Talk:Main Page/archive50

I am glad to see that Romney did not do well, the Democrats are split nearly 50/50, and that Huckabee had a surprisingly good showing (given his recent poll numbers). It seems Romney is the biggest loser, doing far worse than he anticipated, yet he refuses to acknowledge that Americans would rather have an African-American or female President than a non-Christian one, and drop out of the race. He is only stealing votes from Huckabee, and preventing anyone from competing with John McCain. ThomasB 20:47, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Or maybe, just maybe, Americans are more concerned with ideas than they are with identity and so gender, race and religion are secondary in their selection of candidates?Rodney 20:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Interestingly, I did some rough calculations, and it terms of overall votes, Romney is doing pretty well. If you take the actual vote percentage and weight it by the number of delegates each state gets, Romney and McCain are both tied at 35%. Huckabee comes in at 20%, followed by Paul with 6%. The only reason McCain's doing so well is because he won some huge winner-take-all states (Between New York, New Jersey, and Missouri he won over 200 delagates -- and left none for his competitors). HelpJazz 21:12, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Academic now though. McCain is almost assured of the Republican nomination. So, who is most likely to beat him, Clinton or Obama? McCain must be the Democrats' worst nightmare. Although with some fiery conservatives claiming they would vote Clinton rather than McCain, maybe his liberal appeal is countered. Ajkgordon 14:13, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, McCain wouldn't be the Democrats' worst nightmare for a few different reasons. 1) His anemic fundraising numbers. The NRC, NRCC, and NSCC (I believe those are the correct abbreviations) are lagging combined versus the combined totals of their three Democratic counterparts. Funds raised, CoH, and debt totals are all problems for the Republican side. If Mitt Romney were in the race, his deep pockets would provide a potential problem for the Dems as the NRC would be free to share some of their money with down-ticket elections. 2) Age. If Obama were to be the D nominee, the clear difference in age and the fresh face offered by Obama I think would dovetail nicely with the eagerness for change amongst the electorate. Plus, the fact that McCain needed to take out a life insurance policy to get a bank loan for his campaign would emphasize his age and the idea that he won't live through a four-year term. 3) The conservative factor. By splintering the R party between "moderates" and "conservatives", McCain is going to have a hard time both pushing the "Maverick" image while not further alienating the conservative base of the party. If he comes back to the right, he does so at risk to his image amongst moderates, and if he stays where he is, the discontent amongst the evangelicals may play itself out by them not showing at the polls. Plus, I frankly think that between Obama and McCain, judging by the numbers thus far, independents and moderates would break to Obama. Obama's raising an incredible amount of money, is energizing Democratic voters, and I think will lead a tidal wave into the White House and straight down the ticket. --Jdellaro 14:56, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I wonder, though. Who will hard right conservatives vote for if McCain is the nomination? So long as the third parties are kept on a short, short, leash, wouldn't conservatives rather vote for the least liberal of the non-conservatives? I'm just venturing a guess, I don't really know. If this is the case, though, then McCain has the moderate and the right wing, wheras Obamaba/Clinton have the left wing. One thing that would be very interesting, is if McCain takes a more moderate position on security and then Hillary takes a more hard-line position. That would push some of the right wing to consider her instead. It's all speculation at this point; nobody's going to bother to narrow down their campaign promises until they actually know who they are fighting against. It's interesting to think about in the mean time. HelpJazz 16:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)

But your scenario above works under the premise that McCain will take the moderates. Frankly, the way Obama is going, I think the moderate/undecided will go with the popular opinion. Between McCain and Obama, who's the It-Candidate? I think it's a no-brainer--Obama. So I think even if conservatives turn out (which is another premise you assume--that conservatives will have to choose, rather than just not vote at all), it'll be the right-wing/conservatives for McCain, and then Obama will grab the moderates and the left-wing. And I think the D side is so energized right now--primary numbers are showing record turnouts v. the numbers for the R, that they will just overwhelm whatever difference there is in the split of moderates between R and D. I just think things are breaking in the D favor, and if Obama can take the nomination we may see something like a 65-35 vote for Obama. --Jdellaro 16:25, 7 February 2008 (EST)

And if Clinton gets the D nomination? That could be very interesting. McCain could take it based on the big ABC vote. Ajkgordon 16:33, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I think if either Clinton or Obama get the nomination we can safely rule out conservatives staying at home. Obama might have better pull (now) with the right-of-center moderates, but I don't believe that he will pan out all that well when the punches really start flying. (Man, at least I hope not!) HelpJazz 16:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

So the Republicans have blown it? LOL, many a Presidential campaign has been won and lost in the last few days! McCain could do it especially if Clinton and Obama beat each other up all the way to the final nomination. Could get really ugly with a very discredited Democrat candidate. As McCain has such a large liberal appeal, he could do it. Ajkgordon 16:42, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I'd go that far. There are still a lot of people who hate Hillary and Obama. Their support demographics are both strange as well -- Obama has huge support from the sorts of people who don't vote, like teens and the college-aged. Hillary's support comes from women over 55 (at least that was the demo in Iowa). Both of them have to get over the (small, but real) "I don't think an X could ever make a good president". Heh, and then there are people (like my mother) who don't like Hillary because they don't want Bill in the Whitehouse again. Another thing to consider is third party candidates. Will there be any Nader's (or just Nader himself) this year? Too early to tell yet because the -- ahem -- wonderful electoral system makes it so easy for third parties to get in early. So no, I don't think the Reps are out yet. HelpJazz 16:47, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Oh yeah, the independents. I'd forgotten about them.

Funny you mention the "wonderful" system. Talking to people in France about it, where the Presidential election is simplicity itself, most of them just shake their heads in bewilderment at the whole thing!

