? The Dem’s Newest Media-anointed “Phenom”]. ''The New American''. Retrieved April 9, 2019. See also:
*Schlichter, Kurt (April 11, 2019). [https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/04/11/that-annoying-pete-buttigieg-guy-is-just-another-liberal-hack-n2544486 That Annoying Pete Buttigieg Guy Is Just Another Liberal Hack]. ''Townhall''. Retrieved April 11, 2019.</ref> while he rose in the polls.<ref>Spiering, Charlie (April 16, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/16/mayor-pete-buttigieg-rising-in-democrat-primary/ Mayor Pete Buttigieg Rising in Democrat Primary]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 16, 2019.</ref> The communist Buttigieg is being promoted as a "man of faith."

Buttigieg has criticized his supporters for being too white.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 15, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/15/pete-buttigieg-knocks-own-supporters-for-being-too-white/ Pete Buttigieg Knocks Own Supporters for Being Too White]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 16, 2019.</ref> Like [[Obama]], Buttigieg poses as a "[[centrist]]."

==Ideology==
Buttigieg is noted for his use of meaningless [[Marxist dialectic]] double talk and buzz phrases, such as "democratic capitalism" which supposedly sets him apart from [[democratic socialist]]s. Buttigieg's pseudo intellectualism doesn't mask the meaning of Christ's words, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

In Genesis 1:28, God commanded the first man and woman (there is no scientific debate on whether the human species descended from a single set of common parents; all races and ethnicities are related by blood) to "be fruitful and multiply."

===Gramsci===
[[Antonio Gramsci]] was a lieutenant of [[Joseph Stalin]] who headed the [[Italian]] branch of the International Communist movement ([[Comintern]]). After several failed assassination attempts on Mussolini, Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926 until his death in 1937. While in prison Gramsci wrote his ''Prison Notebooks'', speculating on the failure of [[violent]] [[revolution]] to materialize in [[Western Europe]] as [[Karl Marx]] had predicted. Gramsci's works are considered by [[Socialists]] to be foundational to modern [[public education]] and [[Cultural Marxism]].<ref>https://www.jstor.org/stable/23768314?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents</ref><ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/education.htm</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTTr4iYT0M</ref>

Joseph A. Buttigieg, Pete Buttigieg's father, according to his faculty page at [[Notre Dame]] University, {{quotebox|"interests are modern literature, [[critical theory]], and the relationship between culture and politics. In addition to numerous articles, Buttigieg...is also the editor and translator of the multi-volume complete critical edition of ''Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks''...his articles on Gramsci have been translated into Italian, German, Spanish, Portugese, and Japanese. He was a founding member of the International Gramsci Society of which he is the executive secretary."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100616163619/http://english.nd.edu/faculty/profiles/joseph-a-buttigieg/</ref>}}

Gramsci's theory of "cultural hegemony" states that the ruling capitalist "oppressor" class uses cultural institutions, such as "traditional marriage," to maintain power. The "oppressors" develop a "hegemonic culture" using [[ideology]] unlike Socialists who use [[violence]], economic force, and coercion. "Hegemonic culture" propagates its own values and norms so that they become "[[common sense]]" values and thus maintain the [[status quo]]. According to [[Wikipedia]], this "Hegemonic power is therefore used to maintain consent to the capitalist order, rather than coercive power using force" as Marxism does "to maintain order. This cultural hegemony is produced and reproduced" by the dominant Christian oppressor class "through the institutions that form the superstructure."

===2 Kings 21:11 - 2 Kings 22:2, 2 Kings 23:7===
:{{See also|2_Kings_20-25_(Translated)#Chapter_21|2_Kings_20-25_(Translated)#Chapter_22|2_Kings_20-25_(Translated)#Chapter_23}}
Buttigieg, who allegedly speaks seven languages, disputes the common interpretation of 2 Kings 21:11 - 2 Kings 22:2 and 2 Kings 23:7 in all seven languages. Likewise Buttigieg has difficulty in comprehension of Proverbs 14:34.

For all of Buttigieg's intellectual bombast, Buttigieg offers no reasonable interpretation of Ephesians 5:12.<ref>https://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/5-12-compare.html</ref>

==Mayor==
Buttigieg has overseen rising crime, homeless, and drug use during his time as mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

==Family==
Buttigieg was [[gay]]-married in 2018 and the couple have no children.<ref>https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/11/gay-indiana-pete-buttigieg-mike-pence/</ref>

==See also==
*[[Long march through the institutions]]
*[[Frankfurt School]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Buttigieg, Pete}}
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Anti-Constitutionalists]]

User talk:RobSmith/Clinton Foundation

2016-06-14T05:07:53Z

JustinD: Not Huma in photo

Posted this on the image page too, but that's not Huma in the photo. Per the source, it's "political opposition leader aung san suu kyi," whoever that is. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] ([[User talk:JustinD|talk]]) 01:07, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

File talk:Hillary 18 October 2011 in Tripoli.png

2016-06-14T05:06:13Z

JustinD: Not Huma

Per your source, that's "political opposition leader aung san suu kyi" with Clinton, not Abedin. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] ([[User talk:JustinD|talk]]) 01:06, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

User talk:JustinD

2015-10-08T01:57:32Z

JustinD:

{{welcome}}
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 01:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
== Congratulations ==

Thanks for your edits to [[game theory primary]]. Based on your several-years of editing, your account has been promoted to skip the captcha questions in editing. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:44, 20 September 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm not around often and actually took a few minutes to remember the captcha this last time, so I'm glad I won't have to going forward. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] ([[User talk:JustinD|talk]]) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Game theory primary

2015-09-20T19:24:53Z

JustinD: minor typos

[[Game theory]] becomes an important consideration in a crowded primary, such as the Republican nominating process for the [[2016 presidential election]]. A total of 17 candidates (as of August 2015) vie for support, which requires considerations of game theory before criticizing rivals.

As of September 2015, only four of the 17 candidates have been willing to criticize [[Donald Trump]], lest they lose potential support among supporters of Trump. Those four candidates are [[Rand Paul]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Carly Fiorina]], and [[Lindsey Graham]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-trades-barbs-with-carly-fiorina/</ref> The first two perhaps hope to take support away from Donald Trump as a rival; the latter two perhaps hope to gain support from those who dislike Trump.

== Who are rivals among the 16 candidates? ==

Moderates compete with moderates for moderate voters, while conservatives compete with conservatives for conservative voters. But overly criticizing another candidate within one's sphere of support is risky.

The groupings below illustrate why [[Rand Paul]] and [[Carly Fiorina]] have been most vocal in criticizing [[Donald Trump]]:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Social Conservative !! Fiscal Conservative !! Moderate/[[Establishment]] !! Maverick
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]] || [[Marco Rubio]] || [[Jeb Bush]] || [[Donald Trump]]
|-
| [[Ted Cruz]] || [[Scott Walker]] || [[Chris Christie]] || [[Ben Carson]]
|-
| [[Rick Santorum]] || [[Jim Gilmore]] || [[John Kasich]] || [[Carly Fiorina]] - appeals to women
|-
| [[Bobby Jindal]] |||| [[Lindsey Graham]] || [[Rand Paul]] - appeals to men
|-
| || || [[George Pataki]] ||
|}

But [[Chris Christie]] and [[Marco Rubio]] are potential [[stalking horse candidate]]s for [[Jeb Bush]], perhaps hopeful that they will be picked as his V.P. So neither is likely to criticize Bush, and each will probably drop out and endorse him early.

== Which Rivals Won't Criticize Each Other, and Why ==

[[Donald Trump]] and [[Chris Christie]] won't criticize each other because both are embarrassed by the collapse of [[Atlantic City]], and their related roles in it.

[[Ted Cruz]] won't criticize [[Donald Trump]] because Cruz was not born in the [[United States]], and Trump can cause a politician's approval rating to plummet by making this an issue, as Trump demonstrated by making it an issue against [[Obama]].

== Which Rivals Will Need to Criticize Each Other ==

The [[Texas primary]] is a must-win state for both [[Ted Cruz]] and [[Jeb Bush]]. Cruz needs to criticize Bush as being too [[liberal]] for Texas.

The [[NH primary]] is a must-win state for [[Donald Trump]] and [[Rand Paul]], and hence it makes sense that Rand Paul would be most vocal in criticizing Trump.

[[Donald Trump]] needs to criticize [[Jeb Bush]], the frontrunner for the [[Establishment]] that will surely increase its criticisms of Trump either publicly or privately.

== Whom does [[Donald Trump]] help? ==

One theory, advanced at the Powerline blog, is that the candidacy by Donald Trump helps [[Jeb Bush]].<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/trump-bushs-stalking-horse.php</ref> But if Trump prevents Jeb Bush from winning in New Hampshire, which seems plausible, then Jeb Bush probably cannot win the nomination. Jeb Bush will fare poorly in Iowa and thus New Hampshire is a must-win state for him, but Trump seems poised to win New Hampshire.

=== Impact by Trump on Iowa ===

Iowa Republican primaries are less likely to support Trump, so he may not have much impact in that crucial first State.

== NH primary ==

In the [[NH primary]], mavericks running in one party, such as the Democratic Party, can weaken the support for a maverick running in the other party, such as the Republican Party, because Independent voters are allowed to vote in the primary of either party.
== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Expected to endorse Jeb]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:2016 presidential election]]

Political cards

2014-09-19T03:15:28Z

JustinD: Undo revision 1105026 by JC3rk (talk)

'''Political cards''' are tactics used by [[liberals]] in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of [[bridge]], where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards. Political cards are thus a form of [[thought-terminating cliché]].

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more than playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a [[political card]] against the [[Tea Party Movement]], due to its amorphous nature.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Political card
!Meaning
!Example
!Advantage
!Disadvantage
|-
|sexist card
|allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting bloc within the [[Democratic Party]].
|[[Lawrence Summers]] was driven from his presidency of [[Harvard]] for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men.
|safe haven for angry liberals and [[feminists]]
|implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government
|-
|[[race card]]
|Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist
|Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008
|prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
|the boy who cried wolf.
|-
| Mediscare card
| Scare grandpa and grandma into thinking their government benefits will be cut off
| Used in a recent special congressional election for a [[Democrat]] in a [[Republican]]-leaning district in [[New York]] in 2011.
| fear sells
| people aren't stupid.
|-
|Third rail card
|Proposals to reform [[Social Security]] result in political suicide.
|Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.<ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail</ref>
|Slander your opponent for proposing solutions.
|Political and economic stagnation.
|-
|hate speech card
|Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance.
|The [[Obama administration]] has used the [[FCC]] to harass and intimidate what it considers its media critics. <ref>http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print#</ref>
|programmed response for liberal failures.
|mimics liberal talking points
|-
|[[Xenophobia]] card
|Bringing country of origin into a debate by suggesting that criticism is motivated by a fear of foreigners (eg. Australians)
|Polite and responsible criticism of President Obama is deemed xenophobic.<ref>See:[[JournoList]]</ref>
|At first seems to be an effective way to pose the opponent as racist.
|Ultimately fails when both debaters are of the same country or when the person making the original claim is from the country of the claim.
|-
|anti-gay card
|Calling opponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality.
|Used against [[Rick Santorum]] leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006
|assumes the posture of [[civil rights]] advocacy.
|African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8</ref>
|-
|intolerant card
|demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology.
|the most despicable forms of liberal intolerance traditionally have been reserved for, and manifested in, the vile abuses heaped upon Black conservatives, Black Republicans, and Black Tea Party activists.
|in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant
|boomerang
|-
|Kennedy card
|Used to support socialized medicine
|cite Ted Kennedy’s “dream”, the “the cause of my life”, “Senator Kennedy eloquently captured how our long-term care system is failing the American people when he said, too often, they have to give up the American Dream" <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/26/dems-invoke-the-kennedy-card-to-defend-obamacare-in-wake-of-failing-class-act/ Dems invoke the ‘Kennedy Card’ to defend Obamacare in wake of failing CLASS Act, Daily Caller, October 26, 2011]</ref>
|emotional appeal for passing legislation
|Only 26% of the population can relate to liberalism, the Kennedy card has zero effect on legislation.
|-
|"Responsible" Republican card
|Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly [[RINO]]s, are "responsible."
|"During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/</ref>
|Who killed Responsible Republicans? [[Bill Kristol]], of course. <ref>Ibid.</ref>
|In 1990 President [[George H.W. Bush]] was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge.
|-
|extreme card
|in typical [[MSM]] [[newspeak]], anything right of center or not liberal.
|Bill and [[Hillary Clinton]] persistently referred to the Republican [[Newt Gingrich|Contract with America]] as extreme; [[President Clinton]] ultimately signed 7 of 10 Contract items in to law.
|Prior to the [[9/11 attacks]], was used interchangeably with "[[terrorist]]" by mainstream media sources.
|Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2004/pdf/liberal_media.pdf The Liberal Media, ''Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It''], Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.</ref>
|-
|greedy card
|Portraying [[capitalist]]ic ideas or actions as greedy
|Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue.
|Most people care about money and fairness.
|Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans)
|-
|millionaires and billionaires card
|[[class warfare]]
|[[President Obama]] said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." <ref>The ''[[Washington Post]]'' Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html it is essentially meaningless]. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."</ref>
|appeals to voters motivated by [[envy]]
|politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires.
|-
|conspiracy theory card
|the one making the charge cannot explain facts.
|Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
|provides plausible reasons for the simple minded.
|contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories.
|-
|[[homophobia]] card
|Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of [[homosexuals]].
|Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's [[Proposition 8]] was deemed homophobia.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html</ref>
|Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks.
|Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay.
|-
|[[Islamophobia]] card
|Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims
|Don't question behavior because an individual happens to be Muslim
|Scare people from speaking out or investigating
|Look foolish making excuses for a religion publicly committed to the downfall of the West.
|-
| trickle down card
| anti-free market agitprop
| [[Nobel Laureate]] [[Paul Krugman]] claims GOP zombies will eat Obama's brain for extending the Bush tax cuts. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/20/paul-krugman-says-gop-zombies-are-going-eat-obamas-brain Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain], ''Newsbusters.</ref>
| apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists.
| Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html</ref>
|-
|global warming denier card
|opposition to using [[junk science]] to promote political [[activism]].
|[[Global warming]] activists have likened climate change to Nazi atrocities. <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html</ref>
|equates moderates with ignorant fascists.
|belittles and denigrates victims of the [[Nazi]] [[holocaust]].<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html</ref>
|-
| anti-environment card
| A claim that tries to portray the opponent badly by placing them as someone who "hates the environment".
| "The GOP wants babies to be fed poison from the environment" <ref>http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/new-tv-ad-for-epa-republicans-poison-babies/</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSTnoeNNbzQ Watch the Video]
| The simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage.
| purview of [[extremist]]s
|-
| over-sensitive card
| failure to behave in a realistic manner and being afraid to upset people
|
| Plays on others' fear of seeming weak.
|
|-
|uneducated card
|Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president.
|Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and [[liberals]] destroyed him by playing this card.
|A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot.
|Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states.
|-
|fundamentalist card
|seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism.
|[[Richard Dawkins]] screed, ''[[The God Delusion]]''.
|puts [[Billy Graham]] and [[bin Laden]] in the same boat.
|A majority of Americans are neither atheist nor [[secular humanist]]s.
|-
|[[Dominionist]] card
|implies [[evangelical]] [[Christian]]s want to impose an [[Iran]]ian style [[theocracy]] on the United States.
|Used by [[misogynist]]s to attack [[Michelle Bachmann]]. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/KeepLeft/michele-bachmann-john-quincy-adams_n_885868_94606213.html]
|appeals to the fears of [[atheist]]s and religious bigots.
|based on social [[pseudoscience]], [[propaganda]], and journalistic hacks.
|-
|free speech card
|cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech
| [[Supreme Court]] ruled exotic dancing protected free expression but disallowed a high school football team's pregame prayer under the same grounds.
|Legally it is technically correct
|Just because something is "free speech" does not mean it is not wrong
|-
| creationist card
|
|
| Creationism is an emotive issue for many people on either side of the debate, so this can be a clever way to side-track sensible argument.
|
|-
| birther card
| claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks
| ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal'' <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/truthers-vs-birthers-not-all-conspiracy-theories-are-created-equal/?singlepage=true ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal; Birthers aren't remotely as crazy — and dangerous — as Truthers'']. September 23, 2009 by Arthur Chrenkoff. Pajama's Media.</ref>
| hides the question of [[natural born citizen]]
| exposes the original meaning of [[natural born citizen]].
|-
| abortion card
| a defense of feminism
| Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] implied that Justice Bork would turn back Roe V. Wade forcing women to have back-alley abortions.
| fear Republican laws and personal responsibility
| you can't run from your conscience and consequence of actions can lead to a lifetime of suffering
|-
| liberal mocking card
| mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues
| ''The Daily Show''
| often pleases supporters
| makes person look petty
|-
|snark card
|Using snarky (sometimes even offensive) humor to attack the opponent.
|Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc.
|Often a [[laugh track|cue]] for other liberals to "join in" the laughter
|Nobody else is laughing (or they are laughing at the snark attempt-er).
|-
|Jesus card
|Claiming "What would Jesus do" to try to paint the opponent as not a true Christian (a common liberal tactic when cornered on a religious issue, such as [[homosexuality]])
|As noted above, liberals often use this to defend homosexuality <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/what-would-jesus-do-if-in_b_480013.html</ref> by claiming that Jesus never specifically mentioned it.
|Certain Bible passages can easily be [[quote mine]]d.
|A true Christian can easily find the flaws in such an argument by pointing our how it is taken out of context.
|-
|gun nut card
|slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons
|The shooting of Rep. [[Gabrielle Giffords]] was blamed on [[Sarah Palin]]; opponents of Constitutional Rights immediately clamored for bigger and more government oppression.<ref>http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-09/news/27086902_1_gun-ban-sarah-palin-gun-incident</ref>
|Appeals to pro-gun-control people's negative stereotypes of gun enthusiasts.
|angers those with guns
|-
|[[Liberal redefinition]] card
| changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes
| "[[General Welfare Clause|Promote the General Welfare]]" became "living on the [[Welfare|dole]]".
| An insidious way to reframe debate that can be effective if one's opponents are not vigilant or use imprecise thinking.
|[[Moral relativism]].
|-
| misuse of statistics card
| Liberals often use certain "trends" to support their claims.
| Citing the Clinton surplus vs the Bush deficit
| At first makes the user look like they have done their research
| Often taken out of context (for example the Clinton surplus was largely due to a Republican congress and the end of the Cold War, while the Bush deficit was caused greatly by two wars and need for Homeland Security.
|-
| cherry picking data card
| selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't
| Obama [[White House]] claims the [[Recovery Summer|stimulus]] "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html</ref>
| Many people struggle with statistics, so poorly-informed observers may assume the user is correct.
| dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples
|-
| never-admit-a-mistake card <ref>[[Thomas Sowell]] writes, (a) goals are redefined after the fact to give the public the illusion of success; (b) bad motives are ascribed to the opposition or society in general; (c) good intentions of the anointed are highlighted; and (d) they attack the accuracy of the data showing failure. Thomas Sowell, [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2002/12/vision-of-anointed-by-thomas-sowell.html ''The Vision of the Anointed]'', Chap. 2.</ref>
| inability to admit a mistake; lack of [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindness]]
| Obama said his [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|stimulus]] would hold unemployment below 8%; instead it rose to over 9% and straddled the U.S. with the [[debt ceiling]] crisis. <ref>http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/07/20/opinion/only-hope-is-undoing-obamas-mess.html Only Hope Is Undoing Obama’s Mess], Kenneth Brown And Micha Gisser, ''Albuquerque Journal'', July 20 2011.</ref>
| the quick fix
| incrementalism leads to compromise
|-
| denying [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] card
|
|
|
|
|-
| [[Anti-Americanism|Anti-American]] card
| Denying [[ American exceptionalism|American exceptionalism]]. Trots out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Deceit|deceit]] card
| Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument.
| Obama's critics are racists.
| Can impress ill-informed or credulous observers.
| You're only fooling yourself if you believe any of it.
|-
| [[Poe's law|Poe's]] card
| Impersonation of [[Conservatives]] to discredit their positions. Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation.
|
| Adds to negative stereotypes of real conservatives, especially where people have not met many genuine conservatives.
|
|-
| Elite card
| claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful
|
| Appeals to people's "Robin Hood" impulse to support underdogs and mistrust the wealthy.
| The rich pay all the [[tax]]es.
|-
| Compassion card
| arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion
| [[Liberals and uncharitableness|Liberal uncharitableness]] and [[Liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] has been well documented.
| Attempts to paint opponents' pragmatism as cold-heartedness.
| The calling card of [[limousine liberal]]s.
|-
| Hypocrite card
| claiming some inconsistency in positions
| The idea that a pro-lifer must oppose death penalty
| Some people actually buy it.
| Often the people making the Hypocrite claim exhibit hypocrisy themselves (see [[Liberal hypocrisy]])
|-
| Guilt by association card
| insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist
| "shaking hands with [[Saddam Hussein]]." <ref>[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=shaking+hands+with+Saddam+Hussein&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS425US426 Google Search Results].</ref>
| slander at will
| look who's calling the kettle back.
|-
| Google bomb card
| sabotaging Google searches
| [[Rick Santorum]]
| Many people still have trouble with new media and struggle to draw correct conclusions from search results.
| None that are currently known.
|-
|working families card
|class warfare
|See Democratic Talking Points, [[2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Democratic_National_Convention|2008 Presidential Nominating Convention]], from the ''[[New York Times]]''. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/democrats-talking-points-on-the-convention/]
|Postures [[Democrat]]s as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children.
|Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families.
|-
| nativist card
| the idea people born in a given country are xenophobic exclusionary bigots.
| Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
| divides the people against themselves
| hard to prove in a [[melting pot]]
|-
|[[Godwin's Law|Godwin]] card
|invoking the name of Hitler.
|Liberal [[George_Soros#2004_Presidential_Elections_in_the_United_States|George Soros]] likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime.
|appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists.
|typical [[totalitarian]] tactic.
|-
|Patriot card
|Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist.
| "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm</ref>
|Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control.
|Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic.
|-
|Immigration card
|Implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area and Democrats associate being opposed to illegal immigration as being "anti-immigration" as a whole, which is bigoted and completely insulting to people that come to this country legally.
|The [[DREAM Act|Obama Dream Act]], a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41.
|Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win.
|Most immigrants come to America seeking [[conservative values]], such as a [[right to work]], [[religious freedom]], or being free of [[big government]] oppression. Millions have fled intolerant [[atheist regime]]s.
|-
|Nixon's Southern Strategy card
|implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].
| "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8123561/nixons_southern_strategy.html Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community], Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.</ref>
|labels Southerners as racist.
|ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, [[George Wallace]] received 49 [[electoral votes]] exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.<ref>Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml]</ref>
|-
|neo-confederate card
|implies [[Civil War]] buffs want to bring back [[segregation]] and [[slavery]].
|On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, [[MSNBC]]'s liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the [[Confederacy]], [[secession]], [[slavery]] and racism.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html</ref>
|intimidating to conservative [[Bluedog Democrat]]s.
|may backfire and evoke [[bipartisanship]].
|-
|redneck card
|implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist
|Used to smear most conservatives
|pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, [[Red State]] dwellers, and others in flyover country.
|When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority.
|-
| bitter and cling to guns or religion card
| Why don't common people vote Democrat?
| Used by Obama and [[Howard Dean]].
| Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them.
| Insulting to average voters.
|-
|[[NASCAR]] card
|insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist
|NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican,<ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican</ref> more so than fans of most others sports.
|Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the [[Pentagon]]'s sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html</ref>
|NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans.
|-
| insensitive card
| failure to behave in a [[politically correct]] manner.
| a former Miss California was stripped of her crown for saying she thought marriage was between a man and a woman. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/04/20/carrie-prejean-says-answer-gay-marriage-question-cost-miss-usa-crown/</ref>
| ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority.
| not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal [[tripe]].
|-
|[[McCarthyism]] card
|accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of [[Joseph McCarthy]]
|''"Racist!" as an Epithet of Repression'' <ref>[http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/racist/ ''“Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression''], Dr. Paul Trout, Montana Professor Journal, Fall 1995.</ref>
|baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun.
|Requires no morals or conscience.
|-
| Victim card
| Pretending to be a victim of the right wingers.
| Liberals looking for alleged conservative bias everywhere.
| Rallies base.
| Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid.
|
|-
|[[Fundamentalism]] card
| Make religious and social conservatives appear to be irrational "Bible-thumpers" who follow the Holy Bible nonsensically.
| Liberal Hollywood degrading conservative preachers in movies such as ''Jesus Camp'' and ''Religulous''.
| Alienates leaders of religious movements from the average person.
| Creates straw men out of real conservatives, which ultimately backfires as stereotypes are dispelled.
|}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:political cards]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2014-09-13T00:06:44Z

JustinD:

[[File:Peyton Manning.jpg|thumb|Peyton Manning]]
The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] 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]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better,<ref>Sampras defeated Agassi four out of the five times they met in Grand Slam finals. Overall, Sampras won 20 out of his 34 matches against Agassi. [http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/295861.html]</ref> but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league and then became a benchwarmer in the French League. His own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Tom Brady]] — has relatively weak throwing strength, and hasn't won the big game in many years. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value, and prefer him to more [[Christian]] players.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Bryant is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Bryant's Lakers were pathetic in 2012-2013 while he was playing.
#[[LeBron James]] — over-promoted by the media to an absurd extent, LeBron has sometimes underachieved in key playoff games. Christian star Kevin Durant, who outscored James (and Kobe Bryant) in the Olympics, and other players are as good or better.
#[[Magic Johnson]] — 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.
#*People look at him, 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/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — 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]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions, and was even worse in a humiliating [[Super Bowl]] loss in 2014.
#[[Steve Nash]] — 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. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#Mark Sanchez — 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 and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. When Tebow came to the Jets, [[liberals]] championed the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career. As a result, Tebow was forced out of the Jets team and released at the end of the 2012-13 season.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in more than six years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments - even when he's not even playing, as in the 2014 [[Masters]].
#[[Danica Patrick]] - has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The [[lamestream media]] adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.[[File:C Ronaldo.jpg|thumb|200px|Cristiano Ronaldo.]]
#Wayne Rooney - burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele." 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#Jason Collins- saw constant media coverage over him for being gay even though he isn't even that good at basketball.
#Michael Sam- was heavenly promoted by the media for being gay despite not being a first round draft pick and getting cut from the Rams before the start of the season.
{{Clear}}

== See also ==
*[[Conservapedia proven right]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:sports]]

The Beatles

2014-07-27T14:52:20Z

JustinD:

{{Artist (Music)
|picture =Beatles,0.jpg
|picture2 =
|country =United Kingdom
|style =Rock
|style2 =Psychedelic Rock
|style3 =Pop Rock
|style4 =
|style5 =
|year =1960-1970
|website =http://www.beatles.com
}}

'''The Beatles''' were an [[England|English]] rock band from [[Liverpool]], UK. They were influential in popularizing a soft style of rock music, selling around a billion records worldwide. The Beatles played and recorded many genres of [[rock and roll]], from Tin Pan Alley and psychedelic rock to heavy metal and pop-rock. They were also key figures behind the 1960s [[counterculture]], and some of their songs popularized harmful drugs.

