Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Russia

2010-12-20T21:55:02Z

AdamV: /* Cities */

{{Country
|name =''Российская Федерация Rossiyskaya Federatsiya''
|map =Russia rel94.jpg
|map2 =Russia location.png
|flag =Flag of Russia.png
|arms =Arms of the Russian Federation.png
|capital =Moscow
|capital-raw =
|government =Semi-Presidential Federal republic
|government-raw =
|language =Russian
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Dmitry Medvedev
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Vladimir Putin
|pm-raw =
|area =6,592,800 sq mi
|pop =141,400,000 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$2.3 trillion (2009)
|gdp-pc =$15,100 (2009 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
|currency =ruble
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Russia''' (formally the '''Russian Federation''' (Russian: Российская Федерация, ''Rossiyskaya Federatsiya''), is the largest country by area (17,075,200 square kilometers) and has the sixth largest population. Its history stretches back over a thousand years, with rule by the Czars until 1917, and by the Communists, 1918-1991 under the name of the [[Soviet Union]]. Russia had an extensive empire built up over hundreds of years, almost all of which broke away in 1991. The capital is [[Moscow]].

Russia is theoretically a federation of constituent governments. In reality, it has a highly centralized government, largely due to former President (now Prime Minister) [[Vladimir Putin]]. Putin has nationalized the nation's oil and gas companies, seized foreign investments, imprisoned top businessmen, and brought an autocratic, anti-democratic style that resembles--in milder form--the czars and Soviets. Thanks to oil revenue, it has the money to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, which is mildly hostile to the United States and to [[NATO]].
==Geography==
*Area: 17 million sq. km. (6.5 million sq. mi.); about 1.8 times the size of the United States.
*Cities: Capital--Moscow (pop. 8.3 million). Other cities--St. Petersburg (4.6 million), Novosibirsk (1.4 million), Nizhniy Novgorod (1.3 million). Numerous other cities over 1 million inhabitants.
*Terrain: Broad plain with low hills west of Urals; vast coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; uplands and mountains (Caucasus range) along southern borders.
*Climate: Huge variation from humid sub-tropical in Krasnodar krai, to desert/semi-desert in the Altai republic, and arctic tundra in north eastern Siberia, which is one of the coldest areas on the planet.

==Religion==
In practice, only a minority of citizens actively participated in any religion. Many who identified themselves as members of a religious group participated in religious life rarely or not at all. There is no one set of reliable statistics that breaks down the population by denomination, and the statistics below are compiled from government, polling, and religious group sources.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108468.htm U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

Approximately 100 million citizens are Russian Orthodox. Muslims, with a population estimated between 14 million and 23 million, form the largest religious minority. The majority of Muslims live in the Volga-Ural region and the North Caucasus, although Moscow, St. Petersburg, and parts of Siberia also have sizable Muslim populations. There are an estimated one million Buddhists, the majority of whom live in the traditionally Buddhist regions of Buryatiya, Tuva, and Kalmykiya. According to the NGO Slavic Center for Law and Justice, Protestants make up the second largest group of Christian believers, with 3,500 registered organizations and more than 2 million followers. The Roman Catholic Church estimated that there are 600,000 Catholics, most of whom are not ethnic Russians. There are an estimated 250,000 Jews, the majority of whom live in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In some areas, such as Yakutiya and Chukotka, pantheistic and nature-based religions are practiced independently or alongside other religions.

According to the annual report from the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice had registered 21,963 religious organizations as of January 1, 2008, 993 fewer than January 2006. The registered religious groups (with the number of registered organizations) include Russian Orthodox (12,586), Muslim (3,815), Protestant (several denominations totaling 3,410), Jehovah's Witnesses (402), Jewish (286), Orthodox Old Believers (283), Roman Catholic (240), Buddhist (200), and other denominations.

===Religion in schools===
The federal Government does not require religious instruction in schools, but it continues to allow public use of school buildings after hours for the ROC to provide religious instruction on a voluntary basis. Several regions offer a course on Orthodox Christianity in public schools, and five oblasts or regions (Kaluga, Tver, Bryansk, Smolensk, and Voronezh) have a mandatory class on the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture." Students may avoid the Belgorod Oblast voluntary course only if their parents provide and pay for an alternative course. The course is offered as an elective in several other regions. In regions where the class is not mandatory, in practice students may be compelled to take it where schools do not provide alternatives.

Some regions offer a class on "History of Religion," a proposal that the Minister of Education had suggested but did not introduce nationally. Although the Ministry of Education rejected continued publication and dissemination of a controversial textbook that detailed Orthodox Christianity's contribution to the country's culture, some schools continued to use the text. The textbook contained descriptions of some religious groups that members of those groups found objectionable. The Congress of Religious Associations in the Tyumen region appealed to the Governor and regional department of education to allow input from other religious groups into the religious culture curriculum, claiming that the course currently contains only the viewpoint of the ROC.

===Discrimination===
The regions of Kabardino-Balkariya and Dagestan have laws banning extremist Islamic "Wahhabism," but there were no reports that authorities invoked these laws to deny registration to Muslim groups. The former president of the Kabardino-Balkaria republic ordered the closure of six of seven mosques in Nalchik, the region's capital, in 2004. One was reopened in 2007, while the others remained closed and were suffering from disrepair and vandalism.