But then, when they ask me how the British elect their leader, I have to concede that we don't. What is it with us Anglo-Saxons? :) Ajkgordon 16:53, 7 February 2008 (EST)

It was the disheartened libertarian in me coming out. The whole "two-party conspiracy" thing :) HelpJazz 16:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Romney is a Christian. The Mormon faith is as much a subset of Christianity as Methodism or Unitarianism. SSchultz 22:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Most Christian groups would disagree, as least as far as the comparison with Methodism is concerned. Unitarianism maybe, but that's hardly Christian anyway. Philip J. Rayment 06:31, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Exact same thing they said about John Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson. A lot of people were sure Jefferson was going to take away their Bibles. Moot point I guess, now that Romney dropped out. Maestro 00:03, 11 February 2008 (EST)

If someone could update the Mitt Romney story with maybe say this which is a bit newer than the 20 hour old "headline". Thanks. JoeManga 14:28, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry? Where are all these pubs? If anyone has tried to get a drink after 11.00 in London's west-end they will discover that the supposed opening up of the licensing laws has had little effect. It's a relief to travel to America or Europe where the public is trusted to booze after the witching hour. The Liberal Nanny State still rules here I am afraid. KeithJoseph 14:58, 7 February 2008 (EST)

What's the Conservative position on this? Should the state decide when and where we can drink? Or is getting rid of 24 hour licenses 'Nanny-Statism'? User:Spinnydizzy 21:08, 7 February 2008 (GMT)

Well, the Conservative Party's position is to restore the licensing laws as they were. It doesn't sound remotely sane or to me. If we are true conservatives then we believe adults should -- within reason -- have freedom. General late-night opening is considered okay in most American states. Why can't we have those same rights? Nanny, nanny, nanny. KeithJoseph 22:07, 7 February 2008 (GMT)

Be serious - drinks after 11 in the West End?? I lol'd at that. And 24 hour bars in the West End - the Zeta on Hertford Street springs to mind. as for the "nanny state" jibe, you obviously fail to see that there is a difference between the following 3 concepts: "conservative", "nanny state", "anarchy". For why the Conservatives are against 24 hour licensing, see also:

• "Conservative leader Michael Howard told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the judges' warnings were "absolutely right". He warned the government was making a "great mistake" in allowing longer opening hours. He said: "We have said that the Act should not be brought into effect until binge-drinking has been brought under control. I'm afraid we are a very long way from doing that."[1]
• "The law allowing 24-hour drinking has caused a three-fold rise in the number of people admitted to accident and emergency units with alcohol-related problems"[2]
• "The Conservatives have warned of an increase in crime and police reacted with fury as delays emerged for tough new laws needed to tackle the chaos of round-the-clock drinking"[3]
• "Violent crime has risen relentlessly over the past decade, fuelled by alcohol, and convictions for being drunk and disorderly have doubled. The Institute of Alcohol Studies concluded liberalisation led to more violent disorder."[4]
• "St. Thomas’ hospital in London has reported an increase of around 300% in A&E admissions since the 24-hour Licensing laws came into place a year ago."[5]
• Party Response: Conservative - "David Davis, shadow home secretary, said: "The consequences of binge drinking are very serious - fights, intimidation, shop windows smashed in, communities vandali sed. Yet Labour are content to unleash 24 hour drinking on our towns and cities which will only make this problem worse. While the minority turn our town centres into no-go areas it is the majority who suffer. The government should delay 24-hour opening until we conquer binge drinking. Tony Blair has had seven years to sort out binge drinking – but the problem is only getting worse. Under Labour the number of people cautioned or found guilty of selling alcohol to youngsters under 18 has fallen by half. Only the Conservatives will take action to tackle binge drinking head on by enforcing zero tolerance policing and giving local authorities the power to deal with problem premises."[6]
• Mark Garnier, Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman for Wyre Forest - "I am all in favour of people having a good time out. But in, for example, Kidderminster, like in towns and cities across Britain today, we are risking creating a yob culture. The right to have a drink brings with it a responsibility – the responsibility not to ruin everyone else’s evening. I have lost count of the times that hard working, law abiding couples have told me they are fed up with drunks causing mayhem in the town centres. Initiatives that we have seen in Bewdley – where street drinking has been banned – have had a terrific effect on the town centre. The Government should not be undermining local council’s efforts with unhelpful legislation. And I certainly don’t agree with the Liberal Democrats’ suggestion to lower the legal drinking age to 16 – this would just fuel alcohol abuse by young people. Binge drinking and under-age drinking have a direct link to soaring levels of violent crime – no wonder that there were 2,022 violent attacks on people across Wyre Forest last year. Yet the Labour Government’s new licensing laws threaten to worsen this problem. We need to call time on yob behaviour and give local councils far more discretion on licensing rules."[7]

etc etc ad nauseam. Please don'tt come here with your half-baked liberal notions gleaned from WIGO unless you actually know what you are talking about. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Are you combining 2 separate issues? 1 – the right of the government to ‘impose’ defined opening hours and 2 – the hellish yob culture within Britain today, which is not solely driven by excessive alcohol consumption. Just as we should resist the calls for more gun control when criminals use them to commit crimes – we should not impose draconian (and frankly out of date) licensing laws on the vast majority of law abiding citizens because of the actions a portion of the population. Frog77uk 16:00, 8 February 2008 (GMT)

WIGO? Regardless, a stats lesson from your source:

• March 2005 - On average, a London hospital's A&E unit treats one victim of alcohol-related assault per day (9pm - 9am).

• March 2006 - On average, the same A&E unit treats two victims of alcohol-related assault per day (9pm - 9am).

Even if we assume that the admissions were exclusively clustered around Friday and Saturday nights, that would still give you average admissions of around 4 and 8 on those nights for March 05 and March 06 respectively. That's hardly the last days of Rome, is it?

The headline figure of a 300% increase in total alcohol-related admissions sounds worrying, but it's derived from such a low base: 2.9% of admissions, March 05 v. 8% of admissions, March 06. That's well within the realm of normal fluctuations in admissions. If it stayed at that level for a few years, then you might have a point. If it trebled from there, then you and I should both be worried. --RedFive 11:33, 8 February 2008 (EST)

It says alcohol-related assaults "more than doubled from 27 to 62 and injuries connected to drinking almost trebled 44 to 129. The number of patients who had to be admitted on to the wards rose from 24 to 71." And that's just one A&E department. Between 9pm and 9am. Each day. The article linked from the St. Thomas' mention states: "British Crime Survey figures revealed there were 1,087,000 violent attacks by drunks in the first full year of 24-hour drinking - up 64,000 on the previous year. It is the equivalent of one booze-fuelled attack every 30 seconds, or almost 3,000 each day. Before the law changed the total had been falling."

This isn't about imposing "draconian" licensing hours, either - they were hardly draconian before the law changed, except for the drunks who got stroppy at last orders after a skinfull and wanted even longer to poison themselves. Most places you could get a drink somewhere until around midnight, even if it meant the vast inconvenience of paying a few quid a year to belong to a club. Still wanted more to drink? That's why they invented off-licenses: you can drink yourself stupid - should that be your fervent desire - in the comfort and privacy of your own home 24/7. Need a stiffener on waking up? Stock up at the offie. Why would the majority of the workforce want to continue drinking until the wee hours, when we have very strict drink-driving laws, very strictly enforced, carrying very serious penalties? In the Army, there is often a young man's culture of fairly hard drinking while off duty, and more than a few have had more than a few when they shouldn't. In my time, I did my fair share of carousing, and was once as a tom rightly punished, spending a day in the pokey - mixed in with much "Battle PT" (the much feared "beasting") to sweat it off - and 7 days Restrictions of Priviliges simply for having a hangover while on parade one morning. At the time I was a fit and healthy young man, yet it was made quite clear to me that even the slightest decrease in my ability to perform my expected duties would not be tolerated. So, ask yoursef, why would anybody who has respect for themselves, their employers, the society they live and work in, their families, other people who they may be endangering on their rush hour drive to work, etc etc, want to stay out boozing till the early hours? There was a mantra in the Army - "12 hours from bottle to throttle". It is hardly draconian, more like common sense and good citizenship.

