Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Augustus Caesar

2007-04-04T19:06:30Z

TheisonMarsh:

==formatting fix?==
Not sure if this is just how IE is viewing it, but the wikitable on the right overlaps text in the first section making it hard to read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

considering this is supposed to be more "americanized" than wikipedia, does it bother anyone that this article is longer than alberto gonzales's, or speaker pelosi's? just a thought...TheisonMarsh

Sam Seder

2007-04-03T16:45:44Z

TheisonMarsh:

Sam Seder (born November 28, 1966) is a comedian, writer, actor, film director, television producer-director, and Air America Radio host. Seder was born in New York City, New York into a Jewish family, and raised in Worcester, Massachusetts.

In March 2004, Seder became co-host along with Janeane Garofalo on Air America Radio's The Majority Report. Garofalo recently departed the show offering positive comments about working with Seder. Seder was later offered a new contract with Air America Radio, and his show moved from the current 7-10 pm spot to a 9AM-Noon spot, retitled The Sam Seder Show.

On September 1, 2004, Sam Seder was briefly detained by the Secret Service during his live, on-site coverage of the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden. Shortly after Zell Miller gave his speech, Seder began searching (with a sign in hand) on the convention floor for a willing homosexual Republican to interview live on radio. It was not long before he was physically removed from the floor and after brief questioning, was asked (or according to some, "strongly encouraged") to leave the convention.

Bibliography
F.U.B.A.R.: America's Right-Wing Nightmare, co-authored with Stephen Sherrill, 2006, (ISBN 0-06-084671-2)
Wait! Don't Move to Canada: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America by Bill Scher, foreword co-authored with Janeane Garofalo, 2006, (ISBN 1-59486-396-2) (to be released September 19)

Seder at the RNC [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k74IZ34Qyrg]]

Mitt Romney

2007-04-03T16:42:25Z

TheisonMarsh: added to abortion section

[[Image:Xnmhv.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Willard "Mitt" Romney''' (born March 12, 1947), served as the governor of [[Massachusetts]] from 2002 to 2006 and is a [[Republican]] candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If elected, he would become the first [[Mormon]] president.

== Personal ==
Currently, Romney is gaining popularity because his stable marriage attracts conservative audiences who are unhappy with [[John McCain]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], and [[Newt Gingrich]]'s many divorces. The irony that the Mormon has been married the least times of all the candidates was pointed out by Romney's wife, Ann, who said the difference between her husband and the other candidates is that "he's had only one wife."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_el_pr/romney_polygamy]</ref> While Romney himself has only one wife polygamy is very recent in his family history. His great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254362,00.html]</ref>

Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and presidential candidate George Romney, a "Rockefeller Republican," according to Lisa McGirr, in the book Suburban Warriors, Copyright 2001, Princeton University Press, p. 141, 222. Many Massachusetts Republicans do not connect the father's politics with the son's, much like Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.

== Political Views ==

===Abortion===
"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." (Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref><br><br>

In a 1994 debate with Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." "Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion", Romney said. "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that." [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2]

In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election Mitt Romney expressed a willingness to defend that States pro-choice status quo.[http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4]

===Civil Unions===
Romney is opposed to the idea of gay marriage, however he has voiced support for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for homosexuals.[http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3]

===Economic Agenda===
As President, Governor Mitt Romney will pursue a Conservative, Pro-Growth Economic Agenda. Governor Romney's number one economic priority will be to grow the economy — helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He will work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America's continued economic growth, he will fight to cut taxes — the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates.

Governor Romney will also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessive regulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.
====Overall Economic Priorities====
*Lowering Taxes: Proposes lowering tax rates for all Americans.
*Spending: Believes Washington's focus should be on cutting spending.
*National Tort Reform: Supports nationwide reforms to our tort system.
*Union Card Check Legislation: Supports the rights of workers to decide whether to join a union or not.
*Regulatory Reform and Sarbanes-Oxley: Believes the Washington regulatory burden is too high.