The 2002 Law on Extremism, amended in July 2006, can affect religious groups, particularly Muslim groups, by criminalizing a broad spectrum of speech and activities.

Many nontraditional denominations frequently complained that they were unable to obtain venues for worship. Because they were small and often newly established, they typically lacked the necessary resources to buy or rent facilities on the open market and must rely on government assistance. Because they are nontraditional, they frequently met opposition from the traditional communities and often were unable to find government officials who were willing to assist them in renting state-owned property. There were multiple reports of religious organizations who were not allowed to renew leases on public or private buildings. Increased competition for space in a growing economy and increasing real estate prices led many owners (public and private) to lease property to higher paying tenants, and in some cases, religious groups were refused outright at any price. Representatives of numerous Protestant groups spoke about increasing difficulty in extending existing leases or signing new leases for worship premises, the majority of which are still state-controlled. Some religious groups, particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, but also the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal congregations, and the Evangelical Christian Missionary Union, reported that local authorities in recent years denied them permission to acquire land on which to construct places of worship. Authorities continued to deny construction permits to several groups.

The Word of Life Christian Church in Kaluga region continued to face great difficulties trying to build its church. In June 2007 a court ruled in favor of the church and invalidated the Kaluga's mayoral decree to confiscate the church's property. In October 2007 the court denied the city's appeal. Local authorities, however, continued to harass the church. On July 4, 2007, the police seized a computer and documents, reportedly to find information on the church's secondary school. After seizing a list of the church's members, the police called the members and summoned them to the prosecutor's office for questioning about the school.

The Sochi mayor's office continued to deny the Muslim community authorization to build a new mosque; the current premises are inadequate to accommodate the membership. Officials allotted land several times but never transferred it to the Muslim community. According to the regional government, authorities can allocate land for a mosque only after a public opinion survey indicates that the proposed location would not cause conflict.

Religious news sources claimed that authorities acting under the influence of the ROC sometimes prevented Orthodox churches not belonging to the ROC, including the True Orthodox, from obtaining or maintaining buildings for worship.

After the 1997 Law changed the visa regime for religious and other foreign workers, nontraditional religious groups reported problems receiving long-term visas. In October 2007 the Government introduced new visa rules that allow foreigners (including religious workers) with business or humanitarian visas to spend only 90 of every 180 days in the country. According to religious experts, these rules were not aimed at religious workers, but the effect has been to severely restrict religious groups that rely upon foreign religious workers. The Roman Catholic Church, which relies almost exclusively on priests from outside the country, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with more than four hundred foreign missionaries, have been particularly hard hit by this provision. While foreign religious workers seem able to acquire visas with few problems, the 90-day limit on their stay in the country limits their ability to work and significantly increases their expenses. Although registered religious organizations have the option to sponsor foreign workers and missionaries on work visas (which do not have 90-day or 180-day limits), this is a complicated process that places significant financial and administrative burdens on the organizations.

Many religious groups were unable to regain property confiscated in the Soviet era and acquire new property. The Moscow-based SOVA Center said the property restitution problem was most prevalent among Muslim and Protestant groups.

==Demography==
In a major [[demography|demographic]] catastrophe, population indicators in Russia dramatically worsened after 1990: the number of [[death]]s exceeds the number of [[birth]]s, [[life expectancy]] is drastically decreasing, the number of [[suicide]]s has increased, and there are 240 abortions per 100 live births. Every year since 1992 the country has lost 400,000 to 650,000 population and the current total of 142 million is [[projection|projected]] to fall to 100 million by 2050.

In the 1990s, life expectancy in Russia fell an astonishing six years. [[Statistical analysis]] indicates that one-quarter of the increase in [[mortality]] was due to an increase in [[alcohol consumption]] and one-quarter was a consequence of [[stress]] due to economic uncertainty.<ref>Elizabeth Brainerd, and David M. Cutler, "Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union." ''Journal Of Economic Perspectives'' 2005 19(1): 107-130. Issn: 0895-3309 Fulltext: in Ebsco </ref>

Russia's population of 141.4 million (2007) is falling. Lower birth rates and higher death rates have reduced Russia's population at a nearly 0.5% annual rate since the early 1990s. Russia is one of few countries with a declining population (although birth rates in many developed countries have dropped below the long-term population replacement). Population decline is particularly drastic in Russia due to higher death rates, especially among working-age males. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, traffic injuries, suicide, alcohol poisoning, and violence are major causes of death. In a June 2006 speech to the Russian National Security Council, President Putin declared that Russia is facing a demographic crisis and called for measures to improve birth and mortality rates and increase population through immigration, primarily the return of Russian-speaking foreigners.

====HIV/AIDS====
Russia and Ukraine are said to have the highest growth rates of HIV infection in the world. In Russia HIV seems to be transmitted mostly by intravenous drug users sharing needles, although data is very uncertain. Data from the Federal AIDS Center shows that the number of registered cases is doubling every 12 months and is currently at 300,000 persons. When projections are made which allow for people in high-risk groups who have not been tested for the disease, estimates of the actual number of HIV-infected persons are approximately 3 million. The high growth rate of AIDS cases, if unchecked, will have negative economic consequences. Investment will suffer from the diversion of private and government funds to AIDS treatment. The effect on the labor force may be acute since about 80% of infected individuals in Russia are under 30 years of age.