"Last days of Rome..." When a society becomes as dangerously decadent as ours is, yes, I'd say we were on the verge of the last days of Rome. The point of the original article was the tipping point where more 13 year olds drink alcohol than do not. Come on, stop trying to score points by attacking the periphery and accept that that is not a good thing to say about a society. Even if you are truly liberal to the core, you must appreciate that the physical damage caused on a growing young person by alcohol is intolerable, even if the behavioural results are "acceptable". Alcohol, for all the fun it can be in moderation, is still a toxin. The attack on the 24 hour booze Britain culture is about the erosion of norms and standards, the instilling in the young that boozing is good and fashionable and "the done thing". conservative, socialist, whatever, there are very few rational people who would agree that the state of the "drink culture" in England today is anything to be admired, and 24 hour licensing has not had the effect that the government insisted it would: the European "cafe culture". Face it - we're Brits, we booze hard and fight hard, and giving increased access to both is not good for society. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:23, 8 February 2008 (EST)

But that's not the point, Fox. The point is, is it right the government should restrict most people's enjoyment of a social drink until the small hours just because a small minority abuse the privilege and get all rowdy? We don't ban cars just because a few youngsters tear around the suburban streets in them. It is perfectly possible, as you can witness every night across continental Europe, to be civilized and reasonable and responsible and drink through to the small hours as I have done in Milan, Paris, Toulouse, Madrid, Frankfurt and many other cities.

It can even be argued (and is) that the original licensing laws of last orders at 11pm compounded the problem of binge drinking - sinking as many pints as possible before chucking out time, sometimes as a badge of honour.

Yes, we have a terrible attitude towards alcohol in the UK. But why should the anti-social few ruin it for the rest of us? It's lowest common denominator law-making and doesn't address the problem at heart. Maybe 24hr opening was pouring fuel on the fire to some degree but, as you pointed out, there was nothing stopping the anti-social brigade from loading up at the offie and getting ratted after 11pm. Indeed, many of them still do because it's a lot cheaper.

Re-introducing the old licensing laws would be a backwards step in regards to freedom. And we've had quite enough of that in the last decade. Ajkgordon 13:41, 8 February 2008 (EST)

There are a couple of quotes above from Conservative party members - and a previous Conservative leader - which address what you say and are the hymn sheet from which I would sing too. This was a mistake to introduce when it was, the attitudes towards binge drinking should have been tackled first, not give increased acces to alcohol, and then try andpick up the pieces. There was almost a century of "habit" to overcome, from the original restrictions to the current deregulation. Would the (beware - Borstal quote) "short sharp shock" of reverting the licensing laws be so great that the country would not tolerate it? I don't think so. I'm not anti-pub nor anti-drink, I'm not teetotal, I'm a believer in moderation, respecting the law and your fellow man, and accepting the punishment if you don't. I would welcome liberalised licensing laws at the point when the government of the day had invested as much in educating our young people about the dangers of alcohol abuse as it has in accepting homosexuality as as a social norm. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Well, that's where we'll obviously have to disagree. My view is, in cases such as these, give people the responsibility first then educate them in how to use it, rather than take the Daily Mail option of ban first ask question later. But that's just me being liberal :) but then I don't like having my liberty curtailed by the actions of morons in our society. Oh, and really, I'm sure you could have found a better example than the emotive one of homosexuality, for goodness' sake. It hardly fits! Ajkgordon 14:48, 8 February 2008 (EST)

well, I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with you. Dissent is an integral part of true democracy - and one which is not tolerated under New Labour. As for choosing homosexuality over something else, this is a Christian conservative site, and I speak to the Christian conservatve majority here. Choosing some other issue may make sense to you and I as Englishmen, but you and I aren't the only people reading this. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough. Although I'm sure we could have found a better example, like social acceptability of drink-driving or racism. Homosexuality has a habit of clouding the issue, especially on here. Ajkgordon 17:03, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Not each day - those figures are totals for March 2005 and March 2006. I respectfully refer you back to my analysis above so that you might respond properly to it. --RedFive 13:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)

No. I respectfully refer you back to the figures. They are the average figures for a 12 hour period within a month, not the average figures for a month. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

In fairness, the wording is ambiguous. I believe this report from BBC News supports my interpretation. --RedFive 14:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)

KK, I can't be bothered to argue with you over this - if you are English you appreciate the point the article is illustrating, if you are not it is irrelevant to you - I don't want to be accused of making up figures from the Daily Mail's humorously quoted office of national statistics. But the report quite clearly says "The introduction of 24-hour drinking laws may have trebled alcohol-related admissions to A&E departments in inner city areas at night." It's Friday, the sun is down, this is Shabbat, and my wife is looking at me strangely for being on the PC still; should I now go and do all the legwork of pooliing each Health Trust's figures? How many A&E departments are there? And what exactly is the point you are trying to make? That drinking to excess is good, so long as you do not inflate your local A&E's statistics? That alcohol abuse by children is OK so long as their parents don't over-inflate the local A&E's statistics?? I don't mind non-conservative users coming here and trying to point out the error of our conservative ways, but at least cut to the car chase with your propaganda. Is it alcoholism in general you support, or alcoholism in children, or just statistics and their interpretation? Or are you just arguing the toss because you don't like Conservapedia and therefore anything we say MUST be a lie? I suggest that it is the latter. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:55, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Dang... :( I thought my point was clear: headline claims of "trebling" and such are often not so impressive when you look at the actual numbers. In this particular case, (almost) trebling to 8% from a low base of 2.9% - which could well be in the range of normal fluctuations. --RedFive 15:25, 8 February 2008 (EST)

In a single hospital on a single day... But let's talk nationwide. Every A&E accross the country. Are we hearing different? You're just trying to obfuscate with smoke and mirrors. I repeat my question: Why? Are our doctors and nurses lying? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