===Immigration===
<blockquote>Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America. [http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration]</blockquote>
*[http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/NEWS09/703230396/-1/politics Des Moines Register: Romney: Reform Immigration, Allow Students To Stay]
*[http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=91722 IowaPolitics.com: Romney Touts Strong Stance On Illegal Immigration]

===Stem Cell Research===
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments.[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/2]

==Criticism==
Romney's critics attack his inconsistent track record on issues such as [[abortion]] and [[Homosexuality|gay marriage]] to the point where he has gotten the nickname "Multiple Choice Mitt." A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his [[Mormon]] affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from March 3, 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 7% within the GOP primary forecasts.

==References==
<References/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://mormonwiki.org/Mitt_Romney_and_Mormonism Mitt Romney and Mormonism] - MormonWiki.org

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://conservativesagainstromney.com/ Conservatives Against Romney]

[[Category:Political people|Romney, Mitt]]

Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-04-03T14:22:47Z

TheisonMarsh:

''Alberto R. Gonzales''

Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) is the 80th Attorney General of the United States, succeeding [[John Ashcroft]]. In 2007 he came under attack for the firing of 8 US attorneys across America. As of today, [[President Bush]] has stated that he will not call for the resignation of Gonzales.

[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:United States]]

Talk:John Edwards

2007-04-01T20:12:59Z

TheisonMarsh:

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

Talk:John Edwards

2007-04-01T20:11:08Z

TheisonMarsh:

Talk:John Edwards

2007-03-29T00:03:27Z

TheisonMarsh:

Wikipedia

2007-03-26T15:55:35Z

TheisonMarsh: changed "like conservapedia..." to "conservapedia uses the wiki..."

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] (with substantial help from [[Larry Sanger]]) on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. [[Conservapedia]] uses the wiki program made popular by Wikipedia. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a search portal funded by Jimbo Wales.<ref>The Bomis portal has been criticized as "pornographic"</ref> Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Seigenthaler Hoax and Reaction of Wikipedia Editors==
In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler Sr, a journalist and an assistant to former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that stated:<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.
</blockquote>
In September 2005, a friend of Seigenthaler's discovered the Wikipedia entry and alerted Seigenthaler, whom then contacted the Wikimedia foundation to have the article corrected, however the false biography had remained on Wikipedia for many months.
Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt later discovered the prepetrator of the prank was Brian Chase, an acquaintance of Seigenthaler Sr.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> John Seigenthaler Sr later published an article in ''USA Today'' on the whole affair.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>

Instead of being apologetic, Wikipedia editors criticized Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly complaining of the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy" and finally downgraded in its stable version to "incident". Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrived 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref> from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Daniel Brandt controversy==
The Daniel Brandt biographical entry was created by SlimVirgin on 28 September 2005. On two occasions, once prior and once after, SlimVirgin stated she did not consider Daniel Brandt a credible source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554] In August 2005 SlimVirgin and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangerdude Rangerdude] discussed the use of "scholarly" material cited to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) on the Roots of Anti-Semitism talk page and had this exchange:

:"PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research....PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. ...WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: ''"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a '''Socialist Workers' Party''' magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."'' This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement.--SlimVirgin 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude only moments before debunked Berlet's scholarly credentials, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20212920&oldid=20187928] cited WP:RS on using extreme websites, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20246130] and then rejoined,
:"Curiously your example of the '''Socialist Worker's Party''' does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! --Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin then changed Official Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy to make Berlet appear mainstream and not an extremist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes]

Next an old dormant dispute between Brandt and Berlet from a decade and half ago was reignited. The two worked together for many years, but had a falling out in 1991; Brandt was quoted as an anonymous critic from a ''FrontPage magazine.com'' citation in Berlet's wiki entry, with these words,

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352]

Berlet expressed displeasure at the criticism and publicly named the "leftist writer";
:This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic ''Spotlight'' newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21]