===Ethnicity===
Most of the roughly 141 million Russians derive from the Eastern Slavic family of peoples, whose original homeland was probably present-day Poland. Russian is the official language of Russia and is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. Russian is also the language of such giants of world literature as [[Pushkin]], [[Tolstoy]], [[Dostoevsky]], [[Chekhov]], [[Pasternak]], and [[Solzhenitsyn]].
===Education===
Russia's educational system has produced nearly 100% literacy. About 3 million students attend Russia's 519 institutions of higher education and 48 universities, but continued reform is critical to producing students with skills to adapt to a market economy. Because great emphasis is placed on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is still generally of a high order. The number of doctors in relation to the population is high by American standards, although medical care in Russia, even in major cities, is generally far below Western standards. The unraveling of the Soviet state in its last decades and the physical and psychological traumas of transition during the 1990s resulted in a steady decline in the health of the Russian people. Currently Russia faces a demographic crisis as births lag far behind deaths. While its population is aging, skyrocketing deaths of working-age males due to cardiovascular disease is a major cause of Russia's demographic woes. A rapid increase in HIV/AIDS infections and tuberculosis compounds the problem. In 2007, life expectancy at birth was 59 for men and 73 for women. The large annual excess of deaths over births is expected to cut Russia's population by 30% over the next 50 years.
[[Image:Russian band in Pushkin.jpg|thumb|240px|Russian band in Pushkin.]]
===Labor force===
The Russian labor force is undergoing tremendous changes. Although well educated and skilled, it is largely mismatched to the rapidly changing needs of the Russian economy. Official unemployment has shrunken in recent years to 6.9%, and labor shortages have started to appear in some high-skilled job markets. Nonetheless, pockets of high unemployment remain and many Russian workers are underemployed. Unemployment is highest among women and young people. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic dislocation it engendered, the standard of living fell dramatically. However, real disposable incomes have doubled since 1999, and experts estimate that the middle class ranges from one-fifth to one-third of the population. In 2006, 15.8% of the population lived below the subsistence level, in contrast to 38.1% in 1998.

===Statistics===
*Population (2007 est.): 141.4 million.
*Annual growth rate (2007 est.): -0.484% (population declining).
*Ethnic groups: Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, other 14.4%.
*Religion: Russian Orthodox, Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestant, Buddhist, other.
*Language: Russian (official); more than 140 other languages and dialects.
*Education (total pop.): Literacy--99.4%.
*Health: Life expectancy (2007 est.)--59.12 yrs. men, 73.03 yrs. women.
*Work force (73.88 million) (2006 est.): Production and economic services--84%; government--16%.
==Cities==
Moscow is Russia's capital and largest city (population 8.3 million). Moscow is also increasingly important as an economic and business center; it has become Russia's principal magnet for foreign investment and business presence. Its cultural tradition is rich, and there are many museums devoted to art, literature, music, dance, history, and science, as well as hundreds of churches and dozens of notable cathedrals.

The second-largest city in Russia is [[St. Petersburg]] (formerly '''Leningrad'''), which was established by Tsar [[Peter the Great]] in 1703 to be the capital of the Russian Empire as part of his Western-looking reforms. The city was called Petrograd during World War I and Leningrad after 1924. In 1991, as the result of a city referendum, it was renamed St. Petersburg. Under the tsars, the city was Russia's cultural, intellectual, commercial, financial, and industrial center. After Lenin moved the capital back to Moscow in 1918, the city's political significance declined, but it remained a cultural, scientific, and military-industrial center. The Hermitage, formerly the Winter Palace of the tsars, is one of the world's great fine arts museums.

Russia has an area of about 17 million square kilometers (6.5 million sq. mi.); in geographic terms, this makes Russia the largest country in the world by more than 2.5 million square miles. But with a population density of about 22 persons per square mile (9 per sq. km.), it is sparsely populated, and most of its residents live in urban areas.

[[Image:Traffic in Moscow.jpg|thumb|Traffic in Moscow.]]

==Government and Political Conditions==
In the political system established by the 1993 [[constitution]], the [[president]] wields considerable executive power. There is no vice president, and the legislative branch is far weaker than the executive. The bicameral legislature consists of the lower house (State Duma) and the upper house (the Federation Council). The president nominates the highest state officials, including the [[prime minister]], who must be approved by the Duma. The [[president]] can pass decrees without consent from the [[Duma]]. He also is head of the armed forces and of the Security Council.

Duma elections were held most recently on December 7, 2003, and presidential elections on March 14, 2004. The pro-government party, United Russia, won close to half of the seats in the Duma. Combined with its allies, United Russia commands a two-thirds majority. The OSCE judged the Duma elections as failing to meet international standards for fairness, due largely to extensive slanted media bias in the campaign. [[Vladimir Putin]] was re-elected to a second four-year term with 71% of the vote in March 2004. The Russian constitution does not allow presidents to serve more than two consecutive terms. Next elections for the Duma occur in December 2007, and for President in March 2008.

Russia is a federation, but the precise distribution of powers between the central government and the regional and local authorities is still evolving. The Russian Federation consists of 89 regional administrative units, including two federal cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg. The constitution explicitly defines the federal government's exclusive powers, but it also describes most key regional issues as the joint responsibility of the federal government and the regional administrative units. In 2000, President Putin grouped the regions into seven federal districts, with presidential appointees established in Moscow and six provincial capitals. In March 2004, the Constitution was amended to permit the merger of some regional administrative units. A law enacted in December 2004 eliminated the direct election of the country's regional leaders. Governors are now nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by regional legislatures.