The four Beatles were [[John Lennon]] (1940-1980), [[George Harrison]] (1943-2001), [[Paul McCartney]] (1942- ), and [[Ringo Starr]] (1940- ). Most of the Beatles' songs were co-written by Lennon and McCartney, though George Harrison penned one of their most critically acclaimed lyrics, "Something". In the latter half of the 1960s the majority of their songs were written individually, but retained the "Lennon/McCartney" (orig. "McCartney/Lennon") writing credit. Lennon's songwriting was harder in nature and often had a political bent, while McCartney primarily wrote lighter love songs. Harrison, who later converted to [[Hinduism]],<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21938027</ref> frequently utilized the [[sitar]] in his songs. Starr rarely wrote music, but would usually sing one song per album except ''A Hard Day`s Night'' and ''Let It Be''. His most famous song is ''Yellow Submarine'' and is usually sang in schools.

Having evolved from the high school band known as The Quarrymen, around 1962 the Beatles began playing in Hamburg, Germany, and became very popular there. A year later, thanks to underground radio, they were the biggest band in their native land of the UK. In 1964, the Beatles made their historic trip to the United States<ref>http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc19782/m1/</ref> to perform on ''The Ed Sullivan Show''. To date, this performance is one of the highest-rated television events in history.

The Lennon/McCartney ballads often displayed a personal vulnerability which was extraordinarily appealing to young teenage girls. For example, "Help" contrasts a man's younger macho attitude ("I never needed anybody's help in any way") with a more grown-up attitude ("I changed my mind, I'll open up the door. Help me if you can").

As the years passed, the Beatles' sound grew. From an old-fashioned rock and roll sound similar to the Beach Boys and Carl Perkins, the band put out a much more mature sound on ''Revolver''. They even experimented with folk on ''[[Rubber Soul]]''.<ref>http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc19794/m1/</ref> In 1967, the Beatles' album ''[[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]]''<ref>http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc19810/m1/</ref> changed music as we know it forever. The psychedelic sound reflected what was going on in the world at that time and also displayed brilliant use of new technologies (such as stereo sound and multitrack recording).

With the [[The Beatles (album) |''The Beatles'']] (the "White Album"), the Beatles had evolved into hard rockers. The songs had become more personal, and the band was beginning to fall apart. Prior to Lennon hooking up with [[Yoko Ono]], the lads had agreed that only the four of them would be in the recording studio (no lady friends of any type).<ref> When John brought Yoko in to work on songs and insisted that she be treated as an equal, the others resisted the idea, and John and Yoko got the cold shoulder for the rest of the sessions. [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbeatlesbreakup.html]</ref> Also, creative differences were creating tension among the Fab Four.
[[Image:Beatles j.jpg|left]]
Their next project, originally to be titled "Get Back" and intended to "get them back" to recording songs the way they had in the earlier years and also to become a filmed documentary, exposed all the personal chafing and difficulties they were having. The tapes were shelved since none of the band wanted to deal with them.

At this point, although the public did not know it, the band had virtually broken up. However, at McCartney's urging, they assembled in the studio one more time and gave their fans what was to be their swan song, the splendid ''Abbey Road''. The "Get Back" tapes and film were handed over to [[Phil Spector]] to do something with them, and he produced the album that was released as ''Let It Be'', in conjunction with the release of the film, which was more a documentary of a band breaking up than one writing and recording new music in their studio.

It wasn't long before the lawsuits to dissolve the partnership were flying, and the band members were releasing solo albums. Although Lennon had made a few solo projects before the breakup, and Harrison one, they did not receive widespread notice.

In 2006, Cirque du Soleil opened a Beatle-themed show in Las Vegas, the aptly titled ''Love''. The show has been an outstanding success, and so has the album put out of the same name, featuring new remixes of Beatles songs by Beatles producer George Martin and his son Giles. The album also features previously unreleased versions of Beatles classics such as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Strawberry Fields Forever".

The Beatles were inducted into the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]] in 1988. As solo artists, all but Ringo have been inducted (Lennon in 1994, McCartney in 1999 and Harrison in 2004).

In 2004 ''Rolling Stone'' magazine ranked the Beatles #1 on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.<ref>[http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939214/the_immortals_the_first_fifty]</ref>

Only two Beatles are currently alive - Ringo Starr and Sir Paul McCartney, who both still continue their recording and performing careers. John Lennon was assassinated in 1980 and George Harrison died due to cancer in 2001.

=="Paul is dead" urban legend==

A myth, likely created by the Beatles in order to boost sales, circulated later in their career regarding a supposed death of Paul McCartney and substitution with an impostor. "Clues" were found in [[subliminal messages]], [[backmasking]], and [[imagery]] in their albums and songs.

Some of the many examples include:

* When held up to a mirror, their album ''Magical Mystery Tour'' would supposedly reveal the telephone number of a funeral home.
* The song "Strawberry Fields Forever" contained Lennon saying the phrase "cranberry sauce" which was interpreted as "I Buried Paul."
* "Revolution #9", a collage of samples, featured the repeating phrase "Number 9, Number 9..." When played in reverse, "Turn me on, dead man..." is supposedly heard.

It should be noted that the Beatles and their fans were part of the 1960s [[hippie]] [[counterculture]], and thus [[illegal drugs|drug use]] might have influenced these conclusions.

==Popularity today==
Americans say Paul (27%) is their favorite Beatle, with John taking a distant second at 16%, and far fewer choosing George Harrison (10%) or Ringo Starr (9%) according to a September 2009 Zogby Interactive poll. However, 22% of Americans do not like the Beatles and 3% say they are not familiar enough to make a decision.

"Americans over 30 and those over 65 love Paul," said John Zogby. "It must be the crazy love songs and Yesterday." Born Again Christians are three times as likely to say Paul is their favorite Beatle (25%) than John (8%). Paul is also the favorite among Woodstockers (31%) and Nikes (27%), while First Globals (19%) prefer John.

Democrats (25%) are far more likely than Republicans (6%) and independents (15%) to say John is their favorite Beatle, while moderates (32%) are far more likely to prefer Paul. Liberals (14%) are more than twice as likely as moderates (7%) and conservatives (9%) to pick George as their favorite.

Conservatives (30%) are the most likely to say they don't like the Beatles, followed by moderates (19%) and liberals (9%).<ref> For details see [http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1744 Zogby poll] </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.delta.ro/beatles/paudi.html Beatle songs and lyrics]
*[http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html Transcript of LES Lennon interview]
*[http://www.paulisdeadhoax.com Listing of "clues" behind the "Paul Is Dead" hoax]

{{The Beatles}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Beatles, The}}
[[Category:Rock Bands]]
[[Category:Beatles]]

FIFA World Cup

2014-07-15T00:07:48Z

JustinD:

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

In the current form, the final tournament is contested by 32 nations who, with the exception of the host nation, are required to qualify by beating others from their region in a preliminary tournament. The current holders of the World Cup are Germany, who beat Argentina in the 2014 final in Brazil. [[Brazil]] currently holds the record for most wins, with 5.

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

{|class="wikitable" valign="top"
|-
|Year
|Location
|Winner
|-
|1930
|[[Uruguay]]
|Uruguay
|-
|1934
|[[Italy]]
|Italy
|-
|1938
|[[France]]
|Italy
|-
|1950
|Brazil
|Uruguay
|-
|1954
|Switzerland
|[[West Germany]]
|-
|1958
|Sweden
|[[Brazil]]
|-
|1962
|Chile
|Brazil
|-
|1966
|[[England]]
|England
|-
|1970
|Mexico
|Brazil
|-
|1974
|[[West Germany]]
|West Germany
|-
|1978
|[[Argentina]]
|Argentina
|-
|1982
|Spain
|Italy
|-
|1986
|Mexico
|Argentina
|-
|1990
|Italy
|Germany
|-
|1994
|United States
|Brazil
|-
|1998
|[[France]]
|France
|-
|2002
|Japan and South Korea
|Brazil
|-
|2006
|Germany
|Italy
|-
|2010
|South Africa
|[[Spain]]
|-
|2014
|Brazil
|[[Germany]]
|}
|
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!5
|[[Brazil]]||1958,1962,1970,1994,2002
|-
!4
|[[Italy]]||1934,1938,1982,2006
|-
!4
|[[Germany]]||1954,1974,1990<ref>These titles were technically won by West Germany.</ref>,2014
|-
!2
|[[Argentina]]||1978,1986
|-
!2
|[[Uruguay]]||1930,1950
|-
!1
|[[England]]||1966
|-
!1
|[[France]]||1998
|-
!1
|[[Spain]]||2010
|}

==Dominance by Christian Nations==
It is notable that strongly Christian nations have won every World Cup. Muslim teams, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, despite their apparent strength in the sport, have all failed at various world cups. It is also noticeable that as nations Christian ways have diminished, like Brazil's increasing acceptance of gay marriage, their performance has suffered also. In fact, Brazil have been the favourites for two of the last three tournaments and failed both times, while the truly Christian US have improved and other Christian nations have followed.

Another case in point is Spain, who were knocked out in 2006, were only able to win in 2010 after losing 1-0 in the first match and only winning by a goal in each of their four knockout matches and were beaten easily in the group stages in 2014.

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

Constitutional Convention

2014-02-28T21:50:03Z

JustinD: minor rewrite of intro

The '''Constitutional Convention''' was held between May and September of 1787 in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]] to deal with the glaring weaknesses with the [[Articles of Confederation]]. Rather that revise the Articles of Confederation, the delegates at the Convention quickly decided to replace it with a new constitution. Famous patriots in attendance included [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[James Madison]], [[John Jay]], [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[George Washington]], [[George Mason]]. Absent were [[John Hancock]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[John Adams]], and [[Patrick Henry]].

With [[George Washington]] presiding, the 55 delegates met in secret in Philadelphia and drafted a new document. Rather than revise the current Articles, Madison promptly declared that any confederacy was doomed to failure. The Constitution was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. After intense debate all 13 states ratified (some with the provision that a [[Bill of Rights]] be added) and the new government took office in March, 1789, with George Washington as the first president.

At the time the Constitution was written, most states had recently written new constitutions of their own, so constitution-making was a well-known process. They all reflected the basic American political value of a Democratic Republic. Conservatives hail it as a great triumph. [[File:Beeman09.jpg|thumb|280px]]

==Demand for reform==
By 1785, newspaper essayists and petitioners in favor of national trade policies were demanding a vigorous, expanding, interdependent continental economy. They envisioned a national union whose primary purpose was to create a continental marketplace that could operate free of obstruction by contrived, and unnecessary, provincial entities. Washington spoke for many American nationalists dismayed at the national weakness and loss of national pride. He knew that the Revolution had nearly been lost because of the impotence of the national government; Washington feared that the nation might not be so fortunate during the next emergency.<ref>Ferling; ''A Leap in the Dark'' p 258-9.</ref>

In the late 1780s, a crisis of self-confidence shook the new nation. Was its government strong enough to guarantee internal cohesion and to provide for the common defense against outside enemies (such as Britain and Spain), or indeed to defend against internal revolts (such as [[Shays Rebellion]] in Massachusetts, in 1786–87)? <ref>Morris, (1987) p. 266</ref>

The nationalists met at the 1786 [[Annapolis Conference]], which originated from a series of commercial meetings among the northeastern states. Some historians see it as an unsuccessful experiment in reforming the [[Articles of Confederation]]. Others emphasize that the nationalists at Annapolis, especially [[Alexander Hamilton]] of New York and [[James Madison]] of Virginia, used it to call for the Philadelphia convention. The Annapolis experience led Madison and the other nationalists to consider designing a new federal political system with a powerful central government. The report of the Conference, sent to Congress, requested "the appointment of Commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next."

Leading nationalists, led by Washington, Hamilton, and [[Benjamin Franklin]] called for a new constitution. The old Congress (based in New York) agreed and called the states to send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia in May of 1787. This convention, over the course of the summer, drew up a new constitution that was submitted to Congress and eventually to state ratification conventions for approval. James Madison, who arrived in Philadelphia early to map out an initial plan for debate, is called "the father of the Constitution." <ref>Morris (1987) pp 267-97.</ref> Madison took copious notes of the debates, which he refused to release until the last delegate was dead; they were published posthumously. <ref>Farrand (1911) p xv. The implication is that Madison did not want commentators using his notes to discover what the delegates meant by various provisions.</ref>

Political parties did not exist in 1787 and were not mentioned in the Constitution. In each state, factions competed for control of the legislatures and the governorships. Because the states controlled their representatives to Congress, a geographically based factionalism pitting the different states against one other existed in the Continental Congress. The factions in the different states had little in common; politics did not cross state lines and no coalitions were formed that crossed state lines. Many nationalists feared Congress was too weak. <ref>McDonald, (1965), pp 17-32 on Congress; pp 33-132 covers each state.</ref>

==Drafting the Constitution==
[[Image:Independence Hall Assemblyroom.jpg|right|frame|The signers met here in [[Independence Hall]] to draft the new constitution.]]
On 29 May when [[Edmund Randolph]] proposed to replace the current government with a totally new structure. Randolph's ''Virginia Plan'' favored large states (Virginia had the largest population at the time) and increased the power of the central government. In mid June, the smaller states responded with the ''New Jersey Plan,'' introduced by William Patterson. The convention debated the New Jersey option until 19 June, when it was voted down. Therefore the Virginia Plan, much expanded and elaborated upon in the course of four-and-a-half months, formed the basis of the Constitution.

Madison, more liberal than most of the delegates, is given the major credit for shaping the key provisions, but most of his proposals were actually defeated.<ref>See Robertson (2005).</ref> Madison wanted broad national authority independent of state governments and population-based congressional representation. Delegates from smaller states opposed had other goals: to nationalize only selective public goods, to maintain most state policy autonomy, and to minimize contingencies imposed by other governments. Connecticut's delegates, particularly Roger Sherman, played a pivotal role in revising Madison's agenda. Madison's convention opponents are responsible for a Constitution that nationalized only enumerated public goods and imposed potentially high transaction costs on any further nationalization of policy authority. They helped make federalism a lasting political weapon used to win substantive policy outcomes, says Robertson.

During the Convention, on August 22, 1787, the Delegates took a break to see John Fitch successfully demonstrate his 45-foot steamboat in the Delaware River between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Fitch received a U.S. patent in 1791. Fulton began building boats in 1801, and in 1807 his boat the Clermont made its famous run up the Hudson from NYC to Albany.<ref>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsteamship.htm</ref>

==Conflicts==
===National vs State Government===
====Nationalists====
These delegates, notably Hamilton, wished to see most power in a central government.
====State's Rights====
The State's Rights advocates like George Mason wanted powerful state governments and did not want the neational government to weaken those powers.
====Solution====
[[Federalism]] was adopted, which provided a supreme national government that shares power with sovereign states.

===Small states versus large===
Slonin (2000) studies the debates on federal powers, including those on a federal legislative veto and the advice and consent of the Senate. He finds a complex interaction between contending interests and groups, as well as a discriminating response to the need to balance the requirements of the national government with the preservation of state influence. Nearly all areas of discussion at the convention were dominated by differences between the interests of large states and small states. The first outline of the national government reflected more of a compromise between the large and small states and between nationalists and those intent on maintaining states' interests than many Federalists preferred. Instead of Madison's vision of a national government freed from any reliance on states as seen in the Virginia Plan, the final version of the Constitution granted the states a substantial role and basic involvement in the operation of the national government.

===Representation===
====[[Virginia Plan]]====
The Virginia Plan proposed representation based on population, giving larger states more power than smaller states. It called for a bicameral legislature with a lower house elected from citizens of each state, and an upper house elected by members of the lower house.<ref>U.S Government and Politics, by Paul Soifer</ref> This legislature was able to veto laws passed by states. It was responsible to choose the national executive. The larger states supported this plan.
====[[New Jersey Plan]]====
The New Jersey Plan proposed a unicameral legislature with one vote per state, and a simple revision of the Articles. The smaller states supported this plan, as it gave them more power.
====[[Connecticut Compromise]]====
Also known as the Great Compromise, this established a bicameral legislature ([[Congress]]). The upper house ([United States Senate|[Senate]]) was to contain two votes per state, with [[Senators]] chosen by state legislatures. The lower house ([[House of Representatives]]) was based on population, with representatives chosen by the people. The Great Compromise also called for the Articles to be completely replaced.

===Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches===
The presidency was not controversial. Six influential delegates<ref>George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, [[Rufus King]], [[James Wilson]], and [[Gouverneur Morris]].</ref> worked out a system of a strong president to balance a strong Congress. The result was four basic characteristics became permanent: a single executive (rather than a committee or rotation), no constitutional council whose permission was necessary, election by the states through the electoral college, and broad presidential powers over administration, foreign affairs, the military.

===Slavery===
The Constitution was written at a time when all the northern states were moving toward emancipation, and most leading southerners doubted the long-term viability of the institution. The Constitution did not use the word "slavery", but it allowed for the abolition of slave importation from abroad after 20 years,<ref> In 1808 Congress made the importation of a slave from abroad a serious crime. Britain at the same time outlawed the international slave trade; a small trickle of slaves were smuggled into the U.S. Edward Channing, ''The Jeffersonian System, 1801-1811'' (1906 100-110.</ref> for the return of fugitive slaves, and for counting 3/5 of the slave population (and all of the free population) in computing representation in the House and electoral college. That was a compromise between counting all the slaves (which would favor the South) or none (which would favor the North). Benjamin Franklin helped broker the compromises.<ref> Morgan (2001); Finkelman (1987)</ref>

===Finance===
Grubb (2006) argues the monetary powers embedded in the Constitution were revolutionary and led to a watershed transformation in the nation's monetary structure. They included determining what monies could be legal tender, who could emit fiat paper money, and who could incorporate banks. Grubb looks at the convention debates to show how these powers evolved and led to the specific powers adopted, which were a rejection of the old colonial system. Grubb shows they codified the powers into supreme law rather than leaving them to legislative debate and enactment.

==Ratification==
An intense debate on ratification pitted the '''"Federalists"''' against the '''"Anti-Federalists,"''' with the former gaining the upper hand. The Anti-Federalists were deeply concerned about the theoretical danger of a strong central government (like that of Britain) that some day could ruin [[republicanism in the United States|republicanism]] and usurp the rights of the states. Madison and Hamilton (joined by [[John Jay]]) countered with a series of newspaper essays, the [[Federalist Papers]], that helped New York to ratify. All the states ratified but as a condition, the Anti-Federalists insisted on a bill of rights which would meet most of their serious objections. The supporters of the Constitution agreed (and the [[Bill of Rights]] became part of the Constitution in 1791). The Anti-Federalist element had never comprised an organized group, and had no national leaders. By 1791 its issues were moot; some left politics, and most joined the Jeffersonian Republican Party by 1796. <ref>Morris ''The Forging of the Union: 1781-1789'' pp 298-322. </ref>

The pro-Constitution forces, led by Washington and Hamilton, formed a new government in 1789, with Washington as president. Madison became a leader in the House, where he sponsored the Bill of Rights. Under pressure from his district he resisted moves toward a strong central government, especially those promoted by Hamilton.

The '''[[Federalist Party]]''' originated around 1792-3 and comprised a somewhat different coalition, including most supporters of the Constitution in 1787-88 as well as entirely new elements, and even some opponents of the Constitution (such as [[Patrick Henry]].) Madison largely wrote the Constitution and thus was a "Federalist" in 1787-88, but by 1792 he opposed the program of the Hamiltonians and their new "Federalist Party."
==Conspiracy==
Various conspiracy theories have been proposed about the Constitution, but all have been rejected by conservative scholars. For example the Progressive historians (led by [[Charles Beard]]), as well as Marxists, have portrayed the Constitution as a conspiracy of powerful merchants to enrich themselves further and to stop the growth of democracy. That was false, as is the notion that the Constitutional Convention was somehow illegal or in violation of the laws. (The Convention was called by the existing Congress, which unanimously sent the finished document to the states for ratification.)<ref> For a good review and refutation of conspiracy theories, see [http://www.americanrevolution.org/grassman.html Dr. Curtis E. Grassman, "Conspiracy and the Making of the Constitution" online] which concludes, "The various conspiracy theses have not been very convincing. The historical proof or evidence offered by this school of historians has almost always been found wanting upon further investigation."</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Alexander, John K. ''The Selling of the Constitutional Convention: A History of News Coverage'' (1990)
* Banning, Lance. "Republican Ideology and the Triumph of the Constitution, 1789 to 1793." ''The William and Mary Quarterly,'' 3rd Ser., Vol. 31, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 167-188 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597(197404)3%3A31%3A2%3C167%3ARIATTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M in JSTOR]
* Beeman, Richard R. ''Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution'' (2009), major scholarly study
* Beeman, Richard R. et al eds. ''Beyond Confederation: origins of the constitution and American national identity'' (1987)
* Belz, Herman. ''A Living Constitution or Fundamental Law? American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective'' (1988) by leading conservative scholar [http://www.constitution.org/cmt/belz/lcfl.htm online edition]
* Bowen, Catherine Drinker. ''Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787'' (1986), very well written narrative
* Dougherty, Keith L. and Jac C. Heckelman, "A Pivotal Voter from a Pivotal State: Roger Sherman at the Constitutional Convention." ''American Political Science Review'' 2006 100(2): 297-302. Issn: 0003-0554 Fulltext: at Cambridge journals
* Ferling, John. ''A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103184276 online edition]
* Finkelman, Paul. "Slavery and the Constitutional Convention: Making a Covenant with Death," in Richard Beeman, ed. ''Beyond Confederation,'' (1987)
* Gibson, Alan. ''Understanding the Founding: The Crucial Questions,'' (2007) 232 pages
* Grubb, Farley. "The U.S. Constitution and Monetary Powers: an Analysis of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the Constitutional Transformation of the Us Monetary System." ''Financial History Review'' 2006 13(1): 43-71. Issn: 0968-5650 Fulltext: in Cambridge and Swetswise
* Levy, Leonard, and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. ''The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution'' (1987), articles by scholars
* Main, Jackson Turner. ''The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution'' (1961)
* McDonald, Forrest. ''The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790'' (1965), by a leading conservative historian
* McLaughlin, Andrew C. ''A Constitutional History of the United States'' (1935), standard history by leading scholar [http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm online edition]
* McLaughlin, Andrew C. ''The Confederation and the Constitution, 1783-1789'' (1905) 348 pp. [http://books.google.com/books?id=CE8sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=intitle:constitution&num=30&as_brr=1 online from Google]
* Morgan, Kenneth. "Slavery and the Debate over Ratification of the United States Constitution." ''Slavery & Abolition'' 2001 22(3): 40-65. Issn: 0144-039x Fulltext: in Ingenta
* Morris, Richard B. ''The Forging of the Union: 1781-1789'' (1987), standard survey of era by leading scholar
* Rakove, Jack. "The Great Compromise: Ideas, Interests, and the Politics of Constitution Making," ''William and Mary Quarterly''44 (1987): 424–57. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597(198707)3%3A44%3A3%3C424%3ATGCIIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M in JSTOR]
* Rakove, Jack N. ''Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution'' (1997), Pulitzer Prize
* Rakove, Jack N. ''Interpreting The Constitution: The Debate Over Original Intent'' (1990)
* Robertson, David Brian. "Madison's Opponents and Constitutional Design." ''American Political Science Review'' 2005 99(2): 225-243. Issn: 0003-0554
* Rossiter, Clinton. ''1787: The Grand Convention'' (1966), narrative and interpretation by leading scholar
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Anti-Federalists and the Ratification Struggle, 1787–1788'' (1966)
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776–1791'' (1955)
* Slonim, Shlomo. "Securing States' Interests at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: a Reassessment.'' ''Studies in American Political Development 2000 14(1): 1-19. ISSN: 0898-588X Fulltext: at Cambridge journals
* Vile, John R. ''The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding'' ABC-CLIO, 2005). 2 vols. 1083pp; 400 entries; ISBN: 1-85109-669-8
* Warren, Charles. ''The Making of the Constitution'' (1928); by a leading conservative historian

===Primary sources===

* Farrand, Max ed. ''Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,'' 4 vol (1911) [http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html online edition]
* Kenyon, Cecelia M. ed. ''The Antifederalists'' (1966), pamphlets by opponents
* Madison, James. ''Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison'' (1966), [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm online edition]
====notes====
<references/>

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:American Revolution]]
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]
[[Category:Early National U.S.]]

Integer

2013-10-31T23:32:29Z

JustinD:

An '''integer''' is any number that does not have any fractional or decimal components. Numbers such as 1,2 and -3 are integers, but 2½, √5 are not. The mathematical symbol for this set is <math>\mathbb{Z}</math>. More precisely, the set of all integers consists of all natural numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}, their negatives {-1, -2, -3, -4, ...} and 0. A formal definition is that it is the only [[integral domain]] whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition. Integers are often colloquially referred to as "whole numbers," though this terminology is not well defined and is often used to refer to only a subset of integers, such as the positive integers.