No, not in a single hospital on a single day. Percentage change in total alcohol-related admissions to a single A&E unit, March 05 v. March 06 - which is a) likely within the range of normal fluctuations, and b) a pretty narrow frame of reference from which to make nationwide generalisations. I'd appreciate a little more civility in your responses. --RedFive 16:23, 8 February 2008 (EST)

LoL Admit it, you're talking out your hoop. Goodbye, godspeed 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:02, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Block, then bail? I credited you with more class then that. All you had to do was concede the narrow statistical point and then you would've been free to wax lyrical about "booze culture" in general. I'd've got you on history and percentages in the end, but you'd've come out of it looking like a concerned citizen rather than a reactionary tool. FredWesley 12:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)

I think the headline needs to be clarified a bit. When you refer to "liberal actors" and "Randy Quaid" people would assume you are referring to the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) that represents Hollywood actors. That is not the union referred to, though, in the article. The union that banned Quaid was actually the Actors' Equity Association, representing stage actors (e.g. Broadway). Now, I don't know if this was an innocent mistake or intellectual dishonesty, but I think it should be clarified regardless. --Jdellaro 08:23, 8 February 2008 (EST)

The headline is accurate and you are making a distinction without a difference. Broadway performers are actors too, of course.--Aschlafly 08:38, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, but it's not the same union as the liberal Hollywood actors. Are you going to suggest the same "liberal Hollywood values" are pervasive throughout the Broadway acting scene? I would dare you to name ten Broadway actors currently on stage, w/o of course, looking it up on Wikipedia. But I'm sure you can easily name ten Hollywood actors. There's a reason that there's two different unions. I ask you--when reading the headline, do you expect that people will know that you are referring to the AEA and not the SAG? --Jdellaro 08:44, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Are you trying to suggest that, while Hollywood actors are liberal, their New York City counterparts are not? Because otherwise, I don't see that it matters which union is referenced--we're talking two liberal actor unions, not different political parties. --RossC 09:06, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I'm suggesting that it should be made clear who we are referring to in the headline. With the recent uproar over the Heath Ledger headline, I think it should be made clear that we are referring to the stage actors union, not the SAG. Obviously numerous headlines are posted here (as the discussion page has shown) that lead a reader to believe one thing, when a different point is being made in the article. Intellectual dishonesty, I thought, was a tactic of the left. Once again, for simple clarity, and in the space of 30 seconds the change could be made, to state it was the stage actors union. So, it can either be done in 30 seconds and made more clear, or left as is. Since it's such a low burden to make it more clear, I can only think it wouldn't be done to purposefully leave the confusion in. Obviously I, as a reader, was confused by the headline. A little clarity is all I seek. --Jdellaro 09:17, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Headlines need to be concise, and our headlines are accurate. You are drawing a distinction between two liberal actors unions, having overlap in membership, which is without any demonstrable significance. That is not detail that belongs in a headline.--Aschlafly 09:45, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, what on earth does any of this have to do with politics? All parties involved may incline towards the left, but that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. I am totally baffled as to why this story was deemed worthy of inclusion in the first place. Randy is randy. Big deal. KeithJoseph 14:57, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

Culture obviously affects politics. Is it another liberal denial to claim otherwise? Perhaps it is and should be added to the list. Also, Conservapedia concerns more than politics. We have over 20,000 entries here.--Aschlafly 10:45, 10 February 2008 (EST)

"Also, Conservapedia concerns more than politics. We have over 20,000 entries here" Oh I accept that Andy. But the headline suggests that liberalism plays some part in the substance of this story, when, in fact, it is just a bit of sordid gossip concerning some boorish actor and his union. The key question, I guess, is this: Could we imagine conservatives (or communists, for that matter) behaving in a similar way? I don't see why not. Why, then, headline the political leanings of those involved? KeithJoseph 16:47, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

For starters, conservatives don't believe in most unions. Conservatives would particularly reject the suggestion of a union fining a member $80,000+ and banning him for life. What is this union, a totalitarian state??? As to Randy Quaid himself, conservatives don't personally behave the way he allegedly did.--Aschlafly 13:25, 10 February 2008 (EST)

and banning him for life. What is this union, a totalitarian state??? It is a free association that has the right to expel people from membership, just as CP sysops expel people for dissent and disagreement, among other things. What is your problem? Sawneybeane 17:54, 11 February 2008 (EST)

No, you're in liberal denial about what a union does. A union ban interferes with employment. But thanks for pointing out something that should be added to the denial list.--Aschlafly 20:03, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Always pleased to help! Sawneybeane 06:19, 13 February 2008 (EST)

We should not imitate Wikipedia, which assumes that lower courts have authority over the President of the United States. A headline reading "Judge restricts Navy use of sonar" would be incorrect.

It might be the Liberal position that federal courts have jurisdiction over the White House, but I'd like to ask our resident law expert Andy Schlafly whether this is also the conservative position. And what does the Constitution itself have to say about this matter?

If the liberals are right about crusading judges, how about town councils in Vermont? Can they arrest the president because they don't like his foreign policy? --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:49, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Ignoring activist judges exceeding their authority, why wouldn't a lower court have authority over the President of the United States? That is, assuming that the court is dealing with matters within its authority. Is the President above the law? If he was caught speeding (I'm not sure if that's a good example), couldn't a lower court fine him for that (in principle at least)? Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Not that I disagree, but would the President be within any lower court's jurisdiction? I always thought the Supreme Court was a check and balance to the President. --David R^talk 21:03, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Courts can make binding judgments in relation to the activities of the Navy. The fact that the President is the Commander in Chief is neither here nor there.

As to what the Courts may do in relation to the President himself, I would have to defer to Mr. Schlafly. I recall that in England the Queen used to be immune from the criminal law. I'm not sure if that remains the case today. Certainly the case of The Queen against The Queen would sound a little odd. --HMayo 21:11, 10 February 2008 (EST)

The Supreme Court would be a check against the Executive branch of government, including the President acting as head of that, but that doesn't exclude a lower court having authority over him in other respects.

It does ring a bell that the English Queen is immune from the law at least in some respects, and yes, perhaps that applies to the U.S. President also. On the other hand, I believe that the principle behind the Magna Carta was not even the king is above the law. Oops, I think I just realised what I got wrong there. The king was not above the law of God; the law of the land would have been a different matter.