===Judicial System===
The Russian [[judicial system]] consists of the Constitutional Court, courts of [[general jurisdiction]], military courts, and arbitrage courts (which hear commercial disputes). The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction. The 1993 constitution empowers the Constitutional Court to arbitrate disputes between the executive and legislative branches and between Moscow and the regional and local governments. The court also is authorized to rule on violations of constitutional rights, to examine appeals from various bodies, and to participate in impeachment proceedings against the president. The July 1994 Law on the Constitutional Court prohibits the court from examining cases on its own initiative and limits the scope of issues the court can hear. The system of general jurisdiction courts includes the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, regional level courts, district level courts and justices of the peace.

The Duma passed a Criminal Procedure Code and other judicial reforms during its 2001 session. These reforms help make the Russian judicial system more compatible with its Western counterparts and are seen by most as an accomplishment in human rights. The reforms have reintroduced jury [[trials]] in certain [[criminal]] cases and created a more adversarial system of criminal trials that protect the rights of defendants more adequately. In 2002, the introduction of the new code led to significant reductions in time spent in detention for new detainees, and the number of suspects placed in pretrial detention declined by 30%. Another significant advance in the new Code is the transfer from the Procuracy to the courts of the authority to issue search and arrest warrants. There are rising concerns, however, that prosecutors have selectively targeted individuals for political reasons, as in the prosecution of Yukos Oil CEO Mikhail Khodorkovskiy.

In spite of the general tendency to increase judicial [[independence]] (for example, by recent considerable salary raise to judges), many judges still see their role not as of impartial and independent arbiters, but as of government officials protecting state interests. See below for more information on the commercial court/business law.

===Human Rights===
Russia is no longer Communist, but it is increasingly an authoritarian state where democracy is weak. It has an increasingly centralized political system, with power concentrated in the hands of [[Vladimir Putin]] and his choices for top offices. International observers concluded that the December 2007 State Duma election (for parliament) was not fair, and neither was the March 2, 2008, election for president.

[[Human rights]] problems and abuses continued in 2008, though at a far lower level than the days of Communism (which ended in 1991). Putin's human rights record remained poor in the North Caucasus, where governments in Ingushetiya and Dagestan faced increased opposition from disaffected social groups and insurgencies, and the Chechen government forcibly reined in the Islamist insurgency that replaced the separatist insurgency as the main source of conflict. Russian security forces engaged in killings, torture, abuse, violence, and other brutal or humiliating treatment.

Russia's [[human rights]] record remains uneven and has worsened in some areas in recent years. Despite significant improvements in conditions following the end of the Soviet Union, problem areas remain. In particular, the Russian Government's policy in Chechnya has been a cause for international concern. Although the government has made progress in recognizing the legitimacy of international human rights standards, the institutionalization of procedures to safeguard these rights has lagged. There are, however, some indications that the law is becoming an increasingly important tool for those seeking to protect [[human]] rights.

Some specific areas of human rights violations of the Soviet era continued on into the late 1990's and even have been reported up to 2002.
These involved experimentation on humans and the use of imported foreign forced labor, particularly from North Korea, to work in forestry in gulag type camps of Siberia (for Russian and other newspaper accounts, see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]). Experimentation on humans have been noted by Russian rights activists in connection with certain medical facilities. The Serbsky Institute and Mental Hospital figuring in as a center for mind altering experiments receives startling confirmation from Emilia Cherkover, former Deputy of the Zelenograd Soviet and member of the Russian Federation Human Rights Commission. Cherkover maintains that, along with Vladivostok and Moscow prisons and the mental hospital in Oryal, microwave (psychotronic and electromagnetic application) experiments had been conducted on humans between 1989 and 1990 at the Serbsky Institute in Moscow (see [[The Stavitski Account]]).
[[Image:Human Rights.JPG|left]]
<blockquote>
Journalist Yury Vorobyovsky has been investigating the top secret program of "psychotronic" brainwashing techniques developed by the KGB and the Ministry for three years. He notes Emilia Cherkova's claim that there are over a million victims. Her group, Ecology and Living Environment had filed damages against the Federal Security Service (FSB). The newspaper reports, "there is strong evidence that some kind of psychotronic warfare program did exist in the Soviet period, and that the technology may be falling into the wrong hands" (From Moscow Times, 7-11-95).
</blockquote>
====Prisons====
The judiciary is often subject to manipulation by political authorities and is plagued by large case backlogs and trial delays. Lengthy pretrial detention remains a serious problem. Russia has one of the highest [[prison]] population rates in the world, at 685 per 100,000. There are credible reports of beating and torture of inmates and detainees by law enforcement and correctional officials. Prison conditions fall well below international standards. In 2001, President Putin pronounced a moratorium on the death penalty. There are reports that the Russian Government might still be violating promises they made upon entering the European Council, especially in terms of prison control and conditions.
====Chechnya====
[[Chechnya]] has seen continuing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by Russian and pro-Moscow Chechen forces. Chechen rebels also have committed abuses as well as acts of terrorism. In [[Chechnya]], Ingushetiya, and Dagestan, security forces were involved in unlawful killings and politically motivated kidnappings. Chechen President Kadyrov continued his repressive control as federal forces withdrew. Federal and local security forces in Chechnya targeted families of suspected insurgents with impunity, and Kadyrov's private militia allegedly engaged in kidnapping and torture.<ref>see [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm Country Report 2008] </ref>