An integer may be:
* [[even number|even]] (divisible by two)
* [[odd number|odd]] (not divisible by two)
* [[positive number|positive]] (more than [[zero]])
* [[negative number|negative]] (less than zero)
* [[whole number|whole]] (undivided)
* [[composite]] (divisible into other integers) or [[prime]] (only divisible by itself and one)

Every integer larger than 1 has a unique [[prime factorization]].

Some examples of integers: 1, 10/5, 98058493, -87, -3/3, both square roots of 9, and 0.

Likewise, the following numbers are not integers: 5/10, the square root of -9, 8.75, and [[pi]].

Some [[subset]]s of the integers are often used. They have their own symbols:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! set
! name
! symbol
|-
| ..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...
| integers
| <math>\mathbb{Z}</math>
|-
| 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
| positive integers
| <math>\mathbb{Z}^+</math>
|-
| 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
| nonnegative integers
| <math>\mathbb{Z}^*</math>
|-
| 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, ...
| nonpositive integers
|
|-
| -1, -2, -3, -4, ...
| negative integers
| <math>\mathbb{Z}^-</math>
|}

==See also==
*[[algebraic numbers]]
*[[abstract algebra]]

[[category:mathematics]]

Whole numbers

2013-10-31T23:29:59Z

JustinD: Redirected page to Integer

#REDIRECT [[Integer]]

XXIX Olympiad

2013-07-17T23:03:38Z

JustinD:

The Games of the''' XXIX [[Olympics|Olympiad]]''' (2008) were awarded to [[Beijing]], [[China]] after a two-round vote of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on July 13, 2001, in Moscow.

The Opening ceremony was held on August 8 and the Closing ceremony on August 24

[http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1056.pdf Programme of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008]

== Emblem ==
[[Image:Img214070839.jpg|right]]
The "Dancing Beijing" emblem, depicting a Chinese seal inscribed with the character "Jing" (jīng (京), from the name of the Host City) in the form of a dancing figure.

 
== Mascot ==
[[Image:Friendlies Yingying.jpg|right|180px]]
The mascots of Beijing 2008 are the five Fuwa. (formerly Friendlies, Chinese: 福娃; Pinyin: Fúwá; literally "Good-luck dolls") Their names are: ''Beibei, Jingjing, Huanhuan, Yingying,'' and ''Nini''. Each of the five names is designed to look like a plausible name for a small child, but when put together, they sound nearly identical to the phrase "北京欢迎你 Běijīng huānyíng nǐ" which means "''Beijing welcomes you''". [http://www.answers.com/topic/fuwa See] Answers Corporation.

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Title IX Destroys Our Olympic Team]]
*[[World History Lecture Two]]
*[[Taiwan]]
*[[Hong Kong]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/beijing/index_uk.asp INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE]
*[http://en.beijing2008.cn/ Beijing 2008]
*[http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ Embassy] People's Republic of China

[[Category:Olympics]]
[[Category:China]]

Uncountable

2013-07-03T21:11:03Z

JustinD:

A [[set]] is '''uncountable''' if it contains too many items to be [[count]]ed. "Too many" in this sense means that there are an infinite number of items in the set and that the items in the set cannot be matched up one for one with the natural numbers (i.e. 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ). For example, the set {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, . . .} is countable because we can match up the natural numbers to this set by noting that the numbers in the latter set are equal to two to the power of the elements in the former set (i.e. 1=2^0, 2=2^1, 4=2^2, 8=2^3, etc.) On the other hand, the [[real numbers]] are uncountable, as demonstrated by Cantor's famous [[diagonalization]] argument.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Uncountable

2013-07-03T21:09:17Z

JustinD:

A [[set]] is '''uncountable''' if it contains too many [[element]]s to be [[count]]ed. "Too many" in this sense means that there are an infinite number of items in the set and that the items in the set cannot be matched up one for one with the natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, . . . ). For example, the set {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, . . .} is countable because we can match up the natural numbers to this set by noting that the elements in the latter set are equal to two to the power of the elements in the former set (i.e. 2= 2^1, 4=2^2, 8=2^3, etc.) On the other hand, the [[real numbers]] are uncountable, as demonstrated by Cantor's famous [[diagonalization]] argument.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Michele Bachmann

2013-06-27T00:48:08Z

JustinD:

{{Officeholder
|name=Michele Bachmann
|image=Michele Bachmann.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marcus Bachmann
|religion= Non-Denominational Christian
(Was formerly a member of the [[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]])<REF>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-leaves-church-gets-catholic-support-52384/ Bachmann leaves church] Anugrah Kumar, The Christian Post, 27 July 2011</REF>
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Minnesota
|district=6th
|terms=January 4, 2007 – Present
|preceded=Mark Kennedy
|former=
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Michele M. Bachmann''', born April 6, 1956 (age {{age|1956|04|06}}), is a [[conservative]] and the first [[Republican Party|Republican]] woman to be elected to the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] from [[Minnesota]]. She represents the 6th District of Minnesota. Undefeated as a four-term conservative [[congress]]man from a predominantly liberal state, Bachman announced that she would not run for reelection in 2014.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/29/bachmann/2368527/</ref>

A [[movement conservative]], Michele Bachmann defeated a massive attempt by [[liberals]] to unseat her in 2008 and 2010. Prior to her election to [[Congress]], she served in the Minnesota state [[legislature]] since first being elected there in 2000 as a check against the leftists then encroaching on Minnesota's freedoms.

Michele Bachmann, an [[attorney]], is a former tax litigator. She has five [[children]] and has also opened her home to 23 foster children.<ref>http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/</ref>

Bachmann is [[pro-life]], [[pro-gun]],<REF>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/10/bachmann_gets_n.shtml Bachmann gets new campaign manager, NRA endorsement] MN. Public Radio, OCTOBER 3, 2008</REF> pro-religion and holds many other core conservative values. She is widely considered one of the most important politicians in the fight against [[evolution]]. She has been heavily influenced by Francis Shaeffer, and is not afraid to defend her conservative Christian moral convictions against even the most desperate attacks by liberals. A search for her on [[Google]] turns up five positive sites for every 100 nasty liberal smear sites, like the [[Huffington Post]]. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had officially put the outspoken Minnesota Republican in their sights with the bachmannwatch website. In early 2013, the FBI and congressional ethics investigators interviewed former Bachmann campaign workers regarding allegations of improper campaign expenditures.<ref name=wp/> Despite a heavily Republican district, Bachmann narrowly won re-election in 2012, receiving just 4,298 more votes than her DFL challenger [[Jim Graves]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Diaz|first=Kevin|title=Close call for Bachmann|url=http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/177789861.html?refer=y|newspaper=Star Tribune|date=November 8, 2012}}</ref>On May 29, 2013, Bachmann announced that she would not seek reelection to Congress in 2014.<ref name=wp>{{cite news|title=For Bachmann, a shift to the GOP sideline|first=Paul|last=Kane|page=A1|work=Washington Post|date=May 30, 2013}}</ref>

==2012 Presidential candidate==

Michele Bachmann became one of the nation's first female presidential candidate from the GOP. Her campaign showed promise with a win in the [[Iowa]] straw poll 2011, however the [[Iowa caucus]] in 2012 would turn out much different. Her campaign expected more from Iowans but she finished near the bottom. After the less-than-favorable showing she decided to formally suspend her campaign. She was lampooned as a non-intellectual, a target for [[Mainstream media|pathetic journalism]] to smear. <ref>The Jimmy Fallon Talk Show incident, Chris Wallace interview to name a few</ref> In addition, the MSM went after her husband Marcus. They mock his demeanor as woman-like. <ref>Marcus Bachmann was trending on [[Twitter]] January 3rd, 2012</ref>

== [[Liberal]] reaction to Bachmann ==

Liberals have been hysterical about some of the candid observations of Congresswoman Bachmann. She was targeted for comments made seeking an investigation into the [[Obama]]-[[William Ayers|Ayers]] connection, the "tolerant" liberal establishment even compared her to the Nazis.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/21/hardball-gone-mad-congresswoman-compared-nazi-insisting-media-cover-obam Hardball Gone Mad: Congresswoman Compared to Nazi for Insisting Media Cover Obama-Ayers Connection], Tim Graham, ''Newsbusters'', October 21, 2008</ref> She deserves many compliments for her insight and courage. Congresswoman Rep. Bachmann "has shown an uncanny knack for infuriating critics with sometimes off-the-wall behavior and comments, all the while advancing her own political career." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/pub-michele-bachmann/ Outspoken But Not Outmaneuvered, Rep. Bachmann Manages Her Candor], Judson Berger, ''Fox News.com'', March 27, 2009</ref>

The liberal smears are part of a familiar pattern whereby they work overtime to try to discredit conservative women or minorities. The reason is obvious: conservative women and minorities disprove the falsehood that liberals are better for them.

Liberals have also tried to smear Michele Bachmann for her work as a tax attorney for the IRS. As usual, Congresswoman Bachmann rose above the liberal smears when she told a crowd "I went to work into that system because the first rule of war is 'know your enemy.'"<ref>http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/michele-bachmann-i-worked-for-the-irs-so-i-could-take-down-the-irs/</ref> Their newest line of attack is trying to demonize her opposition to government mandated vaccinations when abstinence is the truest prevention of HPV infection.

The liberal Super-PAC CREDO has even started to target her for her mid-term election in 2014. It claims it will spend at least $500,000 to boot Bachmann out of office.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/credo-super-pac-2014-target-michele-bachmann</ref>

Bachmann's husband has also been the target of smears by liberals, many of whom disapprove of his work to help misguided gay teens.

== See also ==
*[[United States Presidential Election, 2012]]
[[File:Bachmann3.jpg|left|150px]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bachmann, Michele}}
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Minnesota]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{Conservatism}}

==External links==
*[http://www.michelebachmann.com/ Official Michele Bachmann For President website]
*[http://bachmann.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412216_michele_bachmann Open Congress]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY Video of Bachmann talking about the gangster government on the House floor]

Non-Euclidean geometry

2013-06-21T21:21:31Z

JustinD:

'''Non-Euclidean geometry''' is a form of geometry that rejects [[Euclid's fifth postulate]] that [[parallel]] lines extend to infinity and never [[intersect]]. There are two main forms of non-Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic, and [[elliptic]]. The former allows all lines to intersect, and the latter has non-intersecting lines that diverge in both directions. In Euclidean geometry the sum of angles in triangles is always exactly 180 [[degree]]s, in hyperbolic geometry triangles always have less than 180 degrees, and in elliptic geometry triangles always have greater than 180 degrees. The roots of Non-Euclidean geometry were in works by [[Gauss]], and his pupil [[Riemann]]. Later nineteenth century mathematicians such as [[Janos Bolyai]] and [[Nikolai I. Lobachevsky]] developed this considerably.

A geometry is defined as the pure mathematics of [[point]]s and [[line]]s and [[curve]]s and [[surface]]s. It works by defining a set of [[axiom]]s which clarify how points and lines are constituted, for example: ''two distinct points define a unique straight line'', and deriving from these results. Some geometries such as the [[Fano Plane]] many have seven points or fewer. The simplest geometry is the [[empty set]].

An easy way to visualize elliptic geometry is to imagine lines drawn not on a sheet of paper, but instead on the surface of a sphere. Consider a "triangle" drawn on the globe, starting at the North Pole, then south along the Prime Meridian to the equator (a point somewhere off the west coast of Africa), then west along the equator to, say, the point where the equator meets Africa, then north along whatever line of longitude that is back to the North Pole. We not have a "triangle" composed of three "straight" lines, but the angles of the triangle add up to more than 180 degrees. To see that, consider the "base" of the triangle along the equator. Since lines of longitude intersect the equator at right angles, the angle of each side of the base of our triangle is 90 degrees and together 180 degrees. Since the angle at the North Pole is not zero, the triangle must contain more than 180 degrees.

==See Also==
*[[Euclidean geometry]]
*[[Riemannian geometry]]
[[category:geometry]]

Equal Rights Amendment

2013-02-15T21:29:38Z

JustinD:

{{discrimlaw}}

The so-called '''Equal Rights Amendment''' ('''ERA''') was a proposed amendment to the [[United States Constitution | United States Constitution]] passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification with a deadline for ratification of seven years. It was stopped by a [[conservative]] grass-roots movement that raised a number of objections, including the following:

*it would require drafting women just like men, and putting women in combat just like men
*it would require taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
*it would require same-sex marriage
*it would expand the power of the federal government and the courts
*it would require identical treatment of men and women, and boys and girls, in many other areas of life, such as schools and school activities

==Text==
The amendment, which was untitled, stated:

:SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of [[sex | sex]].

:SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

:SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
==Possible impact==
The purpose of the ERA was to prohibit many legal distinctions between men and women, and boys and girls. An all-male draft or male-only combat regiments would presumably have become illegal.<ref>Anti-ERA Phyllis Schlafly quote</ref> But equal representation of boys and girls on sports teams, and the termination of all-boys or all-girls sports teams, would probably not have been required, since the courts usually treat some gender distinctions as a ''bona fida operating qualification'' for which discrimination is allowed.

Thirty-five out of the required 38 states ratified the amendment, but opposition led by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] ultimately defeated it.<ref>Testimony in 2007 by Phyllis Schlafly against the Equal Rights Amendment is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7iEL54jY9Q here].</ref> Congress then extended the deadline to 1982 in legislation that was later invalidated, though no other states ratified the amendment in the additional three years. Several states rescinded their prior ratification of the amendment.

==History==
After women won the right to vote in 1920, the next step for some feminists was the the ERA; it was introduced in Congress and rejected in every one of its sessions from 1923 until 1972.<ref>http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2003/ms003077.pdf</ref>

It was initially authored by [[Alice Paul]], head of the National Women's Party, who led the suffrage campaign. The original version of the ERA stated that "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction."
[[File:LOST-ERA.JPG|right|175px]]

The ERA was opposed by women who wanted special laws to protect women workers, including [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]. It was mostly supported by middle class Republican women.

==Advocacy==

The ERA was advocated for by [[Gloria Steinem]] and [[Betty Friedan]]. For example, a pro-ERA site claims that "[t]he new Constitution's promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children."<ref>http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm</ref>

In fact, the [[U.S. Constitution]] actively denied women the right to vote in the late 1800s by including gender specific language in the Fourteenth Amendment. Section two of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically uses the phrase "male inhabitants" to continue the disenfranchisment of women.

==Canadian Equivalent==

The Canadian equivalent to the ERA is known as Charter Section 28. It was ratified as a section of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, and came into effect in 1985. Since then, many laws have been invalidated because they were in violation of Charter Section 28.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Feminism]]
[[category:1960s]]

Young mass murderers

2013-01-22T22:39:21Z

JustinD: add reference re video games

Recent increases in tragic mass-murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Below is evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly [[atheism|atheistic]] or [[liberal]], or driven by hatred of [[God]]. Virtually all of these killers are the product of [[public schools]] and most were big [[video game]] players. Many of these murders fit the observation by the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner about the Connecticut massacre: "This was a crime that was more than a mass shooting. He killed these people like an arcade game."<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/northern_suburbs&id=8923831] Dr. Michael Welner appeared on the ''View''.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2012
|Nehemiah Griego
|
|5, including mom, dad, and little children in his family
|None
|Loved to play violent video games, and even enjoyed talking about them to the crime investigators.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/22/new-mexico-teen-accused-in-killing-family-involved-heavily-with-violent-video/</ref>
|The liberal media initially and falsely implied he did not play video games.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/n-m-teen-accused-killing-family-quiet-article-1.1243888</ref>
|-
|2012
|Adam Lanza<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57559316-504083/connecticut-school-shooting-suspected-shooter-now-idd-as-adam-lanza-older-brother-ryan-questioned-by-cops/</ref>
|[[public school]] honors student;<ref name="Adam Lanza">http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ap-source-suspect-killed-his-mother-at-their-home-before-going-on-school-rampage/2012/12/14/8ee3709e-464f-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html</ref> His mom reportedly considered [[homeschooling]] but apparently chose public school instead.
|27, including the murderer and 20 children
|not yet known
|His "existence ... largely involved playing violent computer video games in a bedroom,"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9751240/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanzas-mother-thought-guns-would-teach-him-responsibility.html</ref> and he "spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker";<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9752141/Connecticut-school-massacre-Adam-Lanza-spent-hours-playing-Call-Of-Duty.html</ref> he was "goth" and wore a mask; after the massacre, officers found evidence that he had been playing "graphically violent" video games recently;<ref>http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-15/news/hc-adam-lanza-newtown-shooting-1216-20121215_1_law-officers-asperger-semiautomatic-rifle</ref> "Dynasty Warriors" had been one of his favorites in the past
|not a word by the [[liberal media]] about violent video games, but instead they demand [[gun control]]
|-
|2012
|Jacob Tyler Roberts is the suspect
|[[public school]] and a [[Facebook]] user<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-mall-gunman-wanted-kill-people/story?id=17941415#.UMkG84PHegI</ref>
|2, including the murderer
|1
|Played video games (his rampage enacted a scene in ''Grand Theft Auto''); he dressed in black for the murders as other young mass murderers have, and donned a hockey mask perhaps inspired by [[Hollywood]] horror films
|A day later, authorities and the [[liberal media]] still have disclosed almost nothing about the murderer; instead, [[liberals]] almost immediately demanded more [[gun control]]
|-
|2012
|[[James Eagan Holmes‎|James Holmes]] is the suspect
|PhD student at [[University of Colorado]]<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-james-holmes_n_1688996.html</ref>
|12
|58
|Like other young mass murderers, dressed in all-black for the killings<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-suspect-profile/index.html</ref> and was obsessed with playing [[video games]] like "World of Warcraft" (see Breivik below);<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-shooter-guitar-hero-dark-knight/</ref> for the murderous rampage, he dyed his hair bright red presumably to imitate the Joker (Batman's nemesis).<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-joker/</ref><ref>https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/ABC/status/226365875245178880</ref>
|[[ABC News]] falsely suggests tie to [[Tea Party]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/tea-party-frequent-suspect-for-media/</ref> Liberals call for gun control.<ref>http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/367020/20120726/james-holmes-court-colorado-shooting-barack-obama.htm</ref>
|-
|2012
|"T.J. Lane" of the Cleveland area<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57386938/suspect-in-ohio-school-shooting-arrives-at-court/</ref>
|[[public school]]
|3
|2
|Posted a chilling rant on [[Facebook]] about two months before his murderous rampage.
|Insists he was a victim of bullying, which several students who knew him denied.<ref>http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/national/two-reported-dead-three-injured-in-ohio-school-shooting-20120228</ref>
|-
|2011
|Anders Behring Breivik<ref>http://www.wect.com/story/15134203/gunmans-background-puzzles-police-in-norway</ref>
|public school<ref>He was 32 years old at the time of the crime.</ref>
|68 shot dead at a youth camp of the Norwegian Labor party, another 8 in a bombing of government buildings<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/07/25/breivik-bought-chemicals-in-poland-security-agency-says/?mod=google_news_blog</ref>
|Many continued to be missing after the killing rampage.
|According to the judgement rendered against him, he liked playing violent [[video games]] and saw himself as "ultra-nationalist" who fought against [[Muslim]] immigration and [[Marxist]] subversion.<ref>[http://da.scribd.com/doc/103815386/LOVDATA-DOM-toslo-2011-188627-24 Court's judgment in the case against Anders Behring Breivik], Oslo, 24 Aug 2012</ref>
|A typical headline in the [[liberal]] media blames [[fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]], while nearly ignoring his hobby of playing violent video games.
|-
|2011
|Jared Lee Loughner<ref>Suspected gunman as identified in the media.</ref>
|[[public high school]]
|6
|at least 17, including a Congresswoman
|a [[nihilist]]; "Left wing, quite liberal ... a political radical" and he declared that ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'', ''[[Animal Farm]]'' and ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' are among his favorite books<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/</ref><ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jared-lee-laughners-youtube-site-reveals-clues-about-killer-lists-mein-kampf-and-communist-m</ref>
|It's [[Sarah Palin]]'s fault because nearly one year earlier she had posted targets on 20 congressional districts for Republican wins, and this massacre (by a liberal) occurred in one of those districts.<ref>[http://blogs.forbes.com/carolinehoward/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-and-sarah-palins-conscience/ "Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting And Sarah Palin's Conscience."]</ref>
|-
|2010
|[[Amy Bishop]]
|[[professor values|professor]], and daughter of a professor
|3, + many reporters believe brother in 1986
|3, was also a suspect in attempted murder in 1993
|"was a far-left political extremist who was 'obsessed' with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0</ref>
|liberals liked her: she "was admired by her peers and loved by her students" and "was a super intelligent person."<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100214everybody_described_her_as_gentle/</ref>
|-
|2009
|Tim Kretschmer
|[[Germany]] [[public school]]
|15 + himself<ref>Reports were that the police did not mortally wound him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161139/Are-dead-Police-gun-ex-student-17-targeted-women-German-school-massacre.html</ref>
|several others
|
|Europe calls for more [[gun control]]; [[liberal]] media promotes falsehood: "We'll never know why they kill."[http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/greene.shootings/]
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Feigned shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a [[God]] or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was [[Satan|Satanic]] and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoided suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "[[Jesus]] was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>Virginia Tech, ''Transcript of Nikki Giovanni's Convocation address'', Delivered April 17, 2007[http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/giovanni_transcript.html] ''We are Virginia Tech./We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning./We are Virginia Tech./We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again./We are Virginia Tech./We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy./We are Virginia Tech./The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness./We are the Hokies./We will prevail./We will prevail./We will prevail./We are Virginia Tech.''</ref><ref>[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|[[Kimveer Gill]]
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate [[God]]" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a girl to kill her for believing in [[God]].
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[Arkansas]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, the older of the two, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group; shooting had tell-tale signs it was incited/trained by video games: Carneal never moved his feet during his shootings, and never fired far to the left or right, but instead fired only once at each target that appeared, just as a player of video games maximizes his game score by shooting only once at each victim, in order to hit as many targets as possible.<ref>Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill 75 (1999).</ref>
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal
||Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|14<ref>Montreal Coroners Report of the École Polytechnique de Montréal massacre [http://www.diarmani.com/Montreal_Coroners_Report.pdf]</ref>
|His religious views were unpublicized but he was raised in a home with an immigrant Muslim father who was allegedly highly critical of the [[feminist]] view of women's role in society; Marc's mother was an ex-nun; and his sister had allegedly committed suicide<ref>http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml</ref><ref>
Allegedly his suicide note reflected anger towards feminists, See [http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5897.aspx CityNews Rewind: The Montreal Massacre, December 6, 2006]</ref>
|Ignore the personal background of the killer and instead use the massacre to push for stricter [[gun control]] and more laws concerning violence against women, and establish in [[Canada]] a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
|-
|}

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

Liberal

2013-01-03T00:32:23Z

JustinD:

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]].]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] as well as increased government spending, power, and control, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including supporting [[same-sex marriage|homosexual "marriage"]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-[[Christian]], or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Cessation of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
* [[Gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]] economics
* Economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstatement of the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|The theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Opposition to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy

Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* 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. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Notable liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

House GOP Who Voted to Hike Taxes

2013-01-02T18:45:32Z

JustinD: Cantor voted against the bill

Here's a growing list of the House [[Republicans]] who supported the massive tax hike that passed by 257-167 on New Year's Day, 2013:

*[[John Boehner]]
*[[Leonard Lance]]
*[[Paul Ryan]]
*[[Chris Smith]]

== See also ==

*[[RINO Backers]]

== References ==

*[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll659.xml Roll Call of the vote]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-07-23T18:48:07Z

JustinD: Nash is Canadian

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]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Not even good enough to play on [[Britain]]'s weak Olympic team, despite its having three spots for older players. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — 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]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 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
#[[Magic Johnson]] — 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.
#*People look at him, 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/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — 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]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — 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.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — 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.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — 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.
#[[Michael Schumacher]] — 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.
#[[Sol Campbell]] — 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. Despite this, he has had a career which has seen him play for some of the best clubs.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Higgs boson

2012-07-12T02:50:42Z

JustinD: consistent spelling of "Higgs boson"

A '''Higgs boson''' is a hypothesized elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the [[Standard Model]] of particle physics. It serves a key role in attempting to explain the origin of mass of other elementary particles of the Standard Model. It has recentely been observed in nature, confirmed to 4 standard deviations by the Large Hadron Collider, and 5 standard deviations (which is equivalent to a certainty of approximately 99.9999667%) by ATLAS - particle accelerators based at [[CERN]] in Switzerland. Physicist Leon Lederman coined the term "God Particle" to describe the Higgs boson.<ref>Lederman L., The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, New York:Dell, 1993</ref>.

On July 4, 2012, Physicists at [[CERN]] announced the observation of a particle whose properties are consistent with mathematical predictions relating to the Higgs boson. However, CERN has yet to definitively state that the particle they observed is, in fact, the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref> The particle cannot, technically, be confirmed to exist with certainty - and therefore the best that can be said is a new particle has been discovered, the observed properties of the particle are consistent with those predicted of Higgs boson. The process now begins to determine the precise mechanism by which the Higgs boson confers mass, as its existence has been confirmed to the level of accuracy deemed necessary to constitute discovery. That level of accuracy is the "5 sigma test", that says that the probability that the discovery was a statistical fluke is less than one in a million.