Berlet wanted the criticism of him and his organization removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance] On the same day the Daniel Brandt biography was created to cast Brandt and his organization as extremist using a guilt by association smear of being aligned with Holocaust denial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research#_note-0] Who was the source of the claim? A self published source, Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. According to the Introduction [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left] to the self published source, Berlet's allegation Brandt and his organization were aligned with Holocaust deniers first appeared two months earlier in September of 1991 in an ''extremist'' publication, the Marxist-Leninist ''Guardian''. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html] The ''Guardian'' newspaper, which at one time had a reporter, Wilfred Burchett, who participated in interrogations of American POWs in North Korean prison-of-war camps, is cited in a contemporaneous book from 1992 by the mainstream publisher ''Prometheus Books'' which is entitled, ''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America'', by John George, Laird Wilcox, ISBN 1-57392-058-4, as an extremist publication. See Chapter 9, pgs. 125-131. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp]

Added to all these violations of Official Wikipedia Policy is this event, Berlet citing himself and personally inserting potentially libelous and defamatory material from a questionable and self-published source into an article of a living person and fellow registered user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921]

Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's view that Brandt was not a "credible source", and told ''Editor & Publisher'',
:"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all." [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]

After possible malicious intent of slander was being publicly discussed surrounding the events which lead to the creation of Brandt's entry, Wales comments to ''Editor & Publisher'' were removed from Brandt's bio under the "tabloid clause" of Reliable Sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334]

Meantime, numerous Wikipedia Administrators have been caught in the crossfire of a drive-by smear against Brandt in an old leftist sectarian dispute none of them know anything about.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League Hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer Vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associate Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Talk:Flag of the United States of America

2007-03-26T15:51:57Z

TheisonMarsh: New page: should be a page just about flag burning, perhaps with a link to this page.

should be a page just about flag burning, perhaps with a link to this page.

Flag of the United States of America

2007-03-26T15:51:04Z

TheisonMarsh:

The Flag of the United States has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

After these decisions, several "flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Any amendment to the US Constitution must first be passed by Congress and be ratified by a 75% majority, 38 of the 50 states. On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

The United States Flag Code lists many guidelines for the use and display of the flag, many of which are largely ignored. For example :
"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform".
The flag "should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper".
Flags are even used sometimes as carpeting, violating such guidelines as not allowing the flag to touch the ground, not displaying it in a horizontal position, and not displaying it in a manner which is likely to allow it to get soiled.

The ritualized burning of the American flag is considered an appropriate way to dispose of a damaged or soiled flag. Flags are burned in respectful retirement ceremonies by the American Legion, Boy Scouts, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the American Legion.

Flying an American flag upside down is not necessarily disrespectful. The practice has its origin in a military distress signal; displaying a flag in this manner is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property", it has been used by extension to make a statement about distress in civic, political, or other areas.

Flag of the United States of America

2007-03-26T15:49:54Z

TheisonMarsh:

The Flag of the United States has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

After these decisions, several "flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Any amendment to the US Constitution must first be passed by Congress and be ratified by a 75% majority, 38 of the 50 states. On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

The United States Flag Code lists many guidelines for the use and display of the flag, many of which are largely ignored. For example :

"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform"
The flag "should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper".
Flags are even used sometimes as carpeting, violating such guidelines as not allowing the flag to touch the ground, not displaying it in a horizontal position, and not displaying it in a manner which is likely to allow it to get soiled.

The ritualized burning of the American flag is considered an appropriate way to dispose of a damaged or soiled flag. Flags are burned in respectful retirement ceremonies by the American Legion, Boy Scouts, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the American Legion.

Flying an American flag upside down is not necessarily disrespectful. The practice has its origin in a military distress signal; displaying a flag in this manner is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property", it has been used by extension to make a statement about distress in civic, political, or other areas.