Philip J. Rayment 21:49, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Well, what if a president decided to steal a pack of gum at a 7/11 in Lincoln, Nebraska. Would the judges of that district have any authority to prosecute him for petty theft, or would that go directly to the Supreme court? --David R^talk 22:10, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I'm no expert on the way Americans do these things, but I would have thought that a local judge could hear such a case, because it's not a check on the activities of the executive branch of government. Philip J. Rayment 00:50, 11 February 2008 (EST)

The federal courts have authority over the President; they as an entity are the check/balance. So, if plaintiff sues President (p v. P), and the President loses, but decides not to appeal (which would be his right, otherwise), the lower court would successfully bind the President. So long as it's within the federal system (i.e., not a state court), the size/level of the court doesn't matter until it's appealed. That's when the President is sued as President/Executive. The same applies, except that the state courts have jurisdiction over matters within their scope, if it's the President as a natural person, for the 7/11 example. See, I remember my college courses :-) -MexMax 00:59, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Uh, I ignored sovereign immunity issues, because I have yet to meet someone who understands it :-) -MexMax 01:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Upon research, I don't think sovereign immunity blocks things done by the president or an officer individually: so if the President steals something, tough. Also, the fed has waived immunity to limited extent (for tort claims and some contracts), and we know that for abridgment of a civil/constitutional right, there is no immunity. Someone who's studied law more than casually should tell me if any of this is wrong....-MexMax 01:16, 11 February 2008 (EST)

In the first news item "falled" should be "fallen". HelpJazz 20:23, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Done! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 20:26, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks :) HelpJazz 20:35, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Any time! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)

The main page article on Richard Dawkins had something deeply disturbing amidst it's lines:

"There now is an outpouring of the atheistic substitute for love for him,"

So, atheists can't feel love? That's what I am getting from this part of the article. I suggest that there be some change to this phrase. CodyH 08:05 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Atheists are typically materialists, and materialists typically deny the existence of intangibles like love. Dawkins himself ducked this when confronted with the issue in a debate.--Aschlafly 09:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but it doesn't sell. I have a deep love for my family and my country, as do many atheistic soldiers like myself. My roommate is an atheist who is happily married with two children. And I can assure you there are many atheists living happily today in society. Empirical evidence refutes the claim, Mr. Schlafay. Now, where is the evidence to support your argument, aside from the 'Materialists deny love' stated above? CodyH 08:44 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Your statement does not explain how a materialist, which most atheists are, can believe in something immaterial like love. Most don't.--Aschlafly 10:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Evidence? --KimSell 11:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)

My statement is that I have seen, firsthand, that Atheist can and do feel love, regardless of Materialistic belief. And nowhere in the materialistic view does it debase the existience of emotion, since emotion can be observed and studied, and therefor has substance; whereas The Soul, God, Heaven, and Hell cannot, due to their immaterial nature. CodyH 09:20, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Sorry, but you guys have it wrong-- Atheists do not believe in a god, but they do not necessarily deny the existence of immaterial things like love. Crazyfish

I don't think you can claim that atheists don't have love. They may not have Love in the Christian sense, but the do have natural human sense. Also, I don't think that all Dawkins' supporters are atheists. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my polls} 10:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Love is an emotion. And like all emotions it is a result of a combination of chemical and electrochemical signals. Nothing non material about it. Of course, I have no doubt that Andy will come up with some evidence to support the idea that atheists dont love. After all, he wouldnt lie, would he?--KimSell 11:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I definitely agree with CPAdmin1(Tim?) - while Christianity calls for us to experience love, divine and otherwise, I don't think we can claim that it means we're the only ones who can feel love. Two of my best friends here are a happily married atheist couple, and I would balk at insulting their relationship. Christ's command is for us all to feel love, and I would hope that all mankind can aspire to that, regardless of religion.-MexMax 14:13, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I think that man is created in the image of God, and as such, he has the ability to love, regardless of whether he believes in god, or even believes in love. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 14:29, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Tim is correct, as I was thinking along the same lines as I was reading these posts. Here is my argument in point form:

• According to materialism (and therefore atheists who go to the extent of thinking this through), there is no such thing as love.
• According to Christians, God is love, and we love others because we are made in His image and are loved by Him.
• If we say that atheists don't have love, we are effectively saying that the materialists are correct: that there is no such thing as love.
• If an atheist says that he does have love, he is effectively saying that materialism is wrong.

Therefore, the phrase "the atheistic substitute for love" is wrong because it implies that materialism is correct. Because, as Tim said, the atheists are made in God's image and are loved by Him, they do have love, even if their (incorrect) philosophy says otherwise.

Philip J. Rayment 21:05, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Well, one out of four is a start - you are correct to say that according to Christians, God is love, and we love others because we are made in His image and are loved by Him, but, as has already been pointed out, the materialistic view is that love does exist, but that it is merely the result of a combination of chemical and electrochemical signals, reactions and processes, all of which can be observed and studied, so your other three points are wrong. Personally, I am an agnostic, so I view either scenario as being possible. Urushnor 21:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Fair comment, and I did overlook that KimSell had already made that point. I guess that when I said that materialists don't believe in "love", I was talking about something more than just "a combination of chemical and electrochemical signals, reactions and processes". I accept that materialists believe in something that they call love, but whether that is actually "love" is another matter. To put it another way, true love is more than just emotion; it is an act of free will, and materialism does not allow for free will (how can "a combination of chemical and electrochemical signals, reactions and processes" produce anything other than a predetermined outcome?). So with that clarification, my points stand. Philip J. Rayment 01:03, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Well, if the materialistic viewpoint is correct, then materialists don't merely 'believe in something they call love', as what they call love is love, so your points do not really stand as they rely on the underlying concept that materialists simply do not believe love exists. As for saying that 'true love is something more than just as emotion, it is an act of free will', I would agree - if it weren't for the fact that it is very unusual, if not entirely unknown, for someone to conciously choose to truly love someone, hence such expressions as 'falling in love' and 'love at first sight', and the various beliefs that have persisted throughout the centuries about people falling deeply in love due to being 'soulmates' or that it was 'fate', etc, etc, etc. Urushnor 08:26, 12 February 2008 (EST)

"...what they call love is love...": Yes, if their worldview is correct. I believe that it's not.