== Overview ==
The Higgs boson is a [[boson]], whose group includes other fundamental building blocks of the universe, such as photons. The Higgs boson, however, is unique in that it allows mass, under the Higgs theory, in the Standard Model. It is believed to be around 126 GeV (Gigaelectronvolt) in mass.<ref>http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Higgs+particle+what+what+does/6881979/story.html</ref>

===2012 CERN discovery===
In July 2012 CERN announced evidence of discovery of a boson with an energy level and other properties consistent with those expected in a Higgs boson. The available data raised a high statistical likelihood that the Higgs boson had been detected. <ref>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html</ref> This high statistical likelihood is due, in part, to the separate obtaining by two distinct teams of data within the realm of statistical error for the predicted properties of the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref>

==Reaction in the popular press and blogosphere==
Perhaps spurred by the seeming religious significance of the phrase, some bloggers and authors have apparently gone out of their way to disparage the discovery.
*[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/06/creation/higgs-boson-so-what/], written by a Conservapedia author.
*"It will certainly be amusing if it turns out that the scientific media is reading the tea leaves wrong and CERN is summoning famous particle physicists to Switzerland in order to announce the failure of the Standard Model. But that won't be half so hilarious as if their announcement of the proof of Higgs boson is eventually followed by a reluctant admission that it doesn't actually exist in spite of all their sigmas." written by Thomas Beale, a blogger for [[Vox Day]].<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-by-george-theyve-got-it.html Mailvox: By George, they've got it]</ref>

Other bloggers quickly responded to the latter, with statistical evidence.
*"Ignorance is Blitz" from science writer Phil Plait.

Scientists at ATLAS have confirmed that there is a 99.99996% likelihood that the July 2012 particle observed is indeed the Higgs boson. Whether it '''is''' the Higgs boson is largely a matter of semantics, and will have to wait until its properties are elucidated more.

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

==External Links==

*[http://creation.com/higgs-boson-god-particle Has the "God particle" been found?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html] A short, if jargon filled overview on the Higgs Boson.
*[http://www.carlgallups.com/godparticle.html "God particle"] by [[PPsimmons]]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"'']

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Homosexual Agenda

2012-05-13T19:36:38Z

JustinD:

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s). Such special rights will necessarily come [[zero-sum game|at the expense]] of the rights of broader society.

President Barack Hussein [[Obama]] and nearly all [[Democrat]] politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own reelection, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy.

Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish.

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement,

:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref>

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref>

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and — to the concern of the Parkers — a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref>

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref>

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== Specific goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws.
#Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing the in US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.
#Ignore the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]] because their first amendment rights allow them to.
#Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.
#Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticize homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref>
#Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Lobbying for equal employment rights.<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref>
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.
#In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.
#Demands protections from job discrimination. <ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref>
#Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has,

*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.

*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.

*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.

*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

*appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.

*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

*Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref>

=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,152180,00.html</ref> Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name ''Erastes Pill'', who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted ''jamming,'' in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref>

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
<blockquote>
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] examine and expose.]<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20070927163416/http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=19 ''After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won,''] Thursday, June 3rd, 2004</ref>
</blockquote>

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref>

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."<ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref>

David Kupelian, author of ''The Marketing of Evil,'' describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,
<blockquote>
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.<ref>http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.<ref>http://www.americanancestors.org/PageDetail.aspx?recordId=134544248</ref> The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

The charge of [[homophobia]] has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref>

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, ''The Gay Agenda stated'': "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."

Erik Holland, author of ''The Nature of Homosexuality'', perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

===Influence in the academic world===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled ''First Things'' (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.
{{cquote|[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>}}

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

*Threatening to shut all the soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment <ref>[http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/ArticleID/1824489]Salvation Army Uses Homeless To Fight Gay Benefits </ref>
*Encouraging email activism
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref>
*Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*[[Homophobia]]
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and promote the homosexual agenda
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexualization]]

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Conservapedia talk:Copyright

2012-05-08T01:07:23Z

JustinD: /* Interpreting Conservapedia:Copyright */

== Dual users ==
As a dual user (and now a dual administrator) of Conservapedia and CreationWiki, I have some questions that I think every registered user of multiple Wikis should ask himself--and here is the best place to put the answers.

What obligations does a dual user labor under?

May a dual user submit content--and by "content" I mean ''that user's own words''--directly to Conservapedia and to another Wiki?

If a dual user has already submitted content to another Wiki--say, CreationWiki--then how long does he have to submit that content to Conservapedia before having to do an extensive rewrite?

How extensive a rewrite would be required to avoid all questions of liability?

In asking these questions, I realize at once that some content requires an extensive rewrite because the "target audience" is not the same, and has different values and, for lack of a better term, needs. But if that situation does not apply, then a dual user might be tempted to submit exactly the same words to both projects. If a user is going to do that, then how many days apart may he do that and still stay within a legal definition of "a simultaneous submission"?

I am glad to have the opportunity to open a discussion on a topic of vital importance to Conservapedia. A firm policy on dual-user rights and obligations will go far to ensure that Conservapedia can get good content submitted to it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: Other Wikis embrace, mistakenly in my opinion, the [[copyleft]] approach. We do not. As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis. If you submit to other Wikis first, then they might insist that impose the burdensome [[copyleft]] conditions on reuse of that material elsewhere. We impose no such requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

* Just on the broader point of comparing it to Wikipedia's license... [[Differences with Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia copyright]] both currently say that contributing material to Wikipedia prevents the author from re-using their work elsewhere. This is manifestly untrue. By U.S. law, authors automatically own the copyright to their work, and the GFDL has no clauses that reassign copyright ownership to anyone else.    If I write a poem all by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it to Geocities, then I still own the copyright. The same holds for Wikipedia.     Wikipedia authors can and do [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing multiply-license] their works under other licenses in addition to the GFDL, which can include licenses that are more restrictive than the GFDL. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's '''not''' correct to the extent your work has been edited on other Wikis. I don't know if you are right about your unedited original work and what Wikipedia or other Wikis may require as a condition of submission there. The provisions governing submission on those websites would need to be checked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I should think that any contributor who built his contribution on his own machine, or otherwise re-created his original submission ''prior to any edits'', would satisfy the original-submission requirement. Happily, any Wiki has a history section that preserves the source code of every version of every article since its creation, or perhaps fifty edits back. All that a user has to do is look back to how his article looked ''before anyone else edited it'' (not counting immediate reverts) and then view and copy the source. I maintain that a contributor who does that, should be able to dual-submit. But I agree--once the article has been edited by another person, it's not that submitter's original work product anymore.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I (not a legal type - this comes from my experience as an artist and a writer in dealing with copyrights) understand it there are two issues here - original work and deritive work. In the case of original work, unless you assign the copyright or "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=89370#II] you own the copyright. You are free to license it however you want. You can put it on a gdfl wiki and you can publish it in a book, and that is not an issue (some publishers may want exclusive publishing rights in which case having published the material at a wiki means they won't be interested in it). The only thing you have to be aware of is that someone else can come along and use the material in a way granted by the gdfl and they are not violating your copyright. If the material is a deritive work - it is edits based on other edits of someone else's work, while you own the copyright to the ''edit'', you have to abide by the licensing of the parent work - if it is gdfl, then that means if you want to publish the material you have edited, then it is also under the gdfl. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think both Terry and Mtur are right. Thanks also to Interiot for alerting us to this aspect of the issue.

: By the way, those you who have influence with other wikis might persuade them to abandon their burdensome "copyleft" or gdfl licensing requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you remove that disconcerting "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights" bit here? As an artist that kind of scares me. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I've clarified it for you, but I don't see how to change what's in quotations without allowing people to cause problems in protesting copying of their entries. Do you have a suggestion consistent with the purpose of a wiki?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== From Wikipedia on multi licensing ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]
<blockquote>All text edits to Wikipedia fall under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) with the copyright being retained by the original author.</blockquote>
This edit[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Differences_with_Wikipedia&curid=11868&diff=89683&oldid=89350] is not correct in that manner.
<blockquote> 1. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.</blockquote>
You still own the original material even after it has been edited. (ps: could you make that a wiki style numbering instead? It should make your life easier if you ever want to insert a point between it or if you use a local style sheet to change how ordered lists are presented) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: OK, you're right. I made it this: "you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." And I'll fix the numbering also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That is ''much'' better. Thank you. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can Wikipedia (or any Wiki) Stop Copying of Entries? ==

One editor here has suggested that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) never own any rights in any of their entries, and that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) cannot stop any copying of their entries even if in violation of the GNU license. Wikipedians, do you have a view on this? (We don't want to copy any Wikipedia here but this is relevant to our own copyright policies).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, though I'm technically still a registered user of [[Wikipedia]], I must disclaim anything more than a passing acquaintance with Wikipedia's copyright policies.
:But I ''am'' an administrator at [[CreationWiki]], and I am in at least weekly contact with their Chief Bureaucrat, Christopher W. Ashcraft. He says that he won't accept any verbatim copies from Conservapedia to his site, and he has advised all of us on his end not to copy stuff that we did not write over here. (As to things we ''did'' write--well, he doesn't mind dual submissions, and he said that ''simultaneous'' submissions are perfectly permissible as a matter of law. But I think he would agree with you, Andy, that we must submit our own words ''before'' anyone else edited them.)
:Frankly, that's about all that matters. I'll tell you how I use Wikipedia: I go to their sources whenever possible, and where that's not possible, I rewrite. In fact, most of the time, I ''couldn't'' accept their content, because they have a POV that I don't share. And even as regards my dual submisions here and at CreationWiki, I can't always write exactly the same thing here and there. This project and CreationWiki have two different target populations and two different scopes.
:Now as to whether anyone can stop the copying: I suspect that they could. I'll give you an insight from another context: firmware for a wireless router. When the company that currently owns the Linksys name incorporated code from the [[Linux]] operating system in the firmware for their WRT-54G family of wireless combination access point/routers, the Free Software Foundation sent them a cease-and-desist order. Linksys concluded that they just couldn't keep that code proprietary anymore, so they released the code. The result has been the invention of a number of "alternative firmwares" for that device. But it has ''also'' set a precedent that "copyleft" provisions ''are'' enforceable.
:And even if they couldn't go to court--well, I'd certainly hate to see any of our dual users get blocked for unlawful copying. That kind of misunderatanding would truly be a crying shame.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The original contributors are the copyright owners (Wikipedia contributions aren't a [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html "work for hire"], and there's no other agreement to transfer copyright ownership), and the copyright owners [https://message.computerlaw.com/GH_ShowArticle.asp?HID=35 are the only ones who have standing] to sue for infringement. Outside of court of course, standing isn't strictly adhered to, anybody can negotiate on behalf of the copyright owners, particularly if they believe they'll be able to find and assist the people who have standing by the time a lawsuit could occur.

That's just copyright law though, I guess non-copyleft licenses may behave [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 more like contracts], I don't know. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:32, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

==Photographs==

To place a photo on wikipedia, you have to have specific proof that you have the copyright holder's permission to post it. Here, you can post any photograph. That's a violation of copyright law. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 01:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Are you sure? The Sysops monitor all photograph submissions, and insist that everyone provide that proof in a free-text field. We also warn people that photograph submissions not in accord with our guidelines are subject to deletion. [[Wikipedia]] offers a menu of copyright-rationale choices. Perhaps Conservapedia would be well-advised to construct something similar, if only to make things easier on uploaders. But "anyone can post" is not a violation ''per se''. ''Retaining'' a photograph in our image archive that we shouldn't have--now ''that'' might be a violation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== time to grow up? ==

Is Conservapedia mature enough yet to remove "To compare this with Wikipedia's more restrictive copyright policy, see [[Wikipedia copyright]]." from this page? We don't compare it to the copyright policy of the US government, or of paper encyclopaedia publishers, so comparing to Wikipedia here is not really helpful either.

I see this page is not presently protected, but it probably should be, as I believe only the site owner should change its copyright notice. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks, I protected it at your suggestion.

: As to your substantive comment above, Wikipedia's copyright requirements are burdensome. Conservapedia's copyright allows much broader and easier reuse. This is factual, well-supported, and no one seems to dispute it. Users should be aware of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. If Conservapedia is supposed to be an ''alternative'' to Wikipedia, it shouldn't need to compare itself on every page. Someone wanting to know under what conditions they are contributing here, or whether they can reuse something found here, doesn't need or want to read the comparison any more than at the end of point 1 (revocable) "This is different to material published by the US Government which is released to the public domain and can be used for any purpose without restriction." or "Encyclopaedia Brittannica does not allow reuse of their published material." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 19:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-defense?==
This licence is simpler that the GFDL only at the expense of the vagueness inherent in the sentence "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Much of the GFDL licence document is concerned with enumerating the precise conditions you must meet in order to be ''sure'' that that your right to use the material will not be revoked. By maintaining the right to revoke the licence under the poorly-defined grounds of "self-defense" users can't be sure that they actually have the right to use the material; Nor can they be sure that a use that is permitted at one time might be disallowed at a future time. In this sense the Conservapedia license is less free than the GFDL. I suggest that this clause is replaced with a BSD-style "no endorsement" clause.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:This encyclopedia is well appreciated, a needed response to Wikipedia's fatal flaws. I am for it. Nonetheless, Jalapeno is right. It is not really relevant that the GNU project is a left-wing, anti-American organization, or that the BSD license comes from the liberal fever swamps of Berkeley. The informal term "copyleft" may be etymologically annoying, but the idea the term represents is entirely sound. You just cannot have an open-source encyclopedia without a proper open-source license.

::The Free Software Foundation (GNU project) has a left-wing anarchist bias, and I also reject that term "copyleft" because it implies that everyone who supports open source, even voluntarily or in a financial/promotional setting, is a communist liberal. Many right-wing people, especially the anti-Ayn-Rand libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Stephan Kinsella, support open-source because it is opposed to restrictive government laws and government-empowered lawyers getting in your way of free markets and a free press, and/or does not follow Locke's definition of property (it does follow Rand's), and/or is/might be financially profitable in certain situations. The man who first commercialized (and coined the term) open-source, Eric S. Raymond of the Open Source Development Initiative, was a libertarian for many years and is currently a neocon. Linus Torvalds is similar, he came from a Finnish communist family but became a wealthy conservative due to his work on the Linux kernel. Other musicians with past fan bases (such as NIN) have turned to Internet marketing and have dumped their record labels, making some stuff open-source/CC and/or charging for another/a better product. So we should not claim that open-source and free-software are "liberal" but are voluntary contracts any political person can agree to. (Private contract is limited government conservatism, isn't it?) However, see my note below about public domain under the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" section regarding possible risks with Conservapedia doing waiver such as these. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 13:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:There is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia that allows free use of its material and one that restricts free use for the purpose of "stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site," as Conservapedia evidently does. If Conservapedia includes some old material that obstructs proper open-sourcedness, and if open-sourcedness (is that a word?) is a goal, then why not remove or sequester the old material? --[[User:Tannoce|Tannoce]] 08:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[GFDL]] copyright is the one that needs improvement to ease reuse. Our copyright has worked well and is much more free and easy-to-use, except when the use is obviously destructive as outlined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Migrating Solid Material to Wikipedia ==

As I read the above, GNU allows me to use my ''exact'' contribution elsewhere (but proving it was my contribution may be problemantic) but once others have ''collaborated'' on the article it may be "illegal" for me to cut and paste all or any edited portions of the article to Conservapedia, since it would now include other editor's contributions. Correct?

Therefore, if one wants to work with collaborators in developing a solid article on controversial issues subject to POV pushing at Wikipedia, one should start here at Conservapedia...collaborate...then copy the entire article over to Wikipedia, since there would be no restrictions on moving an entire article to Wikipedia or WikiInfo or any other GNU governed site. Is that correct?

Mostly, I'm looking for a safer ground to collaborate with editors who won't constantly disrupt the article by deleting facts that undermine their political position. Am I correct in my understanding that Conservapedia provides better safegaurds? For example, can a person who starts an article for collaboration unilaterally block a disruptive editor? Can one or more "approved" collaborators "guard" the article from someone who is disruptively trying to slant it in a different direction?

If all that I've described above is correct, I STRONGLY recommend that Conservapedia should have an article prominently linked here that encourages developing articles here with the intent of copying them over to Wikipedia (which surely has more traffic) once they are developed. Participating Editors then should, of course, watchlist the article on their Wikipedia accounts to help protect it from "blanking" of "inconvenient" facts.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

: What you say is correct, but [[Wikipedia]] is a lost cause and I don't have any interest in trying to post good material there. [[Wikipedia]] does have lots of traffic but much of it is for non-educational (and sometimes biased) entries. If something good is posted to [[Wikipedia]], then I don't expect it to last there.

: However, feel welcome to copy your contributions to Wikipedia over to here, where we do not impose the silly copyright restrictions imposed by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::At Wikipedia, it is possible for a group of contributors (whom you call "editors") to monopolize all collaboration on an article, even though this is expressly against Wikipedia policy. The abuse happens so frequently that Wikipedia '''itself''' calls it "tag-team editing".

::*''Tag teams can block other Wikipedians from making contributions'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Multiple_editors]

::Here, collaboration can take place among those who are sympathetic with the project's goals. Trustworthy articles are the primary goal, so if any liberals want to submit reliable information they are welcome. Unfortunately, about 90% of new users arrive here determined to subvert the project. Perhaps you would like to help reverse this trend.

::What you propose, however, in terms of a team preparing an article offsite for migration to Wikipedia, is best down on a wiki which uses a free license. I would be happy to work with you at www.churchwiki.net if you are on the level. Forgive my caution, but I'd like to make sure before I invest any time in this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Am I wrong to be sure that copying or migrating our articles to Wikipedia would be useless, because "THEY" would destroy it there anyway? {{unsigned|Jerryankeedoodle}}

== requesting change ==

In item 3, I recommend changing "the United States District Court sitting in the City of Newark, State of New Jersey" to "A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY". I would have made the change myself, but the page is protected.--[[User:MackHein|MackHein]] 11:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Alternative dispute resolution==
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)

:It would only be "free market" if we decided to put it in the contract. I for one have closed many Web site accounts for fear of someone bringing a charge against me where I have no means of self-defense and would be stuck paying not only the Web site owner thousands of dollars, but everyone's "legal fees" to the arbitration forum. Plus, if I am correct it costs companies money to join/fund these forums. I suggest we put as many waivers in as we need, such as waiving the right to a jury trial to discourage long cases and class-action suits. But to involve ourselves in something like this where we not only risk lacking the ability to pay and/or putting the financial safety of one editor/administrator/visitor against another, people's lives can be destroyed over a single debate about something. Conservapedia is not a multinational corporation, and we get picked on/spammed by liberals and atheists, both celebrity and troll, quite a bit. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 11:12, 6 February 2011 (EST)

== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==

The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)

:NathanLarson et al, I thought you should know that Creative Commons at some point introduced something called CC0. It is a list of waivers, not a license, and it waives not only the copyright but all of the "all rights reserved" which come with copyright (this doesn't include patents or trademarks). If any part of waiver is not legally possible, the unwaivable rights are re-waived in a "public license fallback", and if that doesn't work, you agree to not to pursue any legal action against others regarding the work. I have applied this to my journal/poetry/opinion blog, but in terms of something like Conservapedia, every editor and administrator would have to know that there is no "taking back" of anything other than deleting it from Conservapedia.com, discouraging automatic spidering using ROBOTS.TXT, and asking/requesting/begging people. Also, there is no attribution requirement, so people can claim not only full credit for our work but partial credit as well (they cannot claim anyone here endorses it). For example, those liberal and atheist spammers can take whatever content they want, pervert it into something else, and claim it it was based on real Conservapedia content, so long as they don't say it's approved/endorsed by any of us. Links: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0 FAQ] [[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ CC0 main link] [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0 legal code]. Personally I think it would be too much of a hassle to put out press releases on what is and isn't genuine all the time, especially with people like Jon Stewart making fun of us on national TV. I just thought I'd share info on the new CC0 system with NathanLarson and anyone else who happens to read this, and why I feel Conservapedia shouldn't do it. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 10:59, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Interpreting [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] ==

I do not have any U.S.A. legal training, and I am uncertain as to how to interpret some aspects of [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Perhaps someone can answer these simple questions relating to Conservapedia articles (excluding pictures, talk pages, user pages, etc.):

*Are Conservapedia articles in the public domain?
*Are Conservapedia articles copyrighted?
**If 'yes', who owns the copyrights?

I would be grateful for some definitive answers. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 17:41, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
:This probably isn't sufficiently definitive, but here are my thoughts based on some googling and a not-yet-complete legal education: Since 1988, no registration is required (generally) to create a copyright. This means that any contributor who edits here (assuming that the edit is eligible for copyright protection), is automatically granted a copyright in his contribution. Over at Wikipedia, edits can only be made after agreeing to release the copyright for use under their license. No such requirement is made here, which I believe means that the individual editors retain their copyrights. The fact that Conservapedia has a copyright policy is functionally of very little use. It would only apply in the rare cases where an editor here has assigned his copyright to the site (assuming that's even possible) or explicitly licensed its use under the terms of this page.

:So, to answer your specific questions:
:*Not generally, though any article content which was previously in the public domain would remain so.
:*Articles themselves are not copyrighted, but individual contributions are (assuming they're sufficiently original to qualify for protection)
::*The copyright for any individual contribution is owned by the contributor, unless such copyright is waived or released. Since there is no general mechanism here for release, it is likely that very few releases have occurred.
::--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:09, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

::JustinD, thank you for your prompt response. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:34, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at this
::'''Are Conservapedia articles in the public domain?''' No. There is a broad license to reuse Conservapedia content with or without attribution, but it is revocable. Additionally, it may be subject to the [[termination of transfer]]s rule that allows for authors to revoke licenses after 35 years.
::'''Are Conservapedia articles copyrighted?''' Yes, to the extent that the work is creative and original.
::'''If 'yes', who owns the copyrights? ''' The individual contributors. Conservapedia receives a nonexclusive license, not an exclusive license, and not an assignment.
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 03:52, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
::Greg, how do you know that "Conservapedia receives a nonexclusive license"? You're more deeply involved in this than me, so I'm sure it's there somewhere, but I couldn't find anything like this. Thanks. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 14:43, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
:::I've just noticed that [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] states that "you" (presumably users?) "irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." So I suppose that's plausibly a granting of a license, though I think it should probably be clearer. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:07, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-05-01T21:31:15Z

JustinD: /* A related issue */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-05-01T07:07:14Z

JustinD: /* A related issue */

Prime number

2012-04-28T17:57:22Z

JustinD:

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|thumb|[[Eratosthenes]].]]
A '''prime number''' is a [[natural number]] greater than 1 that is [[divisible]] by only 1 and itself. Equivalently, the number has exactly two [[factor]]s, 1 and itself. The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...

[[Leonhard Euler]] wrote: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

There are infinitely many primes. The only [[even]] prime number is 2. The [[Bible]] includes many references to prime numbers.

==Sieve of Eratosthenes==
{|class="wikitable" align="right"
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfEratosthenes}}
|-
|Here, '''n''' equals 144
|}
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you can use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers from 1 to ''n''. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

The number of primes smaller than a given number <math>N</math> is roughly <math>\frac{N}{\ln(N)}</math>, where <math>\ln(N)</math> is the [[natural logarithm]] (base ''[[e]]'') of <math>N</math>.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[Prime Number Theorem]].

==How many prime numbers==
{{main|Prime Number Theorem}}

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes. Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this N. N would not be divisible by any number in the set--there would always be a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes (by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]), N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.

Another proof that there are infinitely many primes shows something stronger, namely the sum of the reciprocals of primes less than n "grows like" log(log(n)):
<math>\sum_{p\le x}p^{-1}\approx\log\log x</math>

The largest known prime is ''243112609-1''; it was discovered by the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS''')<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref>, a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html</ref>

A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some [[prime number]]<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref>. As of 2012, only 47 Mersenne Primes have been found.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html#largest</ref> The largest known prime, ''243112609-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

==Unique Factorization==
{{main|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic}}

According to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique [[factorization]] into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1 can be expressed as a product of one or more primes in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

Finding the prime factors for large numbers (having hundreds of digits) can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers.

==Alternative Definition==
Beyond the integers, mathematicians are interested in other structures with addition and multiplication; they are called [[Ring_(mathematics)|ring]]s. When working in rings, mathematicians use a different definition for a "prime" element: <blockquote>''A prime element is a non-unit (i.e., not 1 or -1 for the integers) which whenever it divides the product of two numbers will divide at least one of the factors.''</blockquote>

Or in symbolic notation:

<math>p \in \mathbb{Z} \quad prime :\Leftrightarrow p \not\in \{-1, 1\} \wedge (\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}: p \vert ab \Rightarrow p \vert a \vee p \vert b) </math>

For the integers, this definition is equivalent to the one stated above. However in general the two definitions are not equivalent. The earlier definition is still important in rings, and is given the name [[irreducibility]], since it literally states that the element cannot be broken into smaller pieces.

The preference for this alternate definition of "prime" is that this definition gives you unique [[factorization]] theorems analogous to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]. For more information, consult an abstract algebra book<ref>'''Abstract Algebra: An Introduction''', Thomas Hungerford. Brooks Cole; 2 edition (1996)</ref>

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--''N'' is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true--if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==Open Problems about Prime Numbers==

===Twin primes===
{{main|twin primes}}

[[Twin primes]] or '''prime twins''' are pairs of prime number which differ from each other by only 2. Since all primes other than 2 are odd numbers, this is the closest two primes can be to each other, with the exception of 2 and 3. The first few twin primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, and 29 and 31.

Twin primes become increasingly scarce among larger numbers. For example, there are twenty-four sets of twin primes between 0 and 500, but only eleven sets between 500 and 1000. Computer programmes have calculated some extremely large sets of twin primes. While there are undoubtedly an unlimited number of primes, opinions differ among mathematicians whether there is also an infinite number of twin primes or whether there is an upper limit. This debate is captured by the [[twin primes conjecture]]

Mathematicians have long been fascinated by twin primes and the relationship between them. There seems to be no distinct pattern in their occurrence. For example, there are no twin primes between 700 and 800, or between 900 and 1000, but there are five sets between 800 and 900 (809 and 811; 821 and 823; 827 and 829; 857 and 859; 881 and 883).