Human rights groups have criticized Russian officials concerning cases of Chechens disappearing while in custody. Chechen rebels have similarly been responsible for politically motivated disappearances. Russian authorities have introduced some improvements, including better access to complaint mechanisms, the formal opening of investigations in most cases, and the introduction of two decrees requiring the presence of civilian investigators and other nonmilitary personnel during all large-scale military operations and targeted search and seizure operations. Human rights groups welcome these changes but claim that most abuses remain uninvestigated and unpunished and may be spreading more broadly in the North Caucasus.
====Religion====
The Russian constitution provides for freedom of religion and the equality of all religions before the law, as well as the separation of church and state. Although Jews and Muslims continue to encounter prejudice and societal discrimination, they have not been inhibited by the government in the free practice of their religion. High-ranking federal officials have condemned anti-Semitic hate crimes, but law enforcement bodies have not always effectively prosecuted those responsible. The influx of foreign missionaries has led to pressure by groups in Russia, specifically nationalists and the Russian Orthodox Church, to limit the activities of these "nontraditional" religious groups. In response, the Duma passed a restrictive and potentially discriminatory law on religion in October 1997. The law is complex, with many ambiguous and contradictory provisions. The law's most controversial provisions distinguish between religious "groups" and "organizations" and introduce a 15-year rule, which allows groups that have been in existence for 15 years or longer to obtain accredited status. Senior Russian officials have pledged to implement the 1997 law on religion in a manner that is not in conflict with Russia's international human rights obligations. Some local officials, however, have used the law as a pretext to restrict religious liberty.
====Media====
Pressure from Putin's regime weakened freedom of expression and media independence, particularly of the major television networks. Five journalists were assassinated in 2008. As some print and Internet media reflected a widening range of views, the government restricted media freedom through direct ownership of media outlets, pressuring the owners of major media outlets to abstain from critical coverage, and harassing and intimidating journalists into practicing self-censorship. Local governments limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest. The government limited freedom of association. The government restricted religious groups in some regions, and there were incidents of societal discrimination, harassment, and violence against religious minorities, including anti-Semitism..<ref>see [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm Country Report 2008] </ref>

Government pressure continued to weaken freedom of expression and the independence and freedom of some media, particularly major national television networks and regional electronic media outlets. A government decision resulted in the elimination of the last major non-state television network in 2003. National press is also increasingly in government hands or owned by government officials, narrowing the scope of opinion available. Self-censorship is a growing press problem. Unsolved murders of journalists, including the killing of respected investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya in October 2006, have caused significant international concern and increased pressure on journalists to avoid subjects considered sensitive. In August 2007, authorities arrested several suspects in connection with the Politkovksaya case.
====Civil Society====
Enactment of a new law on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 2006 was criticized in many quarters as a device to control [[civil society]], that is, private organizations. Implementing regulations appear to impose onerous paperwork reporting burdens on NGOs that could be used to limit or even suppress some of them. This law was used to shut down an NGO for the first time in January 2007 on the basis of extremism charges; however, most foreign NGOs have successfully re-registered. Domestic NGOs were not required to re-register, but are required to meeting new reporting requirements.

===Government Spending/Taxation===
[[Image:Putin..jpg|left|260px]]
The Russian federal budget has run growing surpluses since 2001, as the government has taxed and saved much of the rapidly increasing oil revenues. According to preliminary figures, the 2006 budget surplus was 7.4% of GDP on a cash basis. Although there are strong pressures to relax spending ahead of elections, the government has loosened its spending gradually, as the economy is running at near capacity and there are dangers of increasing inflation and rapid exchange rate appreciation. Spending increases to date have mostly been for increased salaries of government employees and pensions, but some money is also being dedicated to special investment funds and tax breaks to develop new industries in special economic zones. The government overhauled its tax system for both corporations and individuals in 2000-01, introducing a 13% flat tax for individuals and a unified tax for corporations, which improved overall collection. Business has put pressure on the government to reduce value added taxes (VAT) on oil and gas, but the government has postponed this discussion. Tax enforcement of disputes, particularly following the Yukos case, continues to be uneven and unpredictable.

A major focus of increased government spending has been the military, with large increases being spent on overhauling and updating equipment, as well as increasing salaries of military personnel, though a huge backlog of problems remain from the chaotic Yeltsin era and almost two decades of chronic underinvestment.

Much needed investment in national infrastructure, including railways and waterways, which are much more important in transportation in Russia than in the US and Europe has been insignificant, leading to bottlenecks that hamper growth and development. Telecoms and electricity production and distribution also remain run-down and outdated from the post-Soviet collapse. As a result of this, Russia remains dependent on energy exports for income, with the domestic economy effectively held back by capacity restraints or neglected facilities, a fact which has left Russia vulnerable to a collapse in fuel prices, such as that experienced at the beginning the global financial crisis, when crude oil prices dropped from over $100 per barrel to less than $60. Currently, Russian development of railways and highways in terms of new/renewed miles of route lies at around 1/10 that of China, despite having a much larger landmass.