"...it is very unusual, if not entirely unknown, for someone to conciously choose to truly love someone...": Perhaps it's entirely unknown in your circles, but that doesn't mean that it's unknown or even unusual. That love is an emotion that happens to you ('falling in love', etc.), is a liberal viewpoint, not a biblical one. This is one reason that divorce is so common these days: if people 'fall into' love, they can 'fall out' of love just as easily. If marriages are built on commitment rather than emotion, they are much more likely to last. Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but if you marry someone based on 'commitment rather than emotion', you are not marrying due to love, you are marrying for other reasons. Urushnor 09:31, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Phil, I trust you know that I'm no atheist, but I also have to disagree mightily with you. Love is not something that you turn on or off - it happens - and "falling in love" is the best way to describe. Mankind has no control over affairs of the heart like that, and it's wonderful. As to whether that means that one can fall out of love, I think the answer is, again, yes, but I don't think that's what's to blame for the divorce rate lately. I think that's a product of people not approaching marriage as a serious decision, and a product too of the general denigration of the family. But it's not a result of failing to "choose" to love.-MexMax 10:21, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Sanity reigns. I must say, stating that falling in love is a purely a liberal notion is beyond the bizarre. That has to be one of the most un-Christian statements I have ever read on here. I'm sure Philip can't have meant that. Ajkgordon 10:27, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ajkgordon, I don't see how the statement is "un-Christian". Urushnor, your response really depends on your definition. MexMax, this is not an area that I've studied much, and I probably can't give too many detailed responses, but to at least show that this is not a novel or particularly radical idea, here's four sites I found that essentially agree with what I said, and some quotes from them:

• http://www.rockymountainministry.com/page16.htm
  • "People usually choose mates in our society for romantic reasons, which isn’t all bad. But those who want their marriages to be satisfactory must go beyond romance to love as God loves. “Agape” is not just a word or a feeling. “Agape” begins with a decision that must be reaffirmed daily as it develops into a way of life. “Agape” does not use people. It involves a sincere resolve to nurture the loved one. If it is to endure, “agape” demands a depth of commitment that often escapes the romanticist."
  • "Ruth [in the Bible] presents us with an excellent example of the kind of love described by the word “agape.” She loved her mother-in-law freely, with no strings attached. Her kind of kind of love is spelled “commitment.”"
• http://chemistry.typepad.com/the_great_mate_debate/2007/05/twos_commitment.html
  • "First, I think we need to define love. Love is not feelings driven. Love is a commitment followed by feelings."
  • "When you’re in true love with someone, you’re really in commitment with them."
  • "I think one of the reasons why we have such a high divorce rate and why relationships, especially marriages, are ending up in the deep weeds is this fallacy that love is feelings-driven."
• http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7978_1.html <-- This one's by a Rabbi.
  • The great secret, says the rabbi, is that if you decide to fall in love, your heart will follow."
  • "... their commitment came first; their love followed."
  • "...because of that they committed to each other, then fell in love." (emphasis in original)
  • "It is commitment that makes us fall in love..."
  • "Love can't precede commitment. Sure, you can be strongly attracted before commitment. You can be "in like." But you aren't yet in love."
  • "If you, as a single person, are merely biding your time, waiting to fall in love before you feel ready to commit, I'd counsel you that love won't happen until you commit."
  • "The great secret of falling in love, I believe, is that it can be summoned. You can actually decide to fall in love with someone, and your heart will follow."
• http://thewandererstales.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-love-commitment-or-what.html
  • "feelings change all the time, we will always find someone better but we choose to love who we love because love is a commitment"

Yes, a couple of them are blogs (and a couple are not), but as mentioned above, the argument is not something particularly radical and unheard-of, but has a wide acceptance.

Philip J. Rayment 05:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I agree that marriage can be more successful if based on more than pure emotion. Emotion, by its very nature, is unstable and prone to variation.

But the way you put it initially made it sound that you were claiming that falling in love is a liberal notion - "That love is an emotion that happens to you ('falling in love', etc.), is a liberal viewpoint, not a biblical one." While I think I now see what you were trying to say, it came across as extremely intolerant and un-Christian. At least to me and it seems some others.

On this day of all days, we can all accept that love is an emotion and something that can and does happen to all of us whatever our persuasions.

As an anecdotal aside, I fell in love with my wife over two decades ago, our marriage and our commitment to each other is founded in love, and we celebrate our twentieth wedding anniversary in April this year. Our political opinions have absolutely nothing to do with it, thank God. Ajkgordon 05:38, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you for describing the atheistic substitute for love. It was getting to the point where people were doubting my observation of the atheistic viewpoint.--Aschlafly 21:46, 11 February 2008 (EST)

You obviously missed the point - that's not the 'atheistic substitute for love', that is love, according to the materialistic viewpoint. There is no difference between Christian love and materialistic love - there is only differing opinions as to what, precisely, it is, where it comes from, and what causes it. As an aside, not all atheists are materialists - there are some who believe in many things which cannot be observed, studied or measured, it's just gods are things they do not believe in. Urushnor 22:09, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Response to Aschlafly: I'm not talking about the atheistic viewpoint. Whether atheists believe love exists or not does not effect my argument. The argument is that, because atheists are created in the image of God, they have love whether they acknowledge it or not. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 23:44, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Tim, I like your argument for its simplicity, and it's exactly the way I feel. It reminds me of the common joke -

Atheist to God - I don't believe in you!

God to Atheist - Well, I believe in you, still!

I always liked that. But quite apart from that, I don't think materialists disbelieve in love, either. That argument has no logical stopping point other than "materialists don't believe in emotion," which is, frankly, to quote Mr. Spock, illogical!-MexMax 23:56, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Most humans, even most Christians, would agree that you don't call it 'love', if you love a person out of love (or fear) for a third party. People call it love, if you love a person irrespective of who or what was the origin of some distant ancestor. You love the person and not the genealogy of a person. If you feel the need to explain love for a person, either as a consequence of a chemical imbalance, or as part of your obligations to your deity, you kind of missed the point. Theologically, or scientifically it might be interesting, but it is completely besides the mark when it comes to practice. The proof of the pudding is not in its chemical composition, neither in who made it, but in the eating. Happy Valentines Day.Order 00:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I think most people atheists and theists alike agree that love exists. They probably have different explanations for it, but to say that either atheists or theists as humans don't experience the same emotion is lunacy. Physiologically we're all the same. A possible atheistic explanation for love would be an electrochemical response. If you believe the theory of evolution, you could argue that early humans who experienced this electrochemical reaction known as love were more likely to survive and procreate than those who didn't. Since they'd probably be more likely to cooperate and help one another out of love. Also love between mates would probably increase the likely hood of producing offspring. The love between a mother and its young would cause the mother to protect it and care for it increasing its chances for survival. Other emotions also probably helped us survive and over time developed via evolution. Observer 09:45, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, but the concept that atheists can't feel real love is ludicrous. If you're human, you can feel love. It's part of life. Denying that means that you're claiming that atheists are not human. Piffle. Darkmind1970 18:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Love between man and woman is an evolutionary adaptation for keeping the mother and father together during the long years of bringing up a human child. Love towards your own child can also be explained based on evolution.