===Goldbach's conjecture===

Goldbach's conjecture asserts that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

===Riemann hypothesis===
{{main|Riemann hypothesis}}

The [[Riemann hypothesis]] is related to patterns in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such [[cryptographic]] schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==See also==

* [[Composite number]]
* [[Fibonacci sequence]]
* [[Perfect number]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
*[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archive]
*[http://educ.queensu.ca/%7Efmc/december2003/Sieve.html Sieve of Eratosthenes]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Conservapedia talk:Copyright

2012-04-24T18:43:40Z

JustinD: /* Interpreting Conservapedia:Copyright */

Green Bay Packers

2012-04-24T06:58:12Z

JustinD:

[[Image:Bilde.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The annual meeting of the Green Bay Packers shareholders held in Lambeau Field Wednesday, July 25, 2007. Photo by H. Marc Larson/Press-Gazette. [http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage]]]
The '''Green Bay Packers''' are a [[National Football League]] ([[NFL]]) [[franchise]] based in [[Green Bay]], [[Wisconsin]]. They are part of the National Football Conference (NFC) and play in the NFC North Division. They were the first team to win the [[Super Bowl]], defeating the [[Kansas City Chiefs]] in Super Bowl I. They also won [[Super Bowl]] II, defeating the [[Oakland Raiders]]. The Green Bay Packers have more World Championships than any other franchise in NFL history, but not the most Super Bowl victories.

The team plays its home games at Lambeau Field, named after team founder Curly Lambeau. They are the only publicly owned professional sports team in America, with over 112,000 shareholders.

The Packers' most recent championship came in Super Bowl XLV, on February 26,2011. They defeated the Steelers 31-25, and Packers QB Aaron Rodgers was named Super Bowl MVP.

==Roster as of 4/24/2012==

===Quarterbacks===
*06 - Graham Harrell
*17 - Nick Hill
*12 - Aaron Rodgers

===Running Backs===
*20 - Alex Green
*35 - Jon Hoese
*30 - John Kuhn
*33 - Brandon Saine
*44 - James Starks

===Wide Receivers===
*19 - Diondre Borel
*18 - Randall Cobb
*80 - Donald Driver
*86 - Tori Gurley
*85 - Greg Jennings
*89 - James Jones
*87 - Jordy Nelson
*16 - Shaky Smithson

===Tight Ends===
*83 - Tom Crabtree
*88 - Jermichael Finley
*81 - Andrew Quarless
*82 - Ryan Taylor
*84 - D. J. Williams

===Offensive Linemen===
*75 - Bryan Bulaga
*69 - Chris Campbell
*62 - Evan Dietrich-Smith
*73 - Ray Dominguez
*65 - Sampson Genus
*70 - T. J. Lang
*74 - Marshall Newhouse
*63 - Jeff Saturday
*78 - Derek Sherrod
*71 - Josh Sitton
*72 - Herb Taylor

===Defensive Linemen===
*91 - Lawrence Guy
*-- - Anthony Hargrove
*67 - Johnny Jones
*68 - Daniel Muir
*96 - Mike Neal
*79 - Ryan Pickett
*90 - B. J. Raji
*98 - C. J. Wilson
*94 - Jarius Wynn

===Linebackers===
*55 - Desmond Bishop
*49 - Robert Francois
*50 - A. J. Hawk
*59 - Brad Jones
*57 - Jamari Lattimore
*52 - Clay Matthews III
*51 - D. J. Smith
*97 - Vic So'oto
*93 - Erik Walden
*58 - Frank Zombo

===Defensive Backs===
*42 - Morgan Burnett
*24 - Jarrett Bush
*36 - Nick Collins
*31 - Davon House
*43 - M. D. Jennings
*34 - Anthony Levine
*26 - Charlie Peprah
*39 - Brandian Ross
*37 - Sam Shields
*38 - Tramon Williams
*21 - Charles Woodson

===Special Teams===
*02 - Mason Crosby
*61 - Brett Goode
*08 - Tim Masthay

==See also==
*[[Vince Lombardi]]
*[[Chicago Bears]]
*[[Minnesota Vikings]]
*[[Detroit Lions]]
*[[National Football Conference]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/packers/index.html Team site]
*[http://www.packers.com/community/packers_foundation/ Green Bay Packers]

{{NFL Teams}}

[[Category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Wisconsin]]

Green Bay Packers

2012-04-24T06:36:58Z

JustinD:

[[Image:Bilde.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The annual meeting of the Green Bay Packers shareholders held in Lambeau Field Wednesday, July 25, 2007. Photo by H. Marc Larson/Press-Gazette. [http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage]]]
The '''Green Bay Packers''' are a [[National Football League]] ([[NFL]]) [[franchise]] based in [[Green Bay]], [[Wisconsin]]. They are part of the National Football Conference (NFC) and play in the NFC North Division. They were the first team to win the [[Super Bowl]], defeating the [[Kansas City Chiefs]] in Super Bowl I. They also won [[Super Bowl]] II, defeating the [[Oakland Raiders]]. The Green Bay Packers have more World Championships than any other franchise in NFL history, but not the most Super Bowl victories.

The team plays its home games at Lambeau Field, named after team founder Curly Lambeau. They are the only publicly owned professional sports team in America, with over 112,000 shareholders.

The Packers' most recent championship came in Super Bowl XLV, on February 26,2011. They defeated the Steelers 31-25, and Packers QB Aaron Rodgers was named Super Bowl MVP.

==2009-2010 Roster==

===Quarterbacks===
*12 - [[Aaron Rodgers]]
*11 - Brian Brohm
*10 - Matt Flynn

===Running Backs===
*25 - [[Ryan Grant]]
*32 - Brandon Jackson
*42 - DeShawn Wynn
*28 - Kregg Lumpkin

===Fullbacks===
*35 - Korey Hall
*30 - John Kuhn

===Wide Receivers===
*85 - [[Greg Jennings]]
*80 - [[Donald Driver]]
*89 - James Jones
*82 - Ruvell Martin
*87 - Jordy Nelson
*19 - Shaun Bodiford

===Tight Ends===
*86 - Donald Lee
*88 - Jermichael Finley

===Offensive Tackles===
*76 - Chad Clifton
*68 - Breno Giacomini
*67 - Nevin McCaskill
*71 - Josh Sitton
*65 - Mark Tauscher

===Guards===
*78 - Allen Barbre
*73 - Daryn Colledge
*75 - Tony Moll
*72 - Jason Spitz

===Centers===
*63 - Scott Wells
* - Duke Preston

===Defensive Ends===
*57 - Jason Hunter
*74 - Aaron Kampman
*96 - Mike Montgomery
*99 - Jeremy Thompson
*77 - Cullen Jenkins

===Defensive Tackles===
*91 - Justin Harrell
*97 - Johnny Jolly
*98 - Alfred Malone
*79 - Ryan Pickett
*62 - Anthony Toribio

===Linebackers===
*55 - Desmond Bishop
*54 - Brandon Chillar
*53 - Spencer Havner
*50 - [[A. J. Hawk]]
*58 - Danny Lansanah
*51 - Brady Poppinga
*56 - Nick Barnett
*93 - Kenny Pettway

===Cornerbacks===
*27 - Will Blackmon
*24 - Jarrett Bush
*31 - [[Al Harris]]
*40 - Joe Porter
*38 - Tramon Williams
*21 - [[Charles Woodson]]
*22 - Pat Lee

===Safeties===
*36 - Nick Collins
*26 - Charlie Peprah
*37 - Aaron Rouse
* - Anthony Smith
*20 - Atari Bigby

===Kickers===
*2 - [[Mason Crosby]]

===Punters===
*7 - Jeremy Kapinos

==See also==
*[[Vince Lombardi]]
*[[Chicago Bears]]
*[[Minnesota Vikings]]
*[[Detroit Lions]]
*[[National Football Conference]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/packers/index.html Team site]
*[http://www.packers.com/community/packers_foundation/ Green Bay Packers]

{{NFL Teams}}

[[Category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Wisconsin]]

Conservapedia talk:Copyright

2012-04-24T02:10:49Z

JustinD: /* Interpreting Conservapedia:Copyright */ really ought to proofread better

Conservapedia talk:Copyright

2012-04-24T02:09:32Z

JustinD: /* Interpreting Conservapedia:Copyright */

== Dual users ==
As a dual user (and now a dual administrator) of Conservapedia and CreationWiki, I have some questions that I think every registered user of multiple Wikis should ask himself--and here is the best place to put the answers.

What obligations does a dual user labor under?

May a dual user submit content--and by "content" I mean ''that user's own words''--directly to Conservapedia and to another Wiki?

If a dual user has already submitted content to another Wiki--say, CreationWiki--then how long does he have to submit that content to Conservapedia before having to do an extensive rewrite?

How extensive a rewrite would be required to avoid all questions of liability?

In asking these questions, I realize at once that some content requires an extensive rewrite because the "target audience" is not the same, and has different values and, for lack of a better term, needs. But if that situation does not apply, then a dual user might be tempted to submit exactly the same words to both projects. If a user is going to do that, then how many days apart may he do that and still stay within a legal definition of "a simultaneous submission"?

I am glad to have the opportunity to open a discussion on a topic of vital importance to Conservapedia. A firm policy on dual-user rights and obligations will go far to ensure that Conservapedia can get good content submitted to it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: Other Wikis embrace, mistakenly in my opinion, the [[copyleft]] approach. We do not. As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis. If you submit to other Wikis first, then they might insist that impose the burdensome [[copyleft]] conditions on reuse of that material elsewhere. We impose no such requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

* Just on the broader point of comparing it to Wikipedia's license... [[Differences with Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia copyright]] both currently say that contributing material to Wikipedia prevents the author from re-using their work elsewhere. This is manifestly untrue. By U.S. law, authors automatically own the copyright to their work, and the GFDL has no clauses that reassign copyright ownership to anyone else.    If I write a poem all by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it to Geocities, then I still own the copyright. The same holds for Wikipedia.     Wikipedia authors can and do [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing multiply-license] their works under other licenses in addition to the GFDL, which can include licenses that are more restrictive than the GFDL. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's '''not''' correct to the extent your work has been edited on other Wikis. I don't know if you are right about your unedited original work and what Wikipedia or other Wikis may require as a condition of submission there. The provisions governing submission on those websites would need to be checked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I should think that any contributor who built his contribution on his own machine, or otherwise re-created his original submission ''prior to any edits'', would satisfy the original-submission requirement. Happily, any Wiki has a history section that preserves the source code of every version of every article since its creation, or perhaps fifty edits back. All that a user has to do is look back to how his article looked ''before anyone else edited it'' (not counting immediate reverts) and then view and copy the source. I maintain that a contributor who does that, should be able to dual-submit. But I agree--once the article has been edited by another person, it's not that submitter's original work product anymore.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I (not a legal type - this comes from my experience as an artist and a writer in dealing with copyrights) understand it there are two issues here - original work and deritive work. In the case of original work, unless you assign the copyright or "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=89370#II] you own the copyright. You are free to license it however you want. You can put it on a gdfl wiki and you can publish it in a book, and that is not an issue (some publishers may want exclusive publishing rights in which case having published the material at a wiki means they won't be interested in it). The only thing you have to be aware of is that someone else can come along and use the material in a way granted by the gdfl and they are not violating your copyright. If the material is a deritive work - it is edits based on other edits of someone else's work, while you own the copyright to the ''edit'', you have to abide by the licensing of the parent work - if it is gdfl, then that means if you want to publish the material you have edited, then it is also under the gdfl. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think both Terry and Mtur are right. Thanks also to Interiot for alerting us to this aspect of the issue.

: By the way, those you who have influence with other wikis might persuade them to abandon their burdensome "copyleft" or gdfl licensing requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you remove that disconcerting "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights" bit here? As an artist that kind of scares me. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I've clarified it for you, but I don't see how to change what's in quotations without allowing people to cause problems in protesting copying of their entries. Do you have a suggestion consistent with the purpose of a wiki?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== From Wikipedia on multi licensing ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]
<blockquote>All text edits to Wikipedia fall under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) with the copyright being retained by the original author.</blockquote>
This edit[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Differences_with_Wikipedia&curid=11868&diff=89683&oldid=89350] is not correct in that manner.
<blockquote> 1. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.</blockquote>
You still own the original material even after it has been edited. (ps: could you make that a wiki style numbering instead? It should make your life easier if you ever want to insert a point between it or if you use a local style sheet to change how ordered lists are presented) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: OK, you're right. I made it this: "you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." And I'll fix the numbering also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That is ''much'' better. Thank you. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can Wikipedia (or any Wiki) Stop Copying of Entries? ==

One editor here has suggested that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) never own any rights in any of their entries, and that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) cannot stop any copying of their entries even if in violation of the GNU license. Wikipedians, do you have a view on this? (We don't want to copy any Wikipedia here but this is relevant to our own copyright policies).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, though I'm technically still a registered user of [[Wikipedia]], I must disclaim anything more than a passing acquaintance with Wikipedia's copyright policies.
:But I ''am'' an administrator at [[CreationWiki]], and I am in at least weekly contact with their Chief Bureaucrat, Christopher W. Ashcraft. He says that he won't accept any verbatim copies from Conservapedia to his site, and he has advised all of us on his end not to copy stuff that we did not write over here. (As to things we ''did'' write--well, he doesn't mind dual submissions, and he said that ''simultaneous'' submissions are perfectly permissible as a matter of law. But I think he would agree with you, Andy, that we must submit our own words ''before'' anyone else edited them.)
:Frankly, that's about all that matters. I'll tell you how I use Wikipedia: I go to their sources whenever possible, and where that's not possible, I rewrite. In fact, most of the time, I ''couldn't'' accept their content, because they have a POV that I don't share. And even as regards my dual submisions here and at CreationWiki, I can't always write exactly the same thing here and there. This project and CreationWiki have two different target populations and two different scopes.
:Now as to whether anyone can stop the copying: I suspect that they could. I'll give you an insight from another context: firmware for a wireless router. When the company that currently owns the Linksys name incorporated code from the [[Linux]] operating system in the firmware for their WRT-54G family of wireless combination access point/routers, the Free Software Foundation sent them a cease-and-desist order. Linksys concluded that they just couldn't keep that code proprietary anymore, so they released the code. The result has been the invention of a number of "alternative firmwares" for that device. But it has ''also'' set a precedent that "copyleft" provisions ''are'' enforceable.
:And even if they couldn't go to court--well, I'd certainly hate to see any of our dual users get blocked for unlawful copying. That kind of misunderatanding would truly be a crying shame.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The original contributors are the copyright owners (Wikipedia contributions aren't a [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html "work for hire"], and there's no other agreement to transfer copyright ownership), and the copyright owners [https://message.computerlaw.com/GH_ShowArticle.asp?HID=35 are the only ones who have standing] to sue for infringement. Outside of court of course, standing isn't strictly adhered to, anybody can negotiate on behalf of the copyright owners, particularly if they believe they'll be able to find and assist the people who have standing by the time a lawsuit could occur.

That's just copyright law though, I guess non-copyleft licenses may behave [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 more like contracts], I don't know. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:32, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

==Photographs==

To place a photo on wikipedia, you have to have specific proof that you have the copyright holder's permission to post it. Here, you can post any photograph. That's a violation of copyright law. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 01:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Are you sure? The Sysops monitor all photograph submissions, and insist that everyone provide that proof in a free-text field. We also warn people that photograph submissions not in accord with our guidelines are subject to deletion. [[Wikipedia]] offers a menu of copyright-rationale choices. Perhaps Conservapedia would be well-advised to construct something similar, if only to make things easier on uploaders. But "anyone can post" is not a violation ''per se''. ''Retaining'' a photograph in our image archive that we shouldn't have--now ''that'' might be a violation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== time to grow up? ==

Is Conservapedia mature enough yet to remove "To compare this with Wikipedia's more restrictive copyright policy, see [[Wikipedia copyright]]." from this page? We don't compare it to the copyright policy of the US government, or of paper encyclopaedia publishers, so comparing to Wikipedia here is not really helpful either.

I see this page is not presently protected, but it probably should be, as I believe only the site owner should change its copyright notice. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks, I protected it at your suggestion.

: As to your substantive comment above, Wikipedia's copyright requirements are burdensome. Conservapedia's copyright allows much broader and easier reuse. This is factual, well-supported, and no one seems to dispute it. Users should be aware of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. If Conservapedia is supposed to be an ''alternative'' to Wikipedia, it shouldn't need to compare itself on every page. Someone wanting to know under what conditions they are contributing here, or whether they can reuse something found here, doesn't need or want to read the comparison any more than at the end of point 1 (revocable) "This is different to material published by the US Government which is released to the public domain and can be used for any purpose without restriction." or "Encyclopaedia Brittannica does not allow reuse of their published material." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 19:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-defense?==
This licence is simpler that the GFDL only at the expense of the vagueness inherent in the sentence "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Much of the GFDL licence document is concerned with enumerating the precise conditions you must meet in order to be ''sure'' that that your right to use the material will not be revoked. By maintaining the right to revoke the licence under the poorly-defined grounds of "self-defense" users can't be sure that they actually have the right to use the material; Nor can they be sure that a use that is permitted at one time might be disallowed at a future time. In this sense the Conservapedia license is less free than the GFDL. I suggest that this clause is replaced with a BSD-style "no endorsement" clause.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:This encyclopedia is well appreciated, a needed response to Wikipedia's fatal flaws. I am for it. Nonetheless, Jalapeno is right. It is not really relevant that the GNU project is a left-wing, anti-American organization, or that the BSD license comes from the liberal fever swamps of Berkeley. The informal term "copyleft" may be etymologically annoying, but the idea the term represents is entirely sound. You just cannot have an open-source encyclopedia without a proper open-source license.

::The Free Software Foundation (GNU project) has a left-wing anarchist bias, and I also reject that term "copyleft" because it implies that everyone who supports open source, even voluntarily or in a financial/promotional setting, is a communist liberal. Many right-wing people, especially the anti-Ayn-Rand libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Stephan Kinsella, support open-source because it is opposed to restrictive government laws and government-empowered lawyers getting in your way of free markets and a free press, and/or does not follow Locke's definition of property (it does follow Rand's), and/or is/might be financially profitable in certain situations. The man who first commercialized (and coined the term) open-source, Eric S. Raymond of the Open Source Development Initiative, was a libertarian for many years and is currently a neocon. Linus Torvalds is similar, he came from a Finnish communist family but became a wealthy conservative due to his work on the Linux kernel. Other musicians with past fan bases (such as NIN) have turned to Internet marketing and have dumped their record labels, making some stuff open-source/CC and/or charging for another/a better product. So we should not claim that open-source and free-software are "liberal" but are voluntary contracts any political person can agree to. (Private contract is limited government conservatism, isn't it?) However, see my note below about public domain under the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" section regarding possible risks with Conservapedia doing waiver such as these. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 13:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:There is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia that allows free use of its material and one that restricts free use for the purpose of "stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site," as Conservapedia evidently does. If Conservapedia includes some old material that obstructs proper open-sourcedness, and if open-sourcedness (is that a word?) is a goal, then why not remove or sequester the old material? --[[User:Tannoce|Tannoce]] 08:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[GFDL]] copyright is the one that needs improvement to ease reuse. Our copyright has worked well and is much more free and easy-to-use, except when the use is obviously destructive as outlined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Migrating Solid Material to Wikipedia ==

As I read the above, GNU allows me to use my ''exact'' contribution elsewhere (but proving it was my contribution may be problemantic) but once others have ''collaborated'' on the article it may be "illegal" for me to cut and paste all or any edited portions of the article to Conservapedia, since it would now include other editor's contributions. Correct?

Therefore, if one wants to work with collaborators in developing a solid article on controversial issues subject to POV pushing at Wikipedia, one should start here at Conservapedia...collaborate...then copy the entire article over to Wikipedia, since there would be no restrictions on moving an entire article to Wikipedia or WikiInfo or any other GNU governed site. Is that correct?

Mostly, I'm looking for a safer ground to collaborate with editors who won't constantly disrupt the article by deleting facts that undermine their political position. Am I correct in my understanding that Conservapedia provides better safegaurds? For example, can a person who starts an article for collaboration unilaterally block a disruptive editor? Can one or more "approved" collaborators "guard" the article from someone who is disruptively trying to slant it in a different direction?

If all that I've described above is correct, I STRONGLY recommend that Conservapedia should have an article prominently linked here that encourages developing articles here with the intent of copying them over to Wikipedia (which surely has more traffic) once they are developed. Participating Editors then should, of course, watchlist the article on their Wikipedia accounts to help protect it from "blanking" of "inconvenient" facts.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

: What you say is correct, but [[Wikipedia]] is a lost cause and I don't have any interest in trying to post good material there. [[Wikipedia]] does have lots of traffic but much of it is for non-educational (and sometimes biased) entries. If something good is posted to [[Wikipedia]], then I don't expect it to last there.

: However, feel welcome to copy your contributions to Wikipedia over to here, where we do not impose the silly copyright restrictions imposed by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::At Wikipedia, it is possible for a group of contributors (whom you call "editors") to monopolize all collaboration on an article, even though this is expressly against Wikipedia policy. The abuse happens so frequently that Wikipedia '''itself''' calls it "tag-team editing".

::*''Tag teams can block other Wikipedians from making contributions'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Multiple_editors]

::Here, collaboration can take place among those who are sympathetic with the project's goals. Trustworthy articles are the primary goal, so if any liberals want to submit reliable information they are welcome. Unfortunately, about 90% of new users arrive here determined to subvert the project. Perhaps you would like to help reverse this trend.

::What you propose, however, in terms of a team preparing an article offsite for migration to Wikipedia, is best down on a wiki which uses a free license. I would be happy to work with you at www.churchwiki.net if you are on the level. Forgive my caution, but I'd like to make sure before I invest any time in this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Am I wrong to be sure that copying or migrating our articles to Wikipedia would be useless, because "THEY" would destroy it there anyway? {{unsigned|Jerryankeedoodle}}

== requesting change ==

In item 3, I recommend changing "the United States District Court sitting in the City of Newark, State of New Jersey" to "A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY". I would have made the change myself, but the page is protected.--[[User:MackHein|MackHein]] 11:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Alternative dispute resolution==
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)

:It would only be "free market" if we decided to put it in the contract. I for one have closed many Web site accounts for fear of someone bringing a charge against me where I have no means of self-defense and would be stuck paying not only the Web site owner thousands of dollars, but everyone's "legal fees" to the arbitration forum. Plus, if I am correct it costs companies money to join/fund these forums. I suggest we put as many waivers in as we need, such as waiving the right to a jury trial to discourage long cases and class-action suits. But to involve ourselves in something like this where we not only risk lacking the ability to pay and/or putting the financial safety of one editor/administrator/visitor against another, people's lives can be destroyed over a single debate about something. Conservapedia is not a multinational corporation, and we get picked on/spammed by liberals and atheists, both celebrity and troll, quite a bit. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 11:12, 6 February 2011 (EST)

== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==

The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)

:NathanLarson et al, I thought you should know that Creative Commons at some point introduced something called CC0. It is a list of waivers, not a license, and it waives not only the copyright but all of the "all rights reserved" which come with copyright (this doesn't include patents or trademarks). If any part of waiver is not legally possible, the unwaivable rights are re-waived in a "public license fallback", and if that doesn't work, you agree to not to pursue any legal action against others regarding the work. I have applied this to my journal/poetry/opinion blog, but in terms of something like Conservapedia, every editor and administrator would have to know that there is no "taking back" of anything other than deleting it from Conservapedia.com, discouraging automatic spidering using ROBOTS.TXT, and asking/requesting/begging people. Also, there is no attribution requirement, so people can claim not only full credit for our work but partial credit as well (they cannot claim anyone here endorses it). For example, those liberal and atheist spammers can take whatever content they want, pervert it into something else, and claim it it was based on real Conservapedia content, so long as they don't say it's approved/endorsed by any of us. Links: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0 FAQ] [[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ CC0 main link] [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0 legal code]. Personally I think it would be too much of a hassle to put out press releases on what is and isn't genuine all the time, especially with people like Jon Stewart making fun of us on national TV. I just thought I'd share info on the new CC0 system with NathanLarson and anyone else who happens to read this, and why I feel Conservapedia shouldn't do it. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 10:59, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Interpreting [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] ==

I do not have any U.S.A. legal training, and I am uncertain as to how to interpret some aspects of [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Perhaps someone can answer these simple questions relating to Conservapedia articles (excluding pictures, talk pages, user pages, etc.):

*Are Conservapedia articles in the public domain?
*Are Conservapedia articles copyrighted?
**If 'yes', who owns the copyrights?

I would be grateful for some definitive answers. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 17:41, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
:This probably isn't sufficiently definitive, but here are my thoughts based on some googling and an not-yet-complete legal education: Since 1988, no registration is required (generally) to create a copyright. This means that any contributor who edits here (assuming that the edit is eligible for copyright protection), is automatically granted a copyright in his contribution. Over at Wikipedia, edits can only be made after agreeing to release the copyright for use under their license. No such requirement is made here, which I believe means that the individual editors retain their copyrights. The fact that Conservapedia has a copyright policy is functionally of very little use. It would only apply in the rare cases where an editor here has assigned his copyright to the site (assuming that's even possible) or explicitly licensed its use under the terms of this page.

:So, to answer your specific questions:
:*Not generally, though any article content which was previously in the public domain would remain so.
:*Articles themselves are not copyrighted, but individual contributions are (assuming they're sufficiently original to qualify for protection)
::*The copyright for any individual contribution is owned by the contributor, unless such copyright is waived or released. Since there is no general mechanism here for release, it is likely that very few releases have occurred.
::--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:09, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Did Santorum Quit?

2012-04-16T01:01:30Z

JustinD: /* "How soon will Santorum begin campaigning against pro-life Newt Gingrich?" */

== "How soon will Santorum begin campaigning against pro-life Newt Gingrich?" ==

Do you really think anybody is taking Gingrich (and his 136 delegates) as seriously as [[Gingrich Administration|a viable candidate for the Republican nomination]] at this point? If Santorum really has the best interests of the party (and Romney) at heart, he should be campaigning against the president, not some irrelevant has-been who is staying in the race solely for reasons of self-promotion (...which speaks to your "mystery" about why Santorum decided to stop spending other people's money on a lost cause. There is a lot wrong with the guy, but he's nowhere near as in love with himself or as slimy as Gingrich) . [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm curious: which Democrats would you refer to as "slimy" or "in love with himself"? Gingrich is no worse than many liberals in that regard.