===Foreign Relations===
In the years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia took important steps to become a full partner in the world's principal political groupings. On December 27, 1991, Russia assumed the permanent UN Security Council seat formerly held by the Soviet Union. Russia also is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). Russia and the European Union (EU) signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. It signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Partnership for Peace initiative in 1994. The NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 and the NATO-Russia Council superseded that in 2002. Russia acquiesced (despite misgivings) in enlargement of NATO by members first of the former Warsaw Pact and most recently by the Baltic states that had been forcibly integrated into the Soviet Union.

Over the past several years Russia has increased its international profile, played an increasing role in regional issues, and been more assertive in dealing with its neighbors. The rise in energy prices has given it leverage over countries which are dependent on Russian sources. Russia continues to support separatist regimes in Georgia and Moldova.

===Relations with the United States===
The United States and Russia share common interests on a broad range of issues, including counterterrorism and the drastic reduction of our strategic arsenals. Russia shares our basic goal of stemming the [[proliferation]] of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We are working with Russia to compel Iran to bring its nuclear programs into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737. On North Korea, Russia is a participant in the Six-Party Talks aimed at the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program. Russia also takes part in the Middle East Peace Process "Quartet" (along with the UN and the EU). Russia now interacts with NATO members as an equal through the NATO-Russia Council but without veto power over NATO decisions. During the past several years, Russia has intensified its efforts to combat trafficking in persons.

==Defense==
Russia's efforts to transform its Soviet-legacy military into a smaller, lighter and more mobile force continue to be hampered by an ossified military leadership, discipline problems and human rights violations, limited funding and demographics. Recent steps by the Government of Russia suggest a desire to reform. There has been an increased emphasis on practical training, and the government is introducing bills to improve the organization of the military.
[[Image:Cannon Russia.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]
Despite large increases in the budget, defense spending is still unable to sustain Russia's large military. Current troop strength, estimated at 1.1 million, is large in comparison to Russia's GDP and military budget, which continues to make the process of transformation to a professional army difficult. This is both the result of the Soviet legacy and military thinking, and Russian geography, which demands a sizeable force simply to patrol and maintain normal defensive readiness across Russia's huge, remote and sparsely populated territory. Furthermore, unrest in Russia's souther regions demands a substantial military force at a high level of readiness.

Russian military salaries are low. Though, the army provides all necessities, the quality of accomodation is low, though the situation has improved considerably since the Yeltsin era when the military establishment almost totally collapsed, and some soldiers actually starved when provisions to remote bases went undelivered for months on end. Problems with both discipline and brutal hazing remain common, however. HIV infection rates in the Russian army are estimated to be between two to five times higher than in the general population, and tuberculosis is a persistent problem both in and outside the military, affecting the fitness of recruits.

Although the available manpower (males 15-49) for the Russian Armed Forces was projected at 35.2 million in 2005, only approximately 11% of eligible males do military service. Moreover, military officials complain that new recruit cohorts are plagued by increasing incidences of poor education, communicable diseases and criminality.

The Russian Government has stated a desire to convert to a professional army, but implementation has been delayed repeatedly. Current plans envision a transition to a mixed force, in which professional soldiers fill the ranks of select units and conscription is gradually phased out. Some officials have talked of developing a non-commissioned officer corps to lead the professional army, but the military has yet to make any concrete decisions, due to internal political considerations and a backlog of other issues soaking up increased funding.

Russia continues to maintain a sizeable strategic nuclear force equipped with global reach, with land, sea and air based nuclear launch facilities, though maintenance issues continue to affect the readiness of the system due to a flight of skilled personnel from the military, and financial and organisation pressures in the post-Soviet era. For this reason, Russia has sought a renewed START treaty with the United States for a mutual reduction of strategic nuclear forces. This agreement was reached between Presidents Obama and Medvedev in April 2010.

==Economy==
[[Image:Historic Centre of St. Petersburg.jpg|thumb|260px|Historic Center of St. Petersburg.]]
At the end of March, 2009, the World Bank issued a grim forecast of the Russian Economy, projecting a 4.5% decline in the economy in 2009 and warning that 5.8 million Russians would fall into poverty unless the government shifts spending to poor families. It praised the government’s $85 billion anticrisis program, which stabilized Russia’s banks and prevented financial panic. But it said too little had gone to households — a hazard in a society where 37 million people, a quarter of the population, lives near the poverty line.<ref> Ellen Berry, "World Bank Grim on Russian Economy," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/europe/31russia.html?ref=world ''New York Times'' Mar. 30, 2009]</ref>

The Russian economy underwent tremendous stress in the 1990s as it moved from a centrally planned economy to a free market system. Difficulties in implementing fiscal reforms aimed at raising government revenues and a dependence on short-term borrowing to finance budget deficits led to a serious financial crisis in 1998. Lower prices for Russia's major export earners (oil and minerals) and a loss of investor confidence due to the Asian financial crisis exacerbated financial problems. The result was a rapid and steep decline (60%) in the value of the ruble, flight of foreign investment, delayed payments on sovereign and private debts, a breakdown of commercial transactions through the banking system, and the threat of runaway inflation.