Flag of the United States of America

2007-03-26T15:49:36Z

TheisonMarsh:

The Flag of the United States has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

After these decisions, several "flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Any amendment to the US Constitution must first be passed by Congress and be ratified by a 75% majority, 38 of the 50 states. On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

The United States Flag Code lists many guidelines for the use and display of the flag, many of which are largely ignored. For example :

"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform"
The flag "should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper".
Flags are even used sometimes as carpeting, violating such guidelines as not allowing the flag to touch the ground, not displaying it in a horizontal position, and not displaying it in a manner which is likely to allow it to get soiled.

The ritualized burning of the American flag is considered an appropriate way to dispose of a damaged or soiled flag. Flags are burned in respectful retirement ceremonies by the American Legion, Boy Scouts, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the American Legion.

Flying an American flag upside down is not necessarily disrespectful. The practice has its origin in a military distress signal; displaying a flag in this manner is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property"[12], it has been used by extension to make a statement about distress in civic, political, or other areas.

Flag of the United States of America

2007-03-26T15:48:52Z

TheisonMarsh: New page: The Flag of the United States has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. In 1862, dur...

The Flag of the United States has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

After these decisions, several "flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Any amendment to the US Constitution must first be passed by Congress and be ratified by a 75% majority, 38 of the 50 states. On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

The United States Flag Code lists many guidelines for the use and display of the flag, many of which are largely ignored. For example :

"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform"
The flag "should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper".
Flags are even used sometimes as carpeting, violating such guidelines as not allowing the flag to touch the ground, not displaying it in a horizontal position, and not displaying it in a manner which is likely to allow it to get soiled.

The ritualized burning of the American flag is considered an appropriate way to dispose of a damaged or soiled flag. Flags are burned in respectful retirement ceremonies by the American Legion, Boy Scouts, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the American Legion.

Flying an American flag upside down is not necessarily disrespectful. The practice has its origin in a military distress signal; displaying a flag in this manner is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property"[12], it has been used by extension to make a statement about distress in civic, political, or other areas.

Interestingly, while desecration of the American flag is legal in the United States, it is illegal to "deface, defile or contemptuously abuse" the Confederate flag in the state of Florida

Talk:Sedition Act of 1918

2007-03-26T15:40:47Z

TheisonMarsh: New page: I copied a lot of this from wikipedia, but I thought it more important that it at least be here for now. Seeing reports that many home-schooling parents use conservapedia (sorry, don't ha...

I copied a lot of this from wikipedia, but I thought it more important that it at least be here for now. Seeing reports that many home-schooling parents use conservapedia (sorry, don't have the link so feel free to dispute), I thought it important that this at least have an article. --TheisonMarsh

Sedition Act of 1918

2007-03-26T15:39:18Z

TheisonMarsh: created article

The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory. This may have been due to "subversive activity" in Russia that resulted in the overthrow of the Russian Czar in 1917, and contributed to the Easter Rising in Ireland in 1916. "Subversive activity" in Great Britain was less successful.

The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

The Sedition Act was an attempt by the United States government to limit freedom of speech during a time of war. This is in conflict with the US Constitution's First Amendment, which states, in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". Note that there is no "war" exception (or any exceptions whatsoever) to this freedom stated in the text of the amendment.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help wartime enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

Socialist Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison under this law. U.S. citizens including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protestors were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war was illegal under this law.

The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. Although the Sedition Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States, most legal experts view the Sedition Act as being antithetical to the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Talk:ACLU

2007-03-26T15:37:06Z

TheisonMarsh: /* Plagiarism is unethical */

== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-03-26T15:30:56Z

TheisonMarsh: New page: wow, really nothing else here? lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?

wow, really nothing else here? lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?

Talk:Saudi Arabia

2007-03-26T15:29:23Z

TheisonMarsh: New page: ==relationship with the United States== Just wondering if anyone could start a section in here regarding our relationship to them (since conservapedia is supposed to be mostly for american...

==relationship with the United States==
Just wondering if anyone could start a section in here regarding our relationship to them (since conservapedia is supposed to be mostly for americans), especially the financial connections.