:But back to the main point. If you're right about Gingrich and Santorum, then is your prediction that Santorum won't campaign against Gingrich? I predict that Santorum will, beginning as early as this month.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::Just about all politicians are slimy and in love with themselves. It goes with the territory. There is no need to campaign against Gingrich. He's performed very poorly so far, and will not secure anywhere near enough delegates in the short term to make him a threat in the long term. Romney is the presumptive nominee, and barring some unforeseen disaster (he gets sick, some incredibly horrific thing from his past comes to light, etc) all of the party's focus is on Obama from here on out. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:43, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::But, again, if you were right that "[t]here is no need to campaign against Gingrich," then Santorum won't do it. But I predict he does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::If he does, Santorum is even dumber than I thought he might be, and the Republican Party is even more out-of-touch with reality than I had figured. Wasting any sort of resources on a guy who has barely more than a fifth of the delegates as does the leader at the half-way point of the race and who doesn't have any reporters travelling with his campaign would be beyond stupid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 11:14, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::It would save Romney's campaign millions of dollars if Gingrich were to pull out now, or be discredited. Would it be "beyond stupid" for Romney to ask now for Santorum's help in campaigning against Gingrich?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Why would it save Romney money? Surely he isn't so foolish as to waste money campaigning against a candidate with no chance of victory.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:01, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Santorum will not "campaign against Gingrich" ==

Two days ago, at the NRA convention, with what may be his last guaranteed national audience for the foreseeable future, Santorum [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/13/santorum-hails-nra-fight-for-individual-freedom/ focused his remarks on Obama], not on Gingrich. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 13:36, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== His daughter was sick ==

She has a life threatening condition. I think that is a pretty good reason to quit, maybe not of itself, but combined with Romney's victories at the time, that may have been the impetus.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:06, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:That would certainly be a good reason to quit, and we pray for a speedy recovery for her. But it seems unlikely that was the real reason Santorum quit at this time, given how he said he would help Romney, and has not endorsed the remaining [[pro-life]], [[conservative]] candidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:24, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== why santorum quit and why social conservatives have traction problems at presidential/national election level ==

Santorum quite because the bankers/businessman have more power than social conservatives in the Republican Party due to fundraising and their ability to do massive television advertising plus the conservative vote was split. In 2020, the balance of power may tip towards the social conservatives (see: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html balance of power shifting]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:09, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Isn't it obvious? ==

He quit because it was obvious that he was not in a position to win.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:But that's been true for a while, and both candidates with less favorable polling (Gingrich and Paul) have stayed in. Moreover, usually quitting for that reason occurs shortly after or before a major primary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:51, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::"Moreover, usually quitting for that reason occurs shortly after or before a major primary." Which would explain why Santorum quit before the major primary in Pennsylvania, perhaps?
::Also, what Gingrich and Paul do is irrelevant to understanding Santorum. Paul is an ideologue who hopes to use the GOP campaign as a way to advance his libertarian platform. Gingrich is a shameless publicity hound looking to increase his visibility and sell books. Santorum is neither of those. Moreover, not all people do all things for all the same reasons anyways, right? [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:04, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I have an [[open mind]] about this mystery. But it is unpersuasive to me that Santorum quit when he did simply because he thought he could not win. His second-place standing had not changed for some time, and others in his position or worse, this year and prior years, have not quit like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::::You keep providing excellent reasons to why he would quit; see above for the timing of the announcement before a major primary, and you're right, "his second-place standing had not changed for some time." Do you know what they usually call the guy whose second place standing remains unchanged for a long time? The loser. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:41, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::So I think that there is general agreement that he quit because he didn't think he would win. And you've got to quit at some point. In that case the mystery, if there is one, is over the timing rather than the reason.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:22, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::It's the timing and circumstances that are the mystery. When does a competitive athlete stop trying in a game, despite having no chance of winning? Never, except in the unusual situations where there is another explanation (e.g., a stomach virus).

::::::But you may be right. There is logic to inferring that the Santorum campaign simply ran out of money. But when Hillary ran out of money, she didn't quit; when Newt ran out of money he didn't quit. After all, it's only money, and most candidates believe in bigger ideals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:19, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::So when Santorum says that he quit because he ran out of money (see below), you're calling him a liar. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 19:27, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::No, I'm not calling Santorum a "liar". I don't recall Santorum saying that financial issues were the only reason, or even the most important reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
Andy, that's EXACTLY what he said: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413143-503544/santorum-i-left-gop-race-because-money-dried-up/ "For the first time the campaign had a debt, the debt was from my perspective a little bit more substantial than I was comfortable with. And I'll be honest with you, Tony, in the last week after Wisconsin we basically raised almost no money," Santorum told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a radio interview, his first since announcing he was ending his bid. "We had solicitations going out and people were just emailing back saying the race is over and you gotta join the crew and there were others who would say not but it was a very, very small trickle of funds that were coming in."] Did you even bother to read the article that's linked to below and in the "mystery" article? The one with the headline "Santorum: I left GOP race because money dried up." ? [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 20:10, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I read it, and Santorum does not say that is the only or primary reason '''''why''''' he quit. Instead, Santorum gave many reasons, including his inability to control the "narrative", his inability to prevent Romney from winning the nomination, voters who valued "winning" more than principles, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::::alright then. Mystery solved! Time to move on. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 20:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Also, he's broke. ==

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413143-503544/santorum-i-left-gop-race-because-money-dried-up/ Mystery solved]. Campaigns can't run on fairy dust. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:46, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-11T16:50:33Z

JustinD: /* Stalking Horse */

E=mc²

2012-04-11T16:48:52Z

JustinD: Undo revision 974930 by CPalmer (talk) (not lost, just moved)

'''E=mc²''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> No theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal]] claptrap. Numerous attempts to derive it have failed.<ref>Many leading scientists (including Lord Rutherford and Princeton Physics Professor [[Robert Dicke]]) rejected the [[Theory of Relativity]].</ref> is an equation that, according to the [[theory of relativity]], describes the equivalence of matter and energy.<ref>According to the [[theory of relativity]], this equation describes the equivalence of matter and energy. This equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. In [[natural units]], where ''c'' is set to be 1 and [[dimensionless|without dimension]], the equation becomes ''E''=''m''.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal]] claptrap. But political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. But, as stated above, this is not how E=mc² was discovered. But it could have been. But in the event, it wasn't.

==See also==
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-11T06:09:23Z

JustinD: /* Stalking Horse */

Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-11T04:55:17Z

JustinD: more efforts to clean up and clarify without changing the meaning. (Also, is preferable to do such touch ups in separate edits?)

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

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

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

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 20, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=918691</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] because this is not actually true.
|Earthquakes continue to strike at a lower rate than in the first decade of the 20th century.
|October and November 2011
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse of [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum dropped the race, practically giving the victory to Romney
|April 2012
|-
|}

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

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-11T04:40:52Z

JustinD: /* Stalking Horse */

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-11T00:57:16Z

JustinD: /* Stalking Horse */ new section

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-10T19:23:18Z

JustinD: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */

== Who uses this concept? ==
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.

It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.

I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

:::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big>

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: Existence depends on what system you are operating in. Uniqueness is fairly easy if you are operating in a field. Proposition: in any field F, with c and element of F, the equation <math>x^2=c</math> has at most 2 solutions. Proof: Consider <math>x^2=c</math>. this implies that <math>x^2-c=0</math>. We may assume that c has at least one square root (call it <math>c^{1/2}</math>). So we have <math>(x+c^{1/2})(x-c^{1/2})</math>. Now, since fields have no zero divisors (easy excercise), we must have <math>x+c^{1/2}=0</math> or <math>x-c^{1/2}=0</math> which gives us only two choices. Q.E.D. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: I have never heard an "elementary proof" used to refer to a proof that "cannot be broken down into smaller proofs", whatever that is supposed to mean, and moreover, this doesn't clearly have anything to do with the other definition about avoiding complex analysis. Moreover, Selberg's Fields was primarily for his other work on the Riemann zeta function (complex analysis! the horror!) and Selberg formula, which indicated the direction of this proof. The proof itself was not the grounds for the medal, as this article indicates. Some editor here seems to have a bizarre fascination with "elementary proofs", but would surely be hard-pressed to find a serious mathematician who rejected residue calculus on the grounds that it is not an elementary method, as that article claims.

Re: "I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots)", the questioner might try to learn a bit about fields and algebraic extensions thereof. By "sqrt(-1)" we mean some symbol which is "adjoined" to a field and which satisfies x^2+1=0. Such a thing exists in a field extension (and one can prove this quite rigorously), and is obviously unique there. Any basic algebra text (Artin, Dummit/Foote, etc) will cover the requisite material better than I could hope to do here.

- jlezzy
::The "some editor" you refer to is either [[User:Aschlafly |the owner]] or myself and neither of us have a bizarre fascination with this subject. Mockful sarcasm doesn't get you far on this site and neither does a woefully inappropriate choice of username. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This poster was indeed rude, but can we get citations for any of this? I can't find any evidence that there are mathematicians who reject the method of residues for being non-elementary.

== Definition of Elementary proof ==

I would like to remove the statement about elementary proofs being those that cannot be broken down into smaller proofs. This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What so we mean by a 'smaller' proof? What do we mean by breaking a proof down into other proofs? Typically the proof of a long theorem is broken down by proving many of the steps as a lemma. This is done to make the proof of the main theorem easier to comprehend. This can be done with any theorem whose proof has more than one step. Any non-trivial theorem is bound to have many steps so I don't think that this is what the author intends. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:05, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:AndyJM, I really don't understand what your are finding so baffling about the concept of elementary proofs. The line you removed was an important statement, and as you can see, Andy (the owner) reinstated it with some clearer wording. If you do not have experience with elementary proofs, then please do not remove content from the articles -- you've been banned for such actions before. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:: Hi Foxtrot. I thought that I had clearly laid out what I find so baffling about one particular statement in this article. Did you read my comment? While I am not delighted with the addition that Schlafly made it is a definite improvement over what had been there. The vast majority (perhaps all) all the proofs that I have published could be classified as elementary according to the first definition, i.e. not using complex analysis. However I have no idea whether or not they would elementary according to the second definition. This suggests to me that the second definition could be a bit suspect or 'loose', so to speak. I am not out to cause trouble here, and despite your beliefs to the contrary I have not made any edits for ideological reasons. In fact to my mind mathematics is refreshingly free of ideology. Dia dhuit (to which the polite response is 'Dia is muire dhuit'). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think that anyone uses the term "elementary proof" as it is defined here. Here is more typical usage:
:Keep in mind that the word ‘elementary’ is being used in many dif-ferent ways in this discussion. In informal mathematical usage, ‘elemen-tary’ is often used to mean ‘simple’ or ‘easy to understand’. In the Sel-berg/Nathanson sense it is used to mean ‘avoiding the use of inﬁnitary (or analytic) methods’. The fact that Selberg’s proof of Dirichlet’s theorem is harder to understand than the standard analytic one shows that these two senses can be at odds! I have already noted that the use of the word ‘elementary’ in the phrase ‘elementary arithmetic’ is due to the fact that the axiom system is closely related to the class of ‘elementary functions’ in the sense of Kalmar. To complicate matters even further, among logicians the word ‘elementary’ is often used to mean ‘ﬁrst-order’. [http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/elementary.pdf]

As you can see, none of this matches what is in the article. I suggest that the article be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:07, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It certainly seems reasonable that not using AoC would be desirable for calling a proof elementary. However, in my experience, the notion of an elementary proof is closer to "not using mathematics from unrelated areas" than it is in avoiding specific techniques or axioms. In number theory, this usually entails avoiding the methods of complex analysis. But to me, it is perfectly natural to say "To avoid this, we next give an elementary proof, which uses Zorn's lemma in a typical way" in a paper on algebra, where the application is indeed typical. That excerpt is from "Some ring theoretic equivalents to the Axiom of Choice", easily googleable, and I find several other examples of authors citing AoC in "elementary" proofs. It's easy to ignore this as the work of sloppy authors and/or liberals, but clearly the usage defined in this CP is at the very least not universal, and indeed I have never encountered it. Might I modify the page to indicate that some authors use a different characterization of elementary proofs, and can we find a source that actually uses a definition resembling that here? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

: Your approach is the same as Wikipedia's, and unfortunately it does not withstand scrutiny. The objection to non-elementary proofs is not that they use math "from unrelated areas." There is no coherent objection to that.

: The real objection is that non-elementary proofs rely on additional assumptions. For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false, and an elementary proof is desirable because it does not rely on that assumption. The Axiom of Choice also includes a questionable assumption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::I am not questioning that there is a valid objection to using proofs that require additional assumptions, for example choice. This is a very reasonable view. I do question whether such proofs are actually called "elementary" by mathematicians. The case of applying complex analysis to number theory is non-elementary by either proposed definition. I have given one example in the literature which clearly contradicts the characterization of choice as necessarily non-elementary, and can easily find more. Can you please cite someone who uses your definition of an elementary proof? I'm willing to believe that this usage is in circulation, but this is the first I've run into it. --11:00, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::A Fields Medal was given for an elementary proof a few decades ago. Enough said? Isolated sloppiness or denial since then is no reason to reject the underlying logic behind the value of elementary proofs.

:::Most academic scientists today claim that man-made global warming is settled science, and that government can stop it. Such consensus does not make that claim true or logical.

:::Your definition of an elementary proof does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons I stated, which you did not address.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to argue about what would be the best definition of an elementary proof, or the importance elementary methods, which I appreciate. I just want to point out that the definition of "elementary proof" given here is not actually how the term is used in the mathematical literature, and I have supported this with a citation. As such I think this page needs some adjustment -- it gives a definition of "elementary proof" which is used, as far as I can tell until you provide a citation, by no one except you. It's quite possible that this would be a superior usage of the term, and I have no problem with the ideas on the page as it stands. I would only ask to add a disclaimer that when mathematicians use the term "elementary proof", this is not always what they mean (as indicated by the AoC example above). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:58, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, the entry does describe the traditional and only meaningful definition of "elementary proof." Your definition, which is also used by Wikipedia, is non-substantive and cannot explain why the prestigious Fields Medal was given for it. Nor does your definition explain why Paul Erdos, perhaps the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century, was such a stickler in preferring elementary proofs.

::::: Perhaps there are some new mathematicians who are in denial about the importance of elementary proofs. There are also new physicists who deny the importance of [[falsifiability]]. But self-described experts do not get to be the only watchdogs for their fields. Some accountability can and should come from outside the fields of expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::If that is indeed the traditional definition (i.e., if the traditional definition would necessarily exclude proofs using AoC), you should have no difficulty providing a relevant citation, and I won't argue any more! It is true that proofs involving choice are generally dispreferred, but as far as I know they have never been called "non-elementary". I have given a citation which contradicts your characterization, and can produce more -- please provide just one in favor of it! If your definition were indeed in use at all, I would expect that searching for "Tychonoff theorem non-elementary" would find some page describing this result as "non-elementary" since it is one of the most famous proofs involving choice. However, it does not, but it does find an "elementary" proof of the theorem (employing choice, of course).

::::::Of course some accountability from non-mathematicians is important, but this discussion isn't about whether proofs using AoC should be recognized as such and pointed out (such oversight is of course welcome). The question is whether the term "elementary proof" excludes all proofs using choice, and it seems to me that it does not.

::::::Historically this term originated to describe proofs in number theory which did not use complex analysis, a usage which now falls under either umbrella. Selberg's Fields Medal was for a variety of contributions (like the Nobel prize, it is given not for a single result, but for overall contributions to mathematics), the primary of which (according to the official citation) was his extension of Brun's work on the zeta function (showing that a positive proportion of zeroes lie on the critical line), decidedly non-elementary work! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:55, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mark, Conservapedia does not simply cut and paste quotes from others, many of whom has obvious self-serving biases. The logic underlying the concept of an "elementary proof" is clear and cannot seriously be disputed. You're not addressing the substance of the significance of an "elementary proof." Once you address that, it will become clear that proofs relying on the [[Axiom of Choice]] are not [[elementary proofs]]. It doesn't matter whether any math professors admit that or not. No math professor will publicly admit that the best mathematicians are men rather than women, but that denial does not alter the obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::This article defines a common mathematical term in a way in which it is not used by anyone and seems never to have been used. I infer that your last post cedes that mathematicians don't use it, though I still welcome a citation on the historical point, which should be easy to come by if the usage is indeed "traditional" as you have claimed. I'm not disputing the logic of what you call an "elementary proof", which is clear. I agree with you about the significance of proofs such as you describe, and am not addressing "the substance of the significance of an elementary proof'" only because it's not relevant to the point at hand: what I'm disputing the use of that term, which has a well-established meaning distinct from what you intend and is therefore inappropriate. What use is an encyclopedia article that simply makes up new definitions for well-known terms, even if these new definitions have a clear and important philosophy? This serves no purpose but to confuse readers trying to understand how the term is used and hurt the credibility of CP math generally. Why not invent a new phrase to describe proofs such as those you discuss, whose philosophy I agree is valuable? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:51, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Mark, you're no longer being substantive in responding to my comments. This entry defines "elementary proof" in the only meaningful way, and then applies it in a straightforward manner that cannot be logically disputed.

:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand these significant advantages. No proof ever assumes that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. There are two such roots, and there is no need to assume anything because the proofs are given in field theory textbooks. Elementary proofs are not necessarily any harder to simplify. A sophicated non-elementary proof might be only 2 lines long, and thus impossible to simplify except by removing reliance on other work. The axiom of choice is not any less rigorous than any other axiom. The whole article is nonsensical. You seem to want to suggest that some proofs are more rigorous than other proofs, but that is just not true at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:27, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:You're denying the significance of [[elementary proofs]], for which a Fields Medal has been awarded and to which Paul Erdos and many number theorists have been dedicated. But your denial does not address the substance. An elementary proof does rely on fewer assumptions than a non-elementary proof. There's no way around that fact, and it is significant.

:The view that "all proofs are equivalent no matter what theories they use" may be appealing to some, but it does not withstand scrutiny. Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:: Selberg did get a Fields Medal for an elementary proof of the prime number theorem, but I am not sure that anyone says that Selberg's proof is any better than any other. All of those proofs rest on the same set of assumptions. Can you give an example of an elementary proof that is better than a non-elementary proof because it relies on fewer assumptions? I agree that a proof not using the axiom of choice might be preferable, but can you give another example? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The notion that complex analysis depends on a purported uniqueness of the square root of -1 needs to be put to rest. There is no assumption that the square root of -1 has to be unique. And a good thing, too, because it isn't unique. No one denies that -1, like all nonzero numbers, has two square roots, that are negatives of each other. All nonzero numbers also have three cube roots, related by de Moivre's formula, and so on. Complex analysis does not rely on any such uniqueness. The complex numbers (or complex plane, or Argand diagram) is constructed from a special formal element "i", which simply serves as the second basis element of the vector space being constructed. The "square root of -1" and "i" are not the same thing. There are two square roots of -1, but only one "i". The square root of -1 doesn't even exist until the complex plane has been constructed, so it couldn't have been used in the construction.

The complex numbers, so constructed, are every bit as rigorous as the rational numbers, the real numbers, Hilbert spaces, Frechet spaces, Lie groups, symplectic groups, etc.

If there were any ambiguity in the interpretation of the "imaginary part" of a complex number, many fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering would fall apart. To pick just a few examples, the field of linear circuits in electrical engineering depends on the Laplace transform, which would not be well-defined if the imaginary unit "i" were not well-defined. Also, there could be no agreement on what the Schordinger equation of quantum mechanics means, or how the various quantum mechanical operators work. The Fourier transform would not be well-defined.

There may well be reasons why one would prefer a theorem of number theory that does not involve complex analysis, but such a proof's lack of rigor is not one of them.

We need to work out a careful survey of the things that make some proofs more complicated than other proofs of the same theorem, and how the word "elementary" is used to describe this, and what the various ramifications of this usage are. I'm willing to work on this. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:06, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:Beyond specific examples (and I haven't much to add to Patrick's exposition), Mr. Schlafly's general point that "Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable" is an important one, and I think that most mathematicians would agree with this. However, as Patrick explains, the use of complex analysis is not an additional assumption in any sense, and it is constructed and verified with complete rigor from nothing beyond ZF. So I'm mostly interested in AoC as it pertains to the notion of the elementary proof -- as RSchlafly had added, this seems to be by far the most important case where we find proofs with extra assumptions. More later on the issue of analytic number theory.

:Proofs avoiding choice are to be preferred for their weaker assumptions, as noted: for example, the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is a theorem for which there are two proofs: a quick trick relying on choice, and a slightly more nuanced proof without it. In my experience (both in studying and teaching), the latter is generally taught despite its relative difficulty. My only encounter with the former was as a homework problem introducing the application of AoC. My issue with this page is that the term "elementary proof" is not actually used to describe such proofs. There are other ways to characterize such proofs formally, but I'm not sure of any commonly-used term for them. I'd suggest that discussion of related issues ought to be incorporated into the article on AoC, and that this article be changed to reflect what the term actually means.

:I'd also reiterate that Selberg's Fields was awarded largely on the grounds of his contributions to the study of the zeta function, so to imagine that it was awarded for minimizing the use of complex analysis is fantasy. His proof was important, however, for the new methods that it made available to number theorists. Erdos's dedication to "elementary proofs" arose not from doubts about the validity of complex analysis (in the case of PNT and other problems in number theory), but rather from the intrinsic aesthetic appeal of proofs which don't make use of unnecessarily powerful methods. A proof which does not crack a nut with a sledgehammer (as older proofs of PNT did) is more beautiful than one that does, and Erdos deeply valued "beautiful" proofs. It is these proofs, which expose the profound and elegant nature of the theorems they establish, that are to be found "in the book".

:An unrelated issue is that there seem to be two notions of elementary proof used in this article, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Selberg's proof of PNT is magnificently complicated, though it avoids the methods of analytic number theory. It's not a proof that I would say "cannot be improved by expressing it in simpler form" -- indeed the analytic proofs are far simpler. It's true that at heart these have a different method, but it's my understanding that a touch of complex analysis can simplify the Selberg argument while leaving its fundamental insights intact. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:24, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

::The talk-to-substance ratio is very high in the above replies, and that's not a good sign. Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this.

::Proofs that rely on this assumption are obviously less favored than proofs that do not, and hence the important concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Deny its importance all you want, but the beauty of logic is that it doesn't matter who accepts or denies it. The logic remains as truthful regardless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:26, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

== Errors ==

This page is frankly bizarre. I can't imagine a working mathematician agreeing with much of it in its current state.

: 1. The assertion that an elementary proof "uses only real numbers or real analysis rather than the use of complex analysis" agrees with the cited MathWorld stub, but that stub misrepresents its source, Hoffman's book on Erdos. The original source says, "In this context, elementary means that the proof of the formula relies on a restricted set of numbers, the so-called real numbers...", the context being Erdos avoiding the "heavy machinery" including complex analysis employed by Hardy and Ramanujan in an asymptotic estimate of the partition function. An elementary proof is not in general characterized by the avoidance of complex analysis but rather by the avoidance of any "heavy machinery" whatsoever (like, say, the Hahn-Banach theorem, which in its real formulation is very much a part of real analysis). A decent test for the elementary-ness of a proof is whether a bright high-schooler could follow it. The definition needs to be re-written and a better source found. It should also be noted that the definition is inherently vague and different people disagree on the finer points.

: 2. The assertion that non-elementary proofs rely "on less rigorous axioms, such as the Axiom of Choice" is misleading. The axiom of choice is not "less rigorous" than, say, the axiom of infinity--it simply asserts an assumption; rigor does not enter in. The axiom of choice is somewhat controversial, though; "less controversial axioms" in the above would be true.

: 3. "...but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by Paul Erdos and Atle Selberg earned Selberg the highest prize in math" -- it's misleading to imply Selberg's elementary proof was the only thing that got him his Fields medal. "helped earn" would be correct and would avoid a digression into discussing Selberg's work.

: 4. "avoiding the assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one" -- this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding which may underlie my second point. The existence of complex numbers is not an "assumption" in the sense mathematicians use. Typically, one assumes some basic facts about set theory (say the ZF axioms, which includes the axiom of infinity I mentioned before) and uses those to build up algebraic objects. The existence of complex numbers satisfying the usual properties is then a *consequence* of these background assumptions (which are also used in elementary proofs) rather than an assumption itself. The use of complex analysis does not entail the use of a new assumption [nitpick: the axiom of dependent choice is typically added to the usual ZF axioms to do complex analysis, though that's rather uncontroversial and is also used in real analysis, almost always implicitly because it's so intuitive]. Again, the point of an elementary proof is that it uses no "heavy machinery"; I've never actually seen an elementary proof that used fewer assumptions than a non-elementary counterpart even though this page mentions that phenomenon several times. An example (keeping in mind the proper mathematician's idea of an "assumption") would be helpful.

: 5. The article does not discuss this, but elementary proofs are not always preferred. Elementary proofs tend to be very long and rather messy--a famous solution to the Basel problem comes to mind as an example. If one uses non-elementary Fourier analysis, one can solve the problem in less than half a page by computing the Fourier coefficients of f(x) = x and applying Parseval's theorem. The elementary alternative I'm aware of fiddles around with trigonometric identities and polynomial arithmetic for quite a while, is tedious, and is actually much harder to follow. The formulation I'm aware of also uses complex numbers, though not complex analysis.

I'd also like to say that Aschlafly should probably avoid editing this page. The quote, "For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of assumptions in mathematics and also shows his ignorance about the subject. The construction of complex numbers from real numbers is quite simple: mod the ring of one-variable real polynomials by the ideal generated by (x^2 + 1); this is the standard splitting field construction in this special case. There is no additional assumption necessary, just more machinery (rings, ideals, quotients, etc.).