But that does not take the magic of love away. We atheists absolutely believe in love and many intangible things.

By the way, Man made god in his own image. --JBuscombe 06:45, 14 February 2008 (EST)

All that's according to your worldview, or your personal version of it. That man made God in his own image is nothing more than the wishful thinking of the atheistic religion. Philip J. Rayment 07:32, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Try not to get combative here Jbuscombe. Stick to the topic of the discussion and refrain from childish remarks.

The point I'm trying to make is that the phrase "Atheistic substitute for love" implies that atheists don't have the ability to feel love, and therefore need to use a love substitute. That is simply not the case, and frankly it's quite insulting. Observer 15:04, 14 February 2008 (EST)

This debate has attained level 11 ridiculousness. For anyone to claim that atheists have a "substitute for love" is madness. If we, humanity, atheists included, were endowed with gifts from God--thoughts, emotion, free will, etc--then wouldn't it be understood that all humans (even atheists) have said emotions? Regardless of whether they believe in a god or not? or does their atheism proclude them from feeling? Does anyone really belive that?--Iconoclastbeggar 19:17, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Am I completely missing something, or doesn't the advertisement for the post actually completely contradict the assertation in the headline that Dawkins never held the position, not to mention that the Simonyi minisite at Oxford? I'm also puzzled at the use of inverted commas around the word 'post'. Is there something I am unaware of about using the word 'post' rather than, say, 'position' or 'Chair' that makes the appointment any less valid?Urushnor 12:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I find this confusing too. The Simonyi professorship homepage at Oxford lists Dawkins as the current holder. HermanH 12:42, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Please read the entry on Richard Dawkins and the corresponding talk page. I don't have time to repeat it all here. Even Dawkins' biggest fan here admits that Dawkins is not the "Charles Simonyi Professor" as Dawkins claims on his resume.--Aschlafly 12:54, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I already have. Going by the Dawkins article, and most especially the Talk Page and Talk Page Archives, a few people seem to suggest that Dawkin's position is not a 'real professorship' and that it was 'bought for him', but there is a remarkable lack of evidence actually substantiating such claims. Of course, this makes the section in the Dawkins article about his postion in the Charles Simonyi Chair basically an ad hominem attack on his academic credentials with little or no evidence backing it up, but I see from the history any attempt to correct it is reverted, for some reason. As for your claim of 'even Dawkins' biggest fan here admits that Dawkins is not the "Charles Simonyi Professor" as Dawkins claims on his resume', I am assuming you are referring to OurMike? I cannot be absolutely sure, as there is so many people on the Dawkins Talk Page who refute the claim of Dawkins 'not being a real professor', but OurMike is the latest one I can see who mentions anything like that. If I am correct, then all that OurMike has pointed out is that Dawkins CV is perhaps incorrect in a very minor way - it amalgamates two separate but extremely similar positions into one, which could simply have been done in order to simplify it, or could even be a simple typo. Considering that even Oxford University refers to the position as 'the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science', frankly, I don't see the problem. Urushnor 14:41, 11 February 2008 (EST)

And, actually, there is something I just got reminded about - when you're talking about endowed professorships, the name of the person who set up the endowment is typically included in the title of the position, and Dawkins is, in fact, both the Charles Simonyi Reader and the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, as OurMike stated. The full title of the latter position would therefore actually be, 'the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science', so the headline is wrong. Urushnor 15:53, 11 February 2008 (EST)

'sobvious - Oxford University know less than the omniscient Schlafly. Sawneybeane 14:58, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Folks, I know Richard Dawkins is your hero for ideological reasons, but Oxford itself confirmed that he is not a Charles Simonyi Professor. Give it us. See if you can fool people elsewhere, because you're not going to fool anyone here, just as Dawkins didn't fool anyone at Berkeley for two years and at Oxford for over two decades.--Aschlafly 17:09, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I don't view Dawkins as any sort of a hero (I'd use the term "arrogant doofus"), but (based on the discussion on the Dawkins talk page) it seems clear that--totally apart from anything related to Simonyi and his endowment--Dawkins is indeed a professor at Oxford, and has been since 1996.--RossC 17:36, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Since 1996? Richard Dawkins claims on his resume (see ootnote 1 in the entry) to have been a Charles Simonyi Professor since 1995. Either Oxford or Dawkins is not telling the truth. Any guess which one?--Aschlafly 21:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, I have no idea where you are getting the 'Oxford itself confirmed that he is not a Charles Simonyi Professor' from, but, unless you are privy to information not yet presented on the Dawkins Talk Page or Talk Page Archives, that is totally wrong. Here is the entry in the Oxford University Gazette detailing Professor Dawkin's appointment as the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, so, unless Oxford has two such positions, which I seriously doubt, that is the Charles Simonyi Professorship. What you may be misunderstanding is the quote from Oxford on the top of the Talk Page. That does not say that Professor Dawkins is not a Professor, or, indeed, is not the Charles Simonyi Professor. What it says is that the position, as Dawkins has it, is not a statutory Professorship, but that it will become one with the next holder of the Professorship. You can see the difference between the two by consulting the 'Duties' section of the advertisement for the position - only the first part (above the heading 'Teaching and research') is the duties of the Professorship as a non-statutory post.

As for your claim of Richard Dawkins being 'my hero', I'm afraid that's strike two. I had not even heard of Dawkins until I saw that headline. It was only upon seeing that, consulting the Dawkins article on this website, actually reading the sites linked to in the citations, and examining the evidence presented on the Talk Page did I realise that both the headline and the section of the article detailing his current position at Oxford appears to be wrong in almost every detail (the only significant part being correct is that he is, indeed, retiring). Your claim of him being my hero for 'ideological reasons' is also interesting. Now that I know who he is, and also considering what appear to be your own beliefs, it seems clear that statement is something of a psychological projection on your part - to you, he is a VILLAIN for ideological reasons, and this is why you so adamantly resist any alteration to the Dawkins article, even though it is abundantly clear it is wildly inaccurate. Urushnor 20:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. See my reply just above yours, and try to focus on the facts. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

See my first reply to yours here, especially the part about OurMike pointing out that Dawkins CV is perhaps incorrect in a very minor way. As for telling me to 'focus on the facts', it's me studying the facts that caused me to ask the original question that created this section. I'm waiting on further facts that actually explains why the headline appears to be wrong, or proves the headline to be correct. None appear to be forthcoming. Urushnor 21:58, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Whoever changed whatever it was that caused the pages to break, please change it back again. Thanks :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (EST)

The Huckabee campaign is outraged over the fact that McCain was declared the winner of the Washington caucuses, despite the fact that only 87% of the precinct were counted and McCain had a lead of less than 2%.