Talk:Richard Nixon

2007-03-26T15:22:22Z

TheisonMarsh:

Do we have to mention Nixon resigned twice? Doesn't that detract a little from more of his accomplishments, many of which are not stated here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Considering much of the watergate scandals are not "stated here", I'd say it's fairly well balanced.

John Edwards

2007-03-26T15:18:59Z

TheisonMarsh: Added "campaign" section

{{stub}}John Edwards, a former trial lawyer and Democratic Senator from North Carolina (1998-2004), was John Kerry's running mate in the 2004 presidential elections and is a Democratic presidential candidate for 2008. After losing the bid for vice president, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Campaign==
On December 28, 2006, Edwards announced his entrance into the 2008 Presidential election while in the Eastern New Orleans area of New Orleans.

Edwards's campaign has stated that its main focus is on eliminating poverty, fighting global warming, and providing universal health care. These goals reflect the more progressive campaign Edwards is running compared to his 2004 campaign when he did not focus on global warming and universal health care as issues. One of Edwards's most notable policy opinions since announcing his candidacy has been denouncing a troop surge in Iraq, coining it the McCain Doctrine. Edwards has said that he is not ready to take a position on the issue of same-sex marriage, stating that he is "just not there yet". In 2004, Edwards stated that he was opposed to same-sex marriage, although he also opposed a Constitutional amendment against it, saying the issue should be left to individual states to decide. Edwards does now offer support for civil unions and partnership benefits. In 2004, Edwards expressed reservations about civil unions, saying that he did not think the country was ready for it and that it should be left up to the states.

== Recent News ==
John Edwards recently held a press conference to announce that his wife Elizabeth's cancer has returned, and that Edwards will continue his bid for the presidency.
[[Category:Biographies]]

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-03-15T20:08:13Z

TheisonMarsh:

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

“Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Artical

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

Sam Seder

2007-03-15T19:57:48Z

TheisonMarsh: Created page

Sam Seder (born November 28, 1966) is a comedian, writer, actor, film director, television producer-director, and Air America Radio host. Seder was born in New York City, New York into a Jewish family, and raised in Worcester, Massachusetts.

His works include Who’s the Caboose (1997) as well as the television shows Beat Cops (2001) and Pilot Season (2004). Seder made guest appearances on Spin City (1997), Sex and the City (2000) and America Undercover (2005).

In March 2004, Seder became co-host along with Janeane Garofalo on Air America Radio's The Majority Report. Garofalo recently departed the show offering positive comments about working with Seder. Seder was later offered a new contract with Air America Radio, and his show moved from the current 7-10 pm spot to a 9AM-Noon spot, retitled The Sam Seder Show.

On September 1, 2004, Sam Seder was briefly detained by the Secret Service during his live, on-site coverage of the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden. Shortly after Zell Miller gave his speech, Seder began searching (with a sign in hand) on the convention floor for a willing homosexual Republican to interview live on radio. It was not long before he was physically removed from the floor and after brief questioning, was asked (or according to some, "strongly encouraged") to leave the convention.

In the closing minutes of their Wednesday, March 9, 2005 show, Garofalo announced that Sam and his wife Nikki were expecting a daughter. This event in his life slightly colored and affected Seder's commentary. On more than one occasion he voiced concerns about just how he was going to explain elements of this world to his daughter as she grows up, after witnessing actions by the Republican Party that Seder felt might adversely affect her future.

On August 9, 2005 at 2:58 AM, Nikki Seder gave birth to daughter, Myla Rae Seder (see[1]).

Bibliography
F.U.B.A.R.: America's Right-Wing Nightmare, co-authored with Stephen Sherrill, 2006, (ISBN 0-06-084671-2)
Wait! Don't Move to Canada: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America by Bill Scher, foreword co-authored with Janeane Garofalo, 2006, (ISBN 1-59486-396-2) (to be released September 19)

Seder at the RNC [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k74IZ34Qyrg]]