Still, Russia weathered the crisis well. In the 8 years following the financial crisis, GDP growth averaged just under 7% due to a devalued ruble, implementation of key economic reforms (tax, banking, labor and land codes), tight fiscal policy, and favorable commodities prices. Household consumption and fixed capital investments have both grown by about 10 percent per year since 1999 and have replaced net exports as the main drivers of demand growth. Inflation and exchange rates have stabilized due to a prudent fiscal policy (Russia has run a budget surplus since 2003). The government created a stabilization/rainy day fund ($127 billion in mid-2007), and has the third-largest foreign exchange reserves in the world (close to $420 billion in mid-2007) which should shelter it from commodity price shocks.

Russia's balance of payments moves from strength to strength. The current account balance grew from $58.6 billion in 2004 to $95.3 billion in 2006, almost entirely due to oil price increases. The capital account turned positive in 2006, with net inflow of $6.1 billion. In addition, net private capital flows in 2006 increased significantly to $40.9 billion, compared to an inflow of $0.1 billion in 2005 due to liberalization of the capital account in mid-2006. Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows dramatically improved in 2006 to an estimated $31 billion (inflows totaled $15.4 billion and $14.6 billion in 2004 and 2005, respectively). As of July 1, 2006, the ruble is convertible for both current and capital transactions. Russia prepaid its entire Soviet-era Paris Club debt of $22 billion in late 2006, pushing Russia's sovereign foreign debt down to $45 billion at the end of 2006, or about 5 percent of GDP. Russia's total public and private foreign debt at the end of 2006 was $310 billion, or 31 percent of GDP. Such a dramatic reversal to the macroeconomic situation is truly remarkable. Russia currently has a sovereign investment-grade rating from Standard and Poor's of BBB+.

Although the economy has begun to diversify, the government budget remains dependent on oil and gas revenues; consumption and investment are, however, contributing to an increasing share to GDP growth. While currently sheltered from external price shocks, the government realizes the need to intensify reforms that will promote new investment in aging infrastructure and continued productivity gains. The government believes it can do this by creating state-sponsored investment funds, special economic zones, and by exercising control of strategic enterprises (a draft law defining strategic sectors was submitted to the Duma in August 2007). Although investors are returning to Russia, excessive bureaucracy, corruption, insufficient and insufficiently enforced legislation, selective interpretation of laws (particularly tax laws), unclear limits and conditions on foreign investment, obsolete infrastructure, and stalled economic reforms still remain a problem. In 2005, the government announced reform programs in four priority areas (health, education, housing, and agriculture), but further work is needed on them as well as in financial regulation, civil service reform, and reform of government monopolies, such as railroads, gas, and electricity.
*GDP (2006): $989 billion.
*Growth rate (2006): 6.7%.
*Natural resources: Petroleum, natural gas, timber, furs, precious and nonferrous metals.
*Agriculture: Products--Grain, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, meat, dairy products.
*Industry: Types--Complete range of manufactures: automobiles, trucks, trains, agricultural equipment, advanced aircraft, aerospace, machine and equipment products; mining and extractive industry; medical and scientific instruments; construction equipment.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$304 billion: petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, woods and wood products, metals, chemicals. Major markets--EU, CIS, China, Japan. Imports--$165 billion: machinery and equipment, chemicals, consumer goods, medicines, meat, sugar, semi-finished metal products. Major partners--EU, U.S., NIS, Japan, China. U.S. exports--$4.7 billion. Principal U.S. exports (2006)--oil/gas equipment, meat, inorganic chemicals, tobacco, aircraft, medical equipment, autos/parts. U.S. imports--$19.8 billion. Principal U.S. imports (2006)--oil, aluminum, chemicals, platinum, iron/steel, fish and crustaceans, nickel, wood, and copper.

====Gross Domestic Product====
A strong expansion in domestic demand continues to drive GDP growth, despite a slowdown in manufacturing. GDP growth and industrial production for 2006 were 6.7% and 4.8%, respectively, relative to 6.4% and 5.7% in 2005. GDP growth is currently derived from non-tradable sectors, but investment remains concentrated in tradables (oil and gas). Construction was the fastest growing sector of the economy, expanding by 14% in 2006. The main private sector services--wholesale & retail trade, banking & insurance, and transportation & communications--showed strong growth of about 10%. In contrast, public sector services--education, health care, and public administration--lagged behind with only 2-4% growth in 2006. Recent productivity growth has still been strong in some parts of domestic manufacturing. Real disposable incomes grew by 10.2% in 2006, spurring considerable growth in private consumption.

====Monetary Policy====
Large balance of payments surpluses have complicated monetary policy for Russia. The Central Bank has followed a policy of managed appreciation to ease the impact on domestic producers and has sterilized capital inflows with its large budget surpluses. However, the Central Bank also has been buying back dollars, pumping additional ruble liquidity into the system. Given the rising demand for money, this has softened the inflationary impact, but these policy choices have complicated the government's efforts to lower inflation to the single digits. Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation was 9% in 2006 and 10.9% in 2005, having steadily decreased from 20.2% in 2000, due primarily to prudent fiscal policy and in 2006 lower world oil prices.