I haven't edited the article since (from this talk page) doing so seems rather controversial.

[[User:Elproof|Elproof]] 19:45, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:These are nitpicky points, and I don't see why any of them would require any changes to the entry. I address each point:

::(1) Your comment complains about the definition, but does not offer a better one. Instead, your comment says the definition is "vague", but then uses even vaguer terminology like "heavy machinery" or whether "a bright high-schooler could follow it."

::(2) Your comment that "less rigorous" should be replaced by "less controversial" would, again, be a step in the wrong direction. "Controversy" does not delineate limits on truth. [[Jesus Christ]] was no less truthful simply because he was (and is) controversial.

::(3) This point is silly and does not merit a response.

::(4) It's obviously not the number of assumptions that matter, but the lack of rigor in the assumptions made. Assuming that there is a unique square root of -1 is a highly non-rigorous, even implausible, assumption underlying complex analysis.

::(5) "but elementary proofs are not always preferred ..." by whom? One doesn't allow a fox to guard a henhouse, and neither mathematicians nor politicians should be setting their own rules as they go, or else before long all sorts of nonsensical "proofs" might be asserted by some academics at [[liberal]] institutions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::: There is no point in arguing with you. You seem to have already permanently made up your mind. I will be leaving Conservapedia after finishing this post; please don't cry. I would thank you to read the rest, though, since I read yours.

::: Your response is unfortunately what I expected--prompt, ignorant of mathematical convention, argumentative, mathematically incorrect, rude, off-topic, political, religious, incomplete, and badly reasoned. It's characterized by the misapplication of decent general principles, often due to faulty reasoning by analogy (apparently a favorite of yours?). You are a high-functioning but certainly insane person. That would be fine, except that you're also productive, verbose, and superficially authoratative, so a small fraction of the population listens to you. You are unfortunately intelligent: if you were a little stupider, you'd have no audience, and if you were a little smarter, you'd see your own insanity.

::: I had hoped to edit the article to correct some obvious mistakes, but on a larger scale I had hoped that Conservapedia was interested in correct articles vetted by experts, at least on what I expected to be an uncontroversial topic. That hope, as I predicted initially, has been dashed. I wanted to test Conservapedia for myself and now have. Thankfully, I can soon leave this dark corner of the internet.

::: I have a request. Please, delete this article. It's not a terribly important term and the article is short. Its content does not conform to Conservapedia's guidelines either: "Conservapedia articles [sic] tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus" (taken from the Quick Reference page). The current page has none of those focuses since it mentions nothing about region, politics, or religion. Many mathematics articles likely fail in the same way, which makes me curious why you allow them on Conservapedia at all. Perhaps all Mathematics-category articles should be deleted?

::: There are other reasons to delete this article. It has generated an order of magnitude more talk than content which wastes your time. This article also makes Conservapedia look bad compared to Wikipedia since the Wikipedia version is longer, more detailed, a little better sourced, and has no talk on its talk page whatsoever, let alone numerous unfruitful debates (which, frankly, make you look terrible; even your own people repeatedly point out your ignorance throughout this page--why they don't simply leave is beyond me).

::: Please feel free to ban me and/or delete this account. I won't be back so it doesn't matter. I do wish you a happy life, Andy, though I also wish it were in seclusion so that your brand of crazy couldn't infect anyone else.

::: P.S. I'm gay. I read your article on homosexuality, since some of the worst atrocities ever occurred because of close-mindedness. It makes some good points: gay men have high STD rates and often pursue very unsafe sex; some men can convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality behaviorally; "homophobe" is thrown around too frequently. However, there is no discussion whatsoever of loving long-term gay relationships. Reading the article one gets the impression that being gay means taking meth and attending a circuit party every night until you die of AIDS after beating up your boyfriend and infecting your wife; the best parts of homosexuality are entirely ignored. Do not simply ignore difficult points. You've done the same thing repeatedly on this page by not responding to RSchlafly's questions, and you didn't respond to my own point that you should refrain from editing an article you are so inexpert in. You also did the same with a group of your own students in an episode discussing grading irregularities I stumbled across--you even called their points "nitpicky" just like you did with me. Enough. You're a fool and your web site is mostly garbage; neither of you are worth any more of my time. [[User:Elproof|Elproof]] 08:38, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

== Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis ==

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Where are you getting your information that complex analysis requires there to be a unique square root of −1? I am currently taking a complex analysis course, and I understand that there are two square roots of −1, namely ''i'' and −''i''.1 I don't see how this undermines complex analysis. It may help to examine how complex numbers are derived in the first place. (The interested reader may consult ''Complex Function Theory'', 2nd ed., by Sarason, sections I.1 and I.2.)

#We define a set <math>\mathbb{C}</math> to consist of all ordered pairs of real numbers.
#We define addition of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) + (c, d) := (a + c, b + d)</math></center>
#We define multiplication of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) \cdot (c, d) := (ac - bd, ad + bc)</math></center>
#We verify the following about <math>+</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is assoiciatve
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>0 := (0, 0)</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a + 0 = a = 0 + a</math>
##For every element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists an additive inverse <math>-a</math> such that <math>a + (-a) = 0 = (-a) + a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is an [[abelian group]] under addition.
#We verify the following about <math>\cdot</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is associative
##It has the distributive property over addition
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>1 := (1, )</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a \cdot 1 = a = 1 \cdot a</math>
##For every nonzero element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists a multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) <math>a^{-1}</math> such that <math>a \cdot a^{-1} = 1 = a^{-1} \cdot a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a [[field]].
#We consider the subset <math>S = \{(a, 0)|a \in \mathbb{R}\} \subseteq \mathbb{C}</math> We note that there is a natural [[isomorphism]] from <math>S</math> to <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. Thus, we can associate elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> with zero second coordinate with real numbers.
#As notation, we write the ordered pair <math>(a, b)</math> as <math>a + bi</math>. This is just notation. We note that it does not constitute an [[abuse of notation]] since <math>(a, b) = (a, 0) + (0, b)</math>, so the complex number notated by <math>a + bi</math> is really the sum of the complex numbers <math>a + 0i</math> and <math>0 + bi</math>.
#We can also use natural shorthand for the <math>a + bi</math> notation. In particular, we can write <math>i</math> to represent the element <math>(0, 1) \in \mathbb{C}</math>. Note that <math>i^2 = (0, 1)\cdot(0, 1) = (-1, 0) = -1</math>.

This is how complex numbers are typically derived. (One could of course, define them to be the cosets in the quotient field <math>\mathbb{R}[x]/(x^2 + 1)</math>; this is clearly equivalent to the derivation above.) Please let me know where you see a fault in this derivation.

1Incidentally, [[Galois theory]] tells us that there cannot be a unique nonreal solution to a polynomial with real coefficients. Considering <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as a field extension of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, we note that the [[Galois group]] of <math>\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}</math>, which consists of all automorphisms of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> that fix elements of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, has precisely two members: the identity function and the function taking complex numbers to their complex conjugate (which we will denote <math>\phi</math>. Suppose that
<math>f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots + a_n x^n</math> is a polynomial with real coefficients that has a root <math>r</math>. Then,
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 r + \cdots + a_n x^n</math>. We apply the aforementioned <math>\phi</math> to both sides; the application of this function leaves <math>0</math> and all the coefficients <math>a_0, \ldots, a_n</math> unchanged. What we get is
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 \bar{r} + \cdots + a_n \bar{r}^n</math>. This means that <math>\bar{r}</math>, the complex conjugate of <math>r</math>,
is also a root of <math>f</math>. Thus, any polynomial in real coefficients with a nonreal root <math>r</math> also has
<math>\bar{r}</math> as a root. In particular, complex square roots of <math>-1</math> are roots of the polynomial
<math>x^2 + 1</math>, and since we know this polynomial has no real solutions, the two roots guaranteed by the [[fundamental theorem of algebra]] must be a complex conjugate pair. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Please

:By "unique", it includes unique pair. Also, it looks like you double-posted above and please feel free to delete any duplicate. I look forward to reviewing your analysis further on [[Resurrection Sunday]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:19, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Complex analysis assumes, for example, not only that the square root of -1 exists, but that the cube of the square root of -1 is always equal to the negative of itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::: Why do you say "assumes"? All of those properties are provable from either of the above two definitions of the complex numbers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Really, that one is obvious: x²+1=0 ⇒ x³ = x(x²+1-1)=x(-1)=-x No further assumptions are needed, only basic algebra.... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:05, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If something could be "defined to exist," then we could simply define "God to exist, let's call Him '''''g'''''," and that would end any debate about the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::: That is how all of mathematics is. Objects are defined to exist. Then they are proved to be well-defined. It is the same for all other numbers, functions, spaces, and other mathematical objects. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Defining the square root of -1 to exist is different from other mathematical definitions, because the square root of -1 is known not to exist. It is analogous to defining the square root of 2 to be rational without the immediate contradictions.

:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Now you're just being silly. Maths is not religion and maths is not a physical science. In mathematics one can define any structure one likes, logical consistency is all that is required. In that sense, complex numbers are perfectly well defined. Mathematical structures may or may not be useful for describing reality, but that has to be checked by comparing predictions from mathematical theories to experimental results or observations. Even then, mathematical structures are not (physical) reality, they are tools to describe reality. Complex numbers have proved to be extremely useful in many fields of science and engineering. Aren't you an electrical engineer or something like that? Did you not find complex numbers useful? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There are people who define God to be the universe, or physical law, or the first cause, or the essence of goodness, or something similar. To a mathematician, such a definition could indeed serve to define God and to prove that he exists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: Responding to Frederick, I would never doubt that complex numbers can be useful. So are approximations, estimates, predictions about the future, intuition, and prayer. The issue is whether a mathematical proof that resorts to use of complex numbers is as rigorous as an [[elementary proof]]. The answer is obviously "no".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:17, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: Obvious? On the contrary, no mathematical proof is more rigorous than any other mathematical proof. A proof is either rigorous or it is not, whether it uses complex numbers or any other mathematical construct. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:52, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::: That's unnecessary semantics. Replace "rigorous" with whatever substitute you prefer, but a proof that relies on fewer or less doubtful assumptions is more [rigorous/robust/credible/advantageous] than one that relies on many or more doubtful assumptions. For example, a proof that relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] is not as good as one that solves the same problem without resorting to that axiom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:19, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::How about intuitive? That seems to be the main concern here, that imaginary numbers are not something we can easily wrap our heads around. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 15:23, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Slightly off-topic, but you might be interested in physical evidence for complex numbers. According to this new paper [http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1858], imaginary numbers are the most crucial difference between classical and quantum mechanics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:50, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?

2012-04-01T20:54:03Z

JustinD: /* Liberal Media */

==Body Doubles==
Castro was well known to have body doubles available in case of an emergency. Seeing as he was in such poor health a few years ago, and is now well enough to see the Pope, it is only logical to conclude that it probably isn't the same guy.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dead-castros-body-double-looking-moderately-healthy/

[[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:29, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:The beard in the photos released today for the purported Fidel Castro is also slightly different from Castro's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::So you can't think of any seriously ill person who recovered somewhat in a mere six years? Sorry, this is daft. What evidence would it take to convince some people that Castro is still alive? Is there ''anything'' that won't be dismissed as a fake?

::People can shrink several inches as they age, by the way. Castro was 6'3" when he was young; Ratzinger is 5'7" NOW. And my beard is slightly different to how it was last week because I trimmed it on Saturday, like I do every week, to look smart in church. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:40, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, the Pope would have shrunk by more than Castro, I think. And do you think the shape of a nose changes from sloping slightly upward to sloping downward in just a few years?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::What I think is that the nose in these photos is exactly the same shape as the nose in a 2003 photo of Castro. As for the pope, as I said he is 5'7" ''now''. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:46, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Castro has a long history of using body doubles. It is unlikely that Havana would simply stop using them once he died. Or perhaps you think that the Cuban government wants Castro-lookalikes roaming the streets of Havana! Ridiculous! [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:50, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::I don't see why not. The main reason that dictators use body doubles is to hide their movements or act as a decoy for potential assassins. Neither of these uses is much help to a dead man. The fact is that there is no evidence ''whatsoever'' that Castro is dead, but multiple photos and videos of him and records of several meetings in the last two years with individuals including the pope and the president of Brazil. Sure, they ''could'' all be body doubles, but you can say the same for anyone. Actors also use body doubles. I can claim right now that Clint Eastwood died in 1968 and every appearance by him since then has really been a body double. By your criteria, how are you going to disprove it? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:55, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::If you display a photo of a man a half-foot shorter than Clint Eastwood with a differently shaped nose, and lacking in other facial features, as the Miami Herald just published with respect to the alleged Fidel Castro, then that would disprove it. Surely you're not claiming that photo identification is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::I don't see this difference in nose shape you're talking about and in the photos it's clear that Castro is several inches taller than Ratzinger. I've checked several photos of Castro and his various facial markings look identical to those in the latest photos. In any case there's no evidence that Castro is dead and I don't understand your insistence that he is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:13, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The man in the picture looks like Fidel Castro to me. He seems quite hunched over, which would explain why he doesn't tower over the pope.
:::::::Additionally, it must be quite hard to find a lookalike for an 80-year-old. Cuba is not a large or wealthy country, so how many 80-year-olds could they possibly have to choose from? The probability that they would have a plausible Castro lookalike capable of fooling the pope and his retinue seems low to me - perhaps less than 1%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:49, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Straight from ''Weekly World News'' ==

Could a communistic state pull such a stunt? Maybe. But there are many obstacles:
*How many conspirators are there? Nurses, doctors, make-up artists etc.
*You give power to a random character, something dictators don't like very much. And you allow this character to meet the pope!

Aschlafly, this claim is as sane as the claim that ''Elvis is ALIVE!!!1!1!'' - and your case isn't any more convincing! In fact, you are looking like a lunatic quoting from ''[http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/22008/castro-flees-cuba-for-america/ Weekly World News]''. You had a hunch, and no reasonable evidence in the world will change your position! What does this say about your open-mindedness? This is almost as bad as your stance against physical reality at [[E=mc²]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Height ==

To me Castro looks significantly taller, easily the difference between 6'3" and 5'7". Look at the picture of both men seated: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/03/28/15/16/86-OZ0Nk.St.55.jpg . The standing photos are consistent with tall older men whose posture begins to deteriorate. I can't speak to the other inconsistencies but I think we should be wary of [[confirmation bias]].[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:36, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Yes ==

[[User:FrancisB52|FrancisB52]] 14:13, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== No ==

I am not convinced that the real Fidel Castro is dead. With that said, to assume it is him and not question it, is to remain closed-minded and spoon-fed. Secretive groups like Communists, I think the phrase is Trust but Verify. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:41, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's certainly ''possible'' that Castro is dead and it would be closed-minded to rule it out completely, but let's face it: there's no actual reason to think he is and for a dead guy he's not exactly been shy about his public appearances the last couple of years. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:52, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::Exactly. Personally I think Andrew Schlafly was murdered two years ago by a liberal godless homosexual and, to guarantee the survival of the encyclopedia, Conservative replaced him with a lookalike who thinks and writes exactly like he did. Prove me wrong! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 17:17, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

"he's not exactly been shy about his public appearances the last couple of years"??? [[Fidel Castro]] has not appeared in public since the frail man had a very serious operation in a Cuban hospital about six years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:Yes he has. He met Cristina Kirchner in 2009. He spoke to the National Assembly in August 2010, and I think they might have recognised him. In September 2010 he spoke to a crowd outside the presidential palace. He publicly launched his memoirs this February. He's also made a couple of appearances on Cuban TV and met the presidents of Venezuela and Brazil. To say he hasn't appeared in public since 2006 is just wrong. Admittedly you can say that all those appearances were body doubles, but then you're just making an unfalsifiable argument: no evidence will change your mind. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:01, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have an open mind about this. Do you have a link for your best claim above? I don't think the alleged meetings with the presidents of Venezuela and Brazil were public appearances.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Here is an article from the conservative ''Daily Telegraph'' about Castro launching his memoirs, with [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/fidel-castro/9062507/Fidel-Castro-makes-rare-public-appearance-at-Havana-book-launch.html video]. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:16, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

::::And [http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/cuba/2009-01-21/fidel-castro-met-cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner here] is a photo of Castro with Kirchner in 2009. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:21, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::[http://www.perfil.com/fotogaleria/?filename=contenidos/2011/06/22/noticia_0007.html&fotoNro=1 Here] is Castro visiting Hugo Chavez in hospital last June. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:Fidel Castro is alive. While it is true that Soviet communist governments lied about the health of their leaders [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/27/world/for-many-russians-daily-struggle-eclipses-yeltsin-issue.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm], to stubbornly stick to the notion that Fidel Castro is dead or probably dead is pointless at this time. I don't think the proclamation that he is dead or probably dead should have been made in the first place. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::"Conservative" ''Daily Telegraph''? Perhaps you're joking now. Regardless, the link I checked from your postings was not a public appearance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::Well it's right-wing, pro-USA, pro-Israel, pro-Christianity and anti-homosexual marriage, so I'm not sure what else I would call it. Anyway, the video showed Castro speaking to a large room full of people, which certainly seems public to me. The same article has a link to another talk by Castro the same day, about the Falkland Islands. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:53, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Fidel called me today and bitterly complained about the Conservapedia atheism article which currently ranks #5 for atheism at Google Cuba. :) [http://www.google.com.cu/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=es-419&biw=1024&bih=560&q=atheism&oq=atheism&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2756l3479l0l4197l7l6l0l0l0l0l126l539l1j4l5l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a9b6f6d949da842d] I told him, "Hasta la vista" and then hung up on him. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:54, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Several of the [[communist]]s in the "public" meeting Sam refers to above were probably Fidel's golfing buddies, and perhaps they all scored holes-in-one too in a round of golf with Fidel recently!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Do you love being told your wrong? ==

King Solomon wrote: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you." - Proverbs 9:8

Pastor C. J. Maheney wrote: "Since God often uses the criticism of others to reveal the idols of our hearts and to accelerate our growth in humility, pastors should be eager to receive criticism. I should be eager to receive correction, but usually I’m not. And it’s no mystery why I’m not eager to receive criticism—I’m a proud man."[http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/category/wisdom-2b-foolishness.aspx]

Andy, if memory serves and I believe it does, in the early days of this wiki you said that you hate being shown your wrong or something very similar to that. Do you love being shown your wrong?

Here is an excellent sermon give at the I'll Be Honest YouTube Christian YouTube channel: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBsVH_TBxHg Accepting correction]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:(your wrong > you're wrong) [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:20, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

==His Castroness is alive==
In my opinion I believe Castro to be alive, for several reasons. First, he's wilyer that a coyote with a subscription to Acme; he knows how to stay alive. Second, he sends out for his doctors, so why should he risk the Cuban health care system when there's a better way to do it just a phone call away to an overseas location?

Third, and most important, they didn't parade his corpse about the country yet. Liberal, leftist commie societies, having lost any respect for God and the Ten Commandments, have a habit of fawning over their dear leaders so much that it breaks the first two commandments on the list. Think of how they reacted to Che's burial; lot's of tears (or was it drool?) involved. Think of Lenin (mummified and displayed); Stalin (ditto); Ho Chi whatever, Chairman Mao, the pair of Kim's (served under glass); and any one of the post-Stalin Russian pinkos who just had to be reported dead before the stench of decomposition informed the public before Pravda could.

Yes, His Fidelness is very much alive, because if he were dead every liberal in LaLa Land and beyond would weep and wail before that cigar-chomping commie would be reduced to room temperature. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:But in Cuba Fidel's politically weaker brother Raul wanted to take and hold power. In addition, Republicans were in the White House at the time (2006) and Cuban exiles in Florida would have called for open elections if Fidel's passing had been announced. Raul had an enormous incentive not to announce that Fidel had passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:52, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::Republicans and Cuban exiles have been rightly calling for open elections in Cuba for a long time. However I don't think Cuba cares very much. The fact is there is no reason to think Castro is dead. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:40, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Liberal Media ==

Presumably the liberal American media couldn't have known in advance that Cuba would have used a fake Castro, right? They weren't clamoring for the Pope to meet the fake Castro, they were clamoring for the Pope to meet the real Castro. The Cuba media (communist media) wasn't clamoring for it in the first place. So I'm not sure what the point of invoking that is. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Smart folks in the liberal American media know that Cuba is probably using a fake Fidel Castro. If nothing else, leftists know how much other leftists rely on [[deceit]]. A careful review of liberal media articles about Fidel Castro shows that they are cautious in how they report about him, lest the truth leak out and embarrass them. Hence there are no calls by the liberal media for Obama to meet Fidel Castro.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::That is because the US does not engage in diplomatic relations with Cuba, and has not for more than 50 years. This is basic US history. [[User:MikeGardner|MikeGardner]] 15:41, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Bill Clinton]], while president, met with [[Fidel Castro]]. [http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82686&page=1] Why isn't the [[liberal media]] asking [[Barack Obama]] to do likewise???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Well, according to that article, Clinton's meeting was brief, unplanned and nonsubstantive and yet still led to criticism from anti-Castro groups and forced the White House to state officially that no change in policy was intended. Given the backlash following such an innocuous event, I, for one, am not at all surprised that no one is asking for Obama to meet with Cuban leaders. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:54, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2012-03-11T06:07:12Z

JustinD: /* Seriously? */

== Yes ==

He does, but He doesn't intervene with modern times. Tim Tebow's 316 yards is just a coincidence, and there isn't much reason to think otherwise. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:55, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:If God has a sense of humor, then it seems highly implausible that He would not intervene to enjoy the humor. Under your view, what would God find funny if not by intervention?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== No ==

== Not applicable ==

God is not a human being and is above human psychological traits. The "logic" argument appears to create God in the image of man, which verges on the blasphemous. The argument is fallacious: Just replace "sense of humor" with some less pleasant traits, like "Man has to relieve himself regularly in the bathroom. Does God have to go to the bathroom?" Obviously not! As regards the history argument, you should read the comedies of [[Aristophanes]], written around 400 BC. They are very funny! --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:09, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Emotions like humor are not physical. God surely does have other emotions like love, anger, sorrow, joy, etc., and man has them as well after being created in God's image.

:Pre-Christian Greek "humor" tends to be very simple, and barely funny by today's more sophisticated standards as developed by the Christian world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:34, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== Atilla the Hun ==

I had no idea this guy was a leading political leader! Which elections did he run in? Which party did he belong to? - was it the Democrats? Just joking - this article is supposed to be about a sense of humour. By the way, watch the British comedy 'The thick of it' if you want to fully appreciate political humour. On second thoughts maybe 'yes minister' might be more your style - it's less sweary. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:13, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Politics is a broader concept than [[democracy]]. Or do you think that [[Julius Caesar]] was not a political leader?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Here's the last known clip of Julius Caesar meeting a voter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw He he [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:33, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== Seriously? ==

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation.
:''This doesn't even make sense.''
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''
*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

'''Each point is addressed below''':

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''

::No, this would deny many other emotions that God sure does have: love, joy, sorrow, anger, etc., all documented in the Bible.

*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation
:''This doesn't even make sense.''

::A non-response requires no answer, but humor developed immensely along with Christianity, and arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity.

*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''

::Again, a non-response requires no answer. Are you claiming something about his sense of humor?

*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''

::That doesn't merit a response either.

*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''

::You have to explain yourself better if you want a response.

*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

::The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:29, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:::"The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small." Well, let's see. A QB is going to throw for some number of yards between 0 and (say) 600 and complete somewhere between 0 and (say) 40 passes. Given how Tebow was used last year, the range is probably much smaller for each, but let's go with that. So the odds of coincidentally completing 10 passes for 316 yards is (at most) 1 in 24,000. Then we'd have to divide that by the number of other verses he's had on his eye black (there are at least two: Proverbs 3:5-6[http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2009/09/tebow-draws-more-attention-for-eyeblack-messages.html] and Philippians 4:13 [http://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-tebow-explains-why-he-tebows-uses-bible-verses-70824/]). So now we're down to at most 1 in 8,000. We could stop there, but I'd probably divide by the number of NFL games he's started (1 in 571) or at least the number of playoff games he's started (1 in 4,000). I suppose it's open to interpretations, but I wouldn't call that "vanishingly small" and think it's well within the realm of coincidence. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:07, 11 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Special rights

2012-03-11T05:49:36Z

JustinD: /* What's so special? */ new section

== What? ==

Special rights apparently now means rights afforded to everyone else, but not to you all because you all don't believe in the same interpretations of thousands of year old texts that we do. [[User:JamesArtois|JamesArtois]] 23:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== What's so special? ==

So, this probably isn't the right place for this and I'm fine if someone decides to move/delete it, but I've never been able to reconcile the argument that (a)allowing same-sex marriage would confer "special rights" to homosexuals which aren't available to heterosexuals with the argument that (b) homosexuals already have the right to marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. It seems to me that I can believe one or the other, but not both. Am I missing something? I'm asking here because I think it might have something to do with exactly how we define "special rights," but I can't quite see it. Help? [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:49, 11 March 2012 (EST)

18 USC § 1030

2012-02-28T04:03:44Z

JustinD:

'''18 USCS § 1030''': [[Fraud]] and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever--
:(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y.[(y)] of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 USCS § 2014(y)], with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
:(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
::(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
::(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
::(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
:(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
:(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period;
:(5) (A) (i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
:::(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
:::(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
::(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
:::(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value;
:::(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
:::(iii) physical injury to any person;
:::(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
:::(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
:(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029 [18 USCS § 1029]) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--
::(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
::(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [or]
:(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is--
:(1) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(2) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if--
:::(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
:::(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
:::(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $ 5,000; and
::(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(3) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(4), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this section;
:(4) (A) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(C) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under either subsection, that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; and
:(5) (A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
::(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.

(d)
:(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section.
:(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title [18 USCS § 3056(a)].
: (3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.