• http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/huckabee_washin.html
• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/huckabee-washington-state-vote-like-the-soviet-union/

Something for the news section, perhaps? HermanH 05:49, 12 February 2008 (EST)

A couple of issues:

1) the new "Edit this section" may be useful, but keep in mind that the majority of users are not allowed to edit the Main Page and may consider it unrespectful.

Is that any better? --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 18:59, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you, that's very good! --Leopeo 05:32, 13 February 2008 (EST)

2) as a personal preference, on the Main Page I'd like new news (pun intended) at a rate of 2-3 a day, at most. At the last few days' rate, those who don't login so often miss most of the news. Maybe new sections could be created, on the Main Page or linked from the Main Page, such as "US 2008 Election watch" or "Liberals did it again!", and leave the In the news section for the most important news? --Leopeo 11:42, 12 February 2008 (EST)

At the bottom right of the "In the news" section there is a link to Older News... which has the previous news in case you missed it. --Crocoite 12:27, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Just to add a little more clarification to the story. While Shadegg is the 26th to announce he won't seek reelection, he is actually the 29th to either leave office or not seek reelection according to the AP:

Rep. John Shadegg, a seven-term congressman, said Monday he will not seek re-election, becoming the 29th House Republican in the past 13 months to either leave office or decline to seek re-election.

--Jdellaro 15:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Interesting, but not a clarification. Of course extending the period back over a year is going to increase the number.--Aschlafly 15:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)

The reason it extends the period is because it is for the entire 110th Congress. The news item refers to the reelection campaign, and the number indicates how many will not be seeking reelection. Well, the other three that are not seeking reelection (due to death while in office) is important because it shows that further uphill climb for the GOP to recapture the House. Rather than just needing to fill 26 seats to stay even, they will need to fill 29 vacancies.--Jdellaro 15:59, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Aren't some of the prior departures already filled by interim elections? I think perhaps your calculus needs correction.--Aschlafly 16:19, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Calculus? I think you need to do some critical thinking in Math, Andy! ;-) -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 16:35, 12 February 2008 (EST)

My coordinates seem to have… erm… broken it… --MakeTomorrow 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Heh, maybe you should come away from the dark side. HelpJazz 19:46, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Just a minor item, but might still be interesting as lighter news. Homeschoolers won the 6th Annual Iwamoto School Team Tournament at the Seattle Go Center on February 10:

 http://www.usgo.org/index.html

And the good side is... ? Sawneybeane 06:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

The good side is that there is a large pool of cheap labour that will prepare your food, cut your lawns and do all those unpleasant tasks that those with legal status won't do. People talk about illegal immigration but ,like boycotts, are only committed when it doesn't hit their individual wallets Nik77uk 13:20, 13 February 2008 (GMT)

This is an interesting report by the Cristain Broadcasting Network on NCFCA. I was competing in this tournament all last week.

"CBNNews.com - What happens when you take Christian home-school kids and put them on-stage to perform in high-pressure situations for hundreds of people? CBN News found out this weekend at a national speech and debate tournament for home-schooled teens."

It won't play for me. What happened? Maestro 19:51, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Me neither! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 20:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

There's a typo in the new quote - it links to "Isaac Newton instead of Isaac Newton--IDuan 17:04, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Done. --Crocoite 18:30, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Funny, it seems to have fallen down the ranks on Google, the single most widely used search engine… #12 --> #14. --MakeTomorrow 18:40, 13 February 2008 (EST)

You left out that it is out 9.3 million links retrieved by Google. Also many would ignore much of the junk that is slightly ahead of Conservapedia's entry.--Aschlafly 18:46, 13 February 2008 (EST)

And many wouldn't ignore it. In my many years as a librarian, I find people (despite my best efforts), only look at the first handfull of results. Maestro 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, and many people watch television for 6 hours a day. Neither audience is the crowd we're after.--Aschlafly 21:58, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I went to the "all pages" link to see what it was. One of the pages listed should probably be deleted or something. Bohdan 20:12, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yup, good catch Bohdan. HelpJazz 11:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Ummm, the second-to-last listing is "...to Zombie Jesus", which no longer exists and can't be recreated.--Jdellaro 11:55, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I deleted it because if you don't delete it and only redirect it. it will stil show up under 'All pages'. I found one like that the other day!! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 12:07, 14 February 2008 (EST)

WOW! Isn't it just sickening how liberal those people are??? --Ben _Talk 11:16, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, it's not enough for them to say, "Also known as: Saint Valentine's Day" on the side. I want to see it FRONT AND CENTER! For that matter, I am also going to be boycotting Hallmark for the same liberal transgression! Hallmark--you're on notice.--Jdellaro 11:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I just wish they had the courtesy to say Saint Valentines Day!! But..what do you expect...they don't even call their entry Saint Valentines Day!! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 12:04, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia presumably got the name of Saint Valentine's Day wrong because they are all Liberal Atheists who have no concept of Love anyway. Sawneybeane 15:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

To be fair, though, Wikipedia's entry on Saint Valentine gives a lot more biography of the saint(s) involved than Saint Valentine's Day here. Wikipedia's article also covers a lot about the secularized celebration of Valentine's Day. The secularization is sort of like what happened to Saint Patrick's Day. How many people actually venerate the saint on Saint Patrick's Day, and how many people drink green beer and watch parades next to a river dyed green? --Elkman 16:07, 14 February 2008 (EST)

No, Wikipedia obscures and confuses the religious nature of the day, while we are clear, succinct and straightforward - and unbiased.--Aschlafly 20:08, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, I see. Then, since I posted the wrong opinion, you might as well block me forever for being wrong. --Elkman 20:38, 14 February 2008 (EST)

The Conservapedia method of determining the liberalness of an entity: 1. State that it is liberal if you think it is. 2. Insist that it is liberal, even if that entails interpretations primarily influenced by your presuppositions. In conclusion: Liberal Wikipedia is liberal. --MakeTomorrow 21:22, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Sean Hannity must be a Liberal Athiest. He has been on over 2 hours and keeps calling it "Valentine's Day" rather than "Saint Valentine's Day" .--SpinnyDizzy 10:23pm, 14 February 2008 (UK)

Did you call in and correct him? You should have. I don't listen to talk radio myself.--Aschlafly 20:08, 14 February 2008 (EST)

And the site linked to promoting Purity Day also omits the word "saint". Why pick solely on Wikipedia? Eoinc 06:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Washington Times, Washington Post, BBC--IDuan 15:45, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Iduan. The article has been added to the Main Page. --Crocoite 16:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)