(e) As used in this section--
: (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
:: (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
:: (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
: (3) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other common-wealth, possession or territory of the United States;
: (4) the term "financial institution" means--
:: (A) an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
:: (B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
:: (C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
:: (D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
:: (E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
:: (F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USCS § 78o];
:: (G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
:: (H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 [12 USCS § 3101(1) and (3)]); and
:: (I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act;
: (5) the term "financial record" means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution;
: (6) the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
: (7) the term "department of the United States" means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive department enumerated in section 101 of title 5;
: (8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
: (9) the term "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
: (10) the term "conviction" shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
: (11) the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and
: (12) the term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, govern-mental entity, or legal or other entity.

(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection [enacted Sept. 13, 1994], concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).

(i)
(1) The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, or convicted of conspiracy to violate this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person forfeit to the United States—
(A) such person’s interest in any personal property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and
(B) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.

(j) For purposes of subsection (i), the following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
(1) Any personal property used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section.
(2) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section

[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Majoring in Mathematics

2012-02-28T03:22:06Z

JustinD: /* Homomorphism */

This is an extremely rough outline for this new article. I will continue to expand it over the next few weeks based on feedback about the appropriateness of the problems and other suggestions for improvements. Please let me know what you think! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:12, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
::well I was a math major in college many years ago (before Rubic's cube!) Suggest adding statistics.
:::Ah, good idea. At my undergrad school mathematics and statistics were separate programs, but I guess this isn't typical. I'll throw in a new section. I'm not much for statistics -- can anyone suggest some good problems? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:20, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Tremendous work, Mark. I'll try to add something for probability or statistics, which I studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
:Great, thanks. These are subjects in which I'm inexpert. Now I'm inclined to move Probability/Statistics to a "field" along with algebra, analysis, etc. Please add a nice problem or theorem if you have any in mind! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:24, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Terrific analysis on what college mathematics is not. That should be required reading for many seeking to major in math!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Why is there no mention of the bible or theology in this article? It should be mentioned, as it is in [[Axiom_of_Infinity]], that the notion of an infinite set is somewhat blasphemous. [[User:Tomkup32|Tomkup32]] 10:58, 9 December 2009 (EST)

For Bezout's theorem, you have some inaccurate claims: the line x+y=0 and x+y=1 never interset. We need to move to projective space for the degree of the intersection to be exactly mn.

== Liberal bias ==

How can there be liberal bias in math? Does saying 1+1 = 2 have a motive?[[User:SusanP|SusanP]] 23:29, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:College math is not completely immune to liberal influences that have destroyed other subjects like physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Can you give an example of liberal bias in math? --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:Possible liberal bias--the study of so-called "homomorphisms" in modern liberal algebra could be part of the gay agenda?--[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::No, sorry, that's absurd and I think you know it. "Homo" simply means same and is used in a wide variety of contexts that have nothing to do with liberal bias. Is homogenized milk liberal bias? Or homonyms? Homophones? I've already reverted your addition to the article once, so I won't do it again just yet, but please consider removing or modifying it yourself.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 19:32, 24 February 2012 (EST)
::There is a crucial difference between your examples and my claim. A homophone describes two words sounding the same but being different. Bat is not a homophone with bat, that doesn't make sense. Saying wind and wind are homophones acknowledges that they sound the same but are different words. A homomorphism allows groups that are different, like Z_2xZ_2 and the Klein four group, to be treated as equal. Additionally the global warming obsession is prolific. I didn't mean my writing to sound flippant, and perhaps its tone can be improved, but it was certainly not meant as a joke.
:::I'm not sure I see the "crucial difference" you're seeing. I don't know what you mean by saying that homomorphisms "allow[] groups that are different . . . to be treated as equal." What do you mean by "treated as equal"? Obviously, if a homomorphism exists between two groups it shows that there are certain structural similarities between the two groups, but this hardly means that they are equal. The fact that 124 and 490 are both even shows that there are certain similarities between them (namely that each includes 2 in its prime factorization), but that doesn't mean we treat them as equal and it certainly isn't evidence that evenness is the result of some sort of liberal bias. Also, I think you have your examples backwards. Bat (animal) is a homophone with bat (sports) because both are pronounced the same but have different meanings. Wind (air flow) is not a homophone with wind (watches) because the pronunciation differs. They are, however, homographs. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:23, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::Haha you are absolutely right, my apologies. I thought I had picked a word specifically with no homophones. Allow me to elaborate: saying that 124 and 490 are both even emphasizes similarities which is fine. But consider a statement like "there is only one group of order 3." There are clearly many, because you can define one on any set with 3 elements. Nevertheless, you will never hear discussion of the many different groups of order 3, they are all lumped together because of homomorphisms. Compare this with the professor value of refusing to distinguish between men and women. To say men and women are both children of God is to discuss similarities while acknowledging differences, as in saying 124 and 490 are both even. To say men and women are basically the same, as universities today do, is consistent with saying that groups are essentially the same. I hope that clarifies what I was struggling to say before. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:::::They key point you are missing, however, is that in many, many subjects, such as in mathematical aptitude, there is no functional difference between male and female. So yes, in many situations, women and men are essentially the same.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 15:15, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::::::If that statement were true, then why are the top achievers on difficult math contests (such as the Putnam exam) more than 90% male, and less than 10% female?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 26 February 2012 (EST)\
::::::: I can't vouch for this on a national level, but when I took the Putnam at UConn last year, about 90% of the participants were male. If that's true at a national level (and I don't know if it is) then it stands to reason. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:28, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::::: It's gotten so bad that now they make women put red stickers on the exams so they can graded differently! Women often have separate prizes too.--Bogart12

::::::::I don't know why anyone (i.e., liberals) would expect or pretend that God created men and women to have absolutely identical aptitudes in everything. Men and women are physically very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 27 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Mr. Schlafly, lets assume you represent the average conservative male. We know that conservatives are smarter than liberals. However, you assume that women are somehow poorer at math than a male of comparable upbringing, and conservative women usually listen to their fathers and other good, conservative influences. This subtle (or overt) bias leads to scores of smart, conservative women turning away from math in favor of biology and social science. This leads to the only potential female math majors being liberal, who then reinforce this stereotype. Otherwise, if women were biologically incapable of doing math as well as men can, the percentage of female mathematics PHD holders would remain at a constant 0%, instead of gradually increasing as the years pass on.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 17:35, 27 February 2012 (EST)

:::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms.
:::::This is getting a bit off topic, but if Andy and you are right and (liberal?) universities improperly equate the aptitude of men and women (by analogy, posit a homomorphism between men and women), we shouldn't conclude that the positing of all equivalences is liberal bias (by analogy, that homomorphisms are the result of liberal bias), but instead should conclude that universities are mistaken and that no such equivalence exists in this case (by analogy, there is no homomorphism between a group of order 3 and a group of order 4, say).--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:01, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Again though, the university claims more than "these sets have similar group structures on them," and goes so far as to insist that there is no reason to distinguish between them. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::::::Okay, so then universities are wrong to equate men and women in this way. What does that have to do with homomorphisms? Are we still disagreeing whether they serve a legitimate mathematical purpose or are instead the product of improper liberal bias?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:54, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::It's central to liberal ideology to view these blasphemous notions as "useful." Next, you'll be defending relativity as useful, and that is a slippery slope my friend. We draw the line here at Conservapedia where ideas that are wrong are rejected, regardless of how useful we have been told they are.[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::::::::Maybe you weren't joking before, but this is clearly just a goof, right? You don't really intend that as an argument do you?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:25, 27 February 2012 (EST)

== Examples of Liberal Math ==

The purported proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] would be an example of liberal math.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:This may quickly move outside my area of understanding, but could you clarify this at all? Is the concern the use of the [[axiom of choice]] and/or non-[[ZF]] axioms? I've read our article and vaguely remember a book I read in high school, but other than the use of some non-standard techniques, I wasn't aware there was any serious doubt as to the validity of the proof. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:: What would be an example of Conservative Math? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:13, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::[[Godel's Incompleteness Theorems]], and [[liberals]] ostracized [[Kurt Godel]] for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::: What is there that evidence that liberals ostracized Gödel? And what makes the Incompleteness Theorem conservative? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:12, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Liberals kept Godel from obtaining tenure at most university math departments, and ostracized him in other ways. [[Bertrand Russell]], a leading leftist of that time, was humiliated by Godel's insight, which was conservative in how it debunked intellectual arrogance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Exactly Andy, Whitehead and Russell were both in the middle of trying to "prove" everything when Godel administered a much-needed dose of humility. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]

::::::Right. A liberal claims to know almost everything. A conservative recognizes that the liberal actually knows almost nothing of value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::When did you become a liberal? [[User:DaveF|DaveF]] 09:16, 27 February 2012 (EST)
===Carbon Dating===
Using the most advanced scientific & mathematical calculations, the dating process is still prone to error. The [[Shroud of Turin]] is claimed as fabrication by the scientific community but the liberals fail to grasp their errors in calculating exposure to contamination, such as soot. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:That's not necessarily mathematics, but, archaeology + ''applied'' mathematics.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 19:50, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::Good point, but applied math is still math, and the example illustrates liberal use of math to convey an unjustified claim of "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::Hammers have been used throughout history for the construction of buildings intended to promote both liberal and conservative ideals. The hammer has no inherent political philosophy. The hammer is a tool, and though it can be used for liberal or conservative purposes, it is inherently a neutral party. Math is the same way. While math can be used to promote liberal ideals, and is often studied by liberals, it is not liberal or conservative. Math is a tool.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 22:11, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::::But hammers are not courses of study or an ideology. Math is. And all courses of study and ideologies are susceptible to liberal bias. Engineering, with its grounding in what works, is probably the most immune to [[liberal bias]]. Women's studies and English literature are probably the most susceptible to liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)

== atheist and liberal idiocy extends to math: 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig)] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

== Homomorphism ==

A homomorphism is a function/relation that maps one algebraic structure to another and preserves its structure. It does not equate them, so I removed it because its definition was erroneous. A comparison illustrates why the original definition is incorrect. If <math>f(x) = x+2</math>, then <math>f(3) = 5</math>. This is a relation that maps <math>\mathbb{R}</math> to <math>\mathbb{R} + 2</math>. It does not, however, equate them. Even though <math>f(x)</math> maps 3 to 5, it is not stating that <math> 3 = 5</math>. This is a simple example, but hopefully it illustrates the proper definition. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:09, 27 February 2012 (EST)
:This is incorrect, the map you've described is not a homomorphism. A homomorphism <math>\phi:A\rightarrow B</math> satisfies, for all a,b in A, <math>\phi(ab)=\phi(a)\phi(b).</math> I am not talking about claiming that 3=5, I am talking about claiming that the Klein 4-group is the same as Z_2xZ_2.--[[User:Bogart12]]
::What precisely do you mean when you say that the "Klein 4-group is the ''same'' as Z_2xZ_2." As I've mentioned before, you need to be careful when you use such words as "same" or "equal." If all you mean is there exists a homomorphism between the two groups, well then that's tautological and completely uninteresting. If you mean something stronger, well what then be more specific so we can determine if such a claim is true or rather the result of liberal bias. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:22, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Majoring in Mathematics

2012-02-27T06:25:15Z

JustinD: /* Liberal bias */

This is an extremely rough outline for this new article. I will continue to expand it over the next few weeks based on feedback about the appropriateness of the problems and other suggestions for improvements. Please let me know what you think! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:12, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
::well I was a math major in college many years ago (before Rubic's cube!) Suggest adding statistics.
:::Ah, good idea. At my undergrad school mathematics and statistics were separate programs, but I guess this isn't typical. I'll throw in a new section. I'm not much for statistics -- can anyone suggest some good problems? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:20, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Tremendous work, Mark. I'll try to add something for probability or statistics, which I studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
:Great, thanks. These are subjects in which I'm inexpert. Now I'm inclined to move Probability/Statistics to a "field" along with algebra, analysis, etc. Please add a nice problem or theorem if you have any in mind! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:24, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Terrific analysis on what college mathematics is not. That should be required reading for many seeking to major in math!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Why is there no mention of the bible or theology in this article? It should be mentioned, as it is in [[Axiom_of_Infinity]], that the notion of an infinite set is somewhat blasphemous. [[User:Tomkup32|Tomkup32]] 10:58, 9 December 2009 (EST)

For Bezout's theorem, you have some inaccurate claims: the line x+y=0 and x+y=1 never interset. We need to move to projective space for the degree of the intersection to be exactly mn.

== Liberal bias ==

How can there be liberal bias in math? Does saying 1+1 = 2 have a motive?[[User:SusanP|SusanP]] 23:29, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:College math is not completely immune to liberal influences that have destroyed other subjects like physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Can you give an example of liberal bias in math? --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:Possible liberal bias--the study of so-called "homomorphisms" in modern liberal algebra could be part of the gay agenda?--[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::No, sorry, that's absurd and I think you know it. "Homo" simply means same and is used in a wide variety of contexts that have nothing to do with liberal bias. Is homogenized milk liberal bias? Or homonyms? Homophones? I've already reverted your addition to the article once, so I won't do it again just yet, but please consider removing or modifying it yourself.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 19:32, 24 February 2012 (EST)
::There is a crucial difference between your examples and my claim. A homophone describes two words sounding the same but being different. Bat is not a homophone with bat, that doesn't make sense. Saying wind and wind are homophones acknowledges that they sound the same but are different words. A homomorphism allows groups that are different, like Z_2xZ_2 and the Klein four group, to be treated as equal. Additionally the global warming obsession is prolific. I didn't mean my writing to sound flippant, and perhaps its tone can be improved, but it was certainly not meant as a joke.
:::I'm not sure I see the "crucial difference" you're seeing. I don't know what you mean by saying that homomorphisms "allow[] groups that are different . . . to be treated as equal." What do you mean by "treated as equal"? Obviously, if a homomorphism exists between two groups it shows that there are certain structural similarities between the two groups, but this hardly means that they are equal. The fact that 124 and 490 are both even shows that there are certain similarities between them (namely that each includes 2 in its prime factorization), but that doesn't mean we treat them as equal and it certainly isn't evidence that evenness is the result of some sort of liberal bias. Also, I think you have your examples backwards. Bat (animal) is a homophone with bat (sports) because both are pronounced the same but have different meanings. Wind (air flow) is not a homophone with wind (watches) because the pronunciation differs. They are, however, homographs. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:23, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::Haha you are absolutely right, my apologies. I thought I had picked a word specifically with no homophones. Allow me to elaborate: saying that 124 and 490 are both even emphasizes similarities which is fine. But consider a statement like "there is only one group of order 3." There are clearly many, because you can define one on any set with 3 elements. Nevertheless, you will never hear discussion of the many different groups of order 3, they are all lumped together because of homomorphisms. Compare this with the professor value of refusing to distinguish between men and women. To say men and women are both children of God is to discuss similarities while acknowledging differences, as in saying 124 and 490 are both even. To say men and women are basically the same, as universities today do, is consistent with saying that groups are essentially the same. I hope that clarifies what I was struggling to say before. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:::::They key point you are missing, however, is that in many, many subjects, such as in mathematical aptitude, there is no functional difference between male and female. So yes, in many situations, women and men are essentially the same.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 15:15, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::::::If that statement were true, then why are the top achievers on difficult math contests (such as the Putnam exam) more than 90% male, and less than 10% female?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 26 February 2012 (EST)\
::::::: I can't vouch for this on a national level, but when I took the Putnam at UConn last year, about 90% of the participants were male. If that's true at a national level (and I don't know if it is) then it stands to reason. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:28, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::::: It's gotten so bad that now they make women put red stickers on the exams so they can graded differently! Women often have separate prizes too.--Bogart12

::::::::I don't know why anyone (i.e., liberals) would expect or pretend that God created men and women to have absolutely identical aptitudes in everything. Men and women are physically very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 27 February 2012 (EST)

:::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms.
:::::This is getting a bit off topic, but if Andy and you are right and (liberal?) universities improperly equate the aptitude of men and women (by analogy, posit a homomorphism between men and women), we shouldn't conclude that the positing of all equivalences is liberal bias (by analogy, that homomorphisms are the result of liberal bias), but instead should conclude that universities are mistaken and that no such equivalence exists in this case (by analogy, there is no homomorphism between a group of order 3 and a group of order 4, say).--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:01, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Again though, the university claims more than "these sets have similar group structures on them," and goes so far as to insist that there is no reason to distinguish between them. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::::::Okay, so then universities are wrong to equate men and women in this way. What does that have to do with homomorphisms? Are we still disagreeing whether they serve a legitimate mathematical purpose or are instead the product of improper liberal bias?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:54, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::It's central to liberal ideology to view these blasphemous notions as "useful." Next, you'll be defending relativity as useful, and that is a slippery slope my friend. We draw the line here at Conservapedia where ideas that are wrong are rejected, regardless of how useful we have been told they are.[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::::::::Maybe you weren't joking before, but this is clearly just a goof, right? You don't really intend that as an argument do you?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:25, 27 February 2012 (EST)

== Examples of Liberal Math ==

The purported proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] would be an example of liberal math.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:This may quickly move outside my area of understanding, but could you clarify this at all? Is the concern the use of the [[axiom of choice]] and/or non-[[ZF]] axioms? I've read our article and vaguely remember a book I read in high school, but other than the use of some non-standard techniques, I wasn't aware there was any serious doubt as to the validity of the proof. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:: What would be an example of Conservative Math? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:13, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::[[Godel's Incompleteness Theorems]], and [[liberals]] ostracized [[Kurt Godel]] for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::: What is there that evidence that liberals ostracized Gödel? And what makes the Incompleteness Theorem conservative? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:12, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Liberals kept Godel from obtaining tenure at most university math departments, and ostracized him in other ways. [[Bertrand Russell]], a leading leftist of that time, was humiliated by Godel's insight, which was conservative in how it debunked intellectual arrogance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Exactly Andy, Whitehead and Russell were both in the middle of trying to "prove" everything when Godel administered a much-needed dose of humility. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]

::::::Right. A liberal claims to know almost everything. A conservative recognizes that the liberal actually knows almost nothing of value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 26 February 2012 (EST)

===Carbon Dating===
Using the most advanced scientific & mathematical calculations, the dating process is still prone to error. The [[Shroud of Turin]] is claimed as fabrication by the scientific community but the liberals fail to grasp their errors in calculating exposure to contamination, such as soot. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:That's not necessarily mathematics, but, archaeology + ''applied'' mathematics.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 19:50, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::Good point, but applied math is still math, and the example illustrates liberal use of math to convey an unjustified claim of "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::Hammers have been used throughout history for the construction of buildings intended to promote both liberal and conservative ideals. The hammer has no inherent political philosophy. The hammer is a tool, and though it can be used for liberal or conservative purposes, it is inherently a neutral party. Math is the same way. While math can be used to promote liberal ideals, and is often studied by liberals, it is not liberal or conservative. Math is a tool.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 22:11, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::::But hammers are not courses of study or an ideology. Math is. And all courses of study and ideologies are susceptible to liberal bias. Engineering, with its grounding in what works, is probably the most immune to [[liberal bias]]. Women's studies and English literature are probably the most susceptible to liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)

== atheist and liberal idiocy extends to math: 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig)] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Majoring in Mathematics

2012-02-27T02:54:28Z

JustinD: /* Liberal bias */

This is an extremely rough outline for this new article. I will continue to expand it over the next few weeks based on feedback about the appropriateness of the problems and other suggestions for improvements. Please let me know what you think! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:12, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
::well I was a math major in college many years ago (before Rubic's cube!) Suggest adding statistics.
:::Ah, good idea. At my undergrad school mathematics and statistics were separate programs, but I guess this isn't typical. I'll throw in a new section. I'm not much for statistics -- can anyone suggest some good problems? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:20, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Tremendous work, Mark. I'll try to add something for probability or statistics, which I studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
:Great, thanks. These are subjects in which I'm inexpert. Now I'm inclined to move Probability/Statistics to a "field" along with algebra, analysis, etc. Please add a nice problem or theorem if you have any in mind! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:24, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Terrific analysis on what college mathematics is not. That should be required reading for many seeking to major in math!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Why is there no mention of the bible or theology in this article? It should be mentioned, as it is in [[Axiom_of_Infinity]], that the notion of an infinite set is somewhat blasphemous. [[User:Tomkup32|Tomkup32]] 10:58, 9 December 2009 (EST)

For Bezout's theorem, you have some inaccurate claims: the line x+y=0 and x+y=1 never interset. We need to move to projective space for the degree of the intersection to be exactly mn.

== Liberal bias ==

How can there be liberal bias in math? Does saying 1+1 = 2 have a motive?[[User:SusanP|SusanP]] 23:29, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:College math is not completely immune to liberal influences that have destroyed other subjects like physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Can you give an example of liberal bias in math? --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:Possible liberal bias--the study of so-called "homomorphisms" in modern liberal algebra could be part of the gay agenda?--[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::No, sorry, that's absurd and I think you know it. "Homo" simply means same and is used in a wide variety of contexts that have nothing to do with liberal bias. Is homogenized milk liberal bias? Or homonyms? Homophones? I've already reverted your addition to the article once, so I won't do it again just yet, but please consider removing or modifying it yourself.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 19:32, 24 February 2012 (EST)
::There is a crucial difference between your examples and my claim. A homophone describes two words sounding the same but being different. Bat is not a homophone with bat, that doesn't make sense. Saying wind and wind are homophones acknowledges that they sound the same but are different words. A homomorphism allows groups that are different, like Z_2xZ_2 and the Klein four group, to be treated as equal. Additionally the global warming obsession is prolific. I didn't mean my writing to sound flippant, and perhaps its tone can be improved, but it was certainly not meant as a joke.
:::I'm not sure I see the "crucial difference" you're seeing. I don't know what you mean by saying that homomorphisms "allow[] groups that are different . . . to be treated as equal." What do you mean by "treated as equal"? Obviously, if a homomorphism exists between two groups it shows that there are certain structural similarities between the two groups, but this hardly means that they are equal. The fact that 124 and 490 are both even shows that there are certain similarities between them (namely that each includes 2 in its prime factorization), but that doesn't mean we treat them as equal and it certainly isn't evidence that evenness is the result of some sort of liberal bias. Also, I think you have your examples backwards. Bat (animal) is a homophone with bat (sports) because both are pronounced the same but have different meanings. Wind (air flow) is not a homophone with wind (watches) because the pronunciation differs. They are, however, homographs. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:23, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::Haha you are absolutely right, my apologies. I thought I had picked a word specifically with no homophones. Allow me to elaborate: saying that 124 and 490 are both even emphasizes similarities which is fine. But consider a statement like "there is only one group of order 3." There are clearly many, because you can define one on any set with 3 elements. Nevertheless, you will never hear discussion of the many different groups of order 3, they are all lumped together because of homomorphisms. Compare this with the professor value of refusing to distinguish between men and women. To say men and women are both children of God is to discuss similarities while acknowledging differences, as in saying 124 and 490 are both even. To say men and women are basically the same, as universities today do, is consistent with saying that groups are essentially the same. I hope that clarifies what I was struggling to say before. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
:::::They key point you are missing, however, is that in many, many subjects, such as in mathematical aptitude, there is no functional difference between male and female. So yes, in many situations, women and men are essentially the same.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 15:15, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::::::If that statement were true, then why are the top achievers on difficult math contests (such as the Putnam exam) more than 90% male, and less than 10% female?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 26 February 2012 (EST)\
::::::: I can't vouch for this on a national level, but when I took the Putnam at UConn last year, about 90% of the participants were male. If that's true at a national level (and I don't know if it is) then it stands to reason. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:28, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms.
:::::This is getting a bit off topic, but if Andy and you are right and (liberal?) universities improperly equate the aptitude of men and women (by analogy, posit a homomorphism between men and women), we shouldn't conclude that the positing of all equivalences is liberal bias (by analogy, that homomorphisms are the result of liberal bias), but instead should conclude that universities are mistaken and that no such equivalence exists in this case (by analogy, there is no homomorphism between a group of order 3 and a group of order 4, say).--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:01, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Again though, the university claims more than "these sets have similar group structures on them," and goes so far as to insist that there is no reason to distinguish between them. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]
::::::Okay, so then universities are wrong to equate men and women in this way. What does that have to do with homomorphisms? Are we still disagreeing whether they serve a legitimate mathematical purpose or are instead the product of improper liberal bias?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:54, 26 February 2012 (EST)

== Examples of Liberal Math ==

The purported proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] would be an example of liberal math.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:This may quickly move outside my area of understanding, but could you clarify this at all? Is the concern the use of the [[axiom of choice]] and/or non-[[ZF]] axioms? I've read our article and vaguely remember a book I read in high school, but other than the use of some non-standard techniques, I wasn't aware there was any serious doubt as to the validity of the proof. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:: What would be an example of Conservative Math? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:13, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::[[Godel's Incompleteness Theorems]], and [[liberals]] ostracized [[Kurt Godel]] for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:::: What is there that evidence that liberals ostracized Gödel? And what makes the Incompleteness Theorem conservative? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:12, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Liberals kept Godel from obtaining tenure at most university math departments, and ostracized him in other ways. [[Bertrand Russell]], a leading leftist of that time, was humiliated by Godel's insight, which was conservative in how it debunked intellectual arrogance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:::::Exactly Andy, Whitehead and Russell were both in the middle of trying to "prove" everything when Godel administered a much-needed dose of humility. [[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]]

===Carbon Dating===
Using the most advanced scientific & mathematical calculations, the dating process is still prone to error. The [[Shroud of Turin]] is claimed as fabrication by the scientific community but the liberals fail to grasp their errors in calculating exposure to contamination, such as soot. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:That's not necessarily mathematics, but, archaeology + ''applied'' mathematics.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 19:50, 26 February 2012 (EST)

::Good point, but applied math is still math, and the example illustrates liberal use of math to convey an unjustified claim of "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 26 February 2012 (EST)

== atheist and liberal idiocy extends to math: 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig)] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 26 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Majoring in Mathematics

2012-02-26T22:10:17Z

JustinD: /* Examples of Liberal Math */

Talk:Majoring in Mathematics

2012-02-26T22:01:01Z

JustinD: /* Liberal bias */