====Commercial Law====
Russia has a body of conflicting, overlapping and rapidly changing laws, decrees and regulations, which has resulted in an ad hoc and unpredictable approach to doing business. In this environment, negotiations and contracts from commercial transactions are complex and protracted. Uneven implementation of laws creates further complications. Regional and local courts are often subject to political pressure, and corruption is widespread. However, more and more small and medium businesses in recent years have reported fewer difficulties in this regard, especially in the Moscow region. In addition, Russian businesses are increasingly turning to the courts to resolve disputes. Russia's WTO accession process is also helping to bring the country's legal and regulatory regime in line with internationally accepted practices.

====Natural Resources====
The mineral-packed Ural Mountains and the vast oil, gas, coal, and timber reserves of Siberia and the Russian Far East make Russia rich in natural resources. However, most such resources are located in remote and climatically unfavorable areas that are difficult to develop and far from Russian ports. Nevertheless, Russia is a leading producer and exporter of minerals, gold, and all major fuels. Natural resources, especially energy, dominate Russian exports. Ninety percent of Russian exports to the United States are minerals or other raw materials.

====Industry====
[[Image:Tower Russia.JPG|thumb|right|180px]]
Russia is one of the most industrialized of the former Soviet republics. However, years of very low investment have left much of Russian industry antiquated and highly inefficient. Besides its resource-based industries, it has developed large manufacturing capacities, notably in metals, food products, and transport equipment. Russia is now the world's third-largest exporter of steel and primary aluminum. Russia inherited most of the defense industrial base of the Soviet Union, so armaments remain an important export category for Russia. Efforts have been made with varying success over the past few years to convert defense industries to civilian use, and the Russian Government is engaged in an ongoing process to privatize the remaining 9,222 state-owned enterprises, 33% of which are in the industrial manufacturing sector.
 
 
 
 

====Agriculture====
For its great size, Russia has relatively little area suited for agriculture because of its arid climate and inconsistent rainfall. Northern areas concentrate mainly on livestock, and the southern parts and western Siberia produce grain. Restructuring of former state farms has been an extremely slow process. Foreigners are not allowed to own farmland in Russia although long-term leases are permitted. Private farms and garden plots of individuals account for over one-half of all agricultural production.

====Investment/Banking====
Russia attracted an estimated $31 billion in FDI in 2006 (3.2% of GDP), up from $13 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2005.Russia's annual FDI figures are now in line with those of China, India, and Brazil. However, Russia's per capita cumulative FDI still lags far behind such countries as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The paradox is that Russia's challenging business climate, lack of transparency, and weak rule of law/corruption has taken a back seat to Russia's extraordinary macroeconomic fundamentals and the consumer and retail boom, which is providing double digit returns to investors and attracting new flows. Russian domestic investment is also returning home, as the foreign investment coming into Russia from havens like Cyprus and Gibraltar, is actually returning Russian capital . As of the end of 2006, loans to the financial sector were 57.2% of total banking sector assets. Retail loans amounted to $78.4 billion at the end of 2006, up from $41 billion at the end of 2005. Retail deposits increased to $144.1 billion from $95.7 billion over the same period. Also, currently deposits are fully insured up to $4,000 and an additional $12,000 is insured at 90%.

Although still small by international standards, the Russian banking sector is growing fast and is becoming a larger source of investment funds. To meet a growing demand for loans, which they were unable to cover with domestic deposits, Russian banks borrowed heavily abroad in 2006, accounting for two-thirds of the private-sector capital inflows in that year. Ruble lending has increased since the October 1998 financial crisis, and in 2006 loans were 63% of total bank assets, with consumer loans posting the fastest growth at 74% that same year. Fewer Russians prefer to keep their money outside the banking sector, the recent appreciation of the ruble against the dollar has persuaded many Russians to keep their money in rubles or other currencies such as the euro, and retail deposits grew by 65% in 2006. Despite recent growth, the poorly developed banking system, along with contradictory regulations across banking, bond, and equity markets, still makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to raise capital as well as to permit capital transfer from a capital-rich sector such as energy to capital-poor sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing and to diversify risk. Banks still perceive small and medium commercial lending as risky, and some banks are inexperienced with assessing credit risk, though the situation is improving. In 2003, Russia enacted a deposit insurance law to protect deposits up to 100,000 rubles (about $3,700) per depositor, and a bill is currently in the Duma, which if passed will increase this coverage to 190,000 rubles (about $7,000) per depositor.

====Trade====
The U.S. exported $4.7 billion in goods to Russia in 2006, a 21% increase from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Russia were $19.8 billion, up 29%. Russia is currently the 33rd-largest export market for U.S. goods. Russian exports to the U.S. were fuel oil, inorganic chemicals, aluminum, and precious stones. U.S. exports to Russia were machinery, meat (mostly poultry), electrical equipment, and high-tech products.

Russia's overall trade surplus in 2006 was $139 billion, up from $118 billion in 2005. World prices continue to have a major effect on export performance, since commodities--particularly oil, natural gas, metals, and timber--comprise 80% of Russian exports. Russian GDP growth and the surplus/deficit in the Russian Federation state budget are closely linked to world oil prices.

Russia is in the process of negotiating terms of accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. and Russia concluded a bilateral WTO accession agreement in late 2006, and negotiations continue in 2007 on meeting WTO requirements for accession. Russia reports that it has yet to conclude bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia and Georgia.

According to the 2005 U.S. Trade Representative's National Trade Estimate, Russia continues to maintain a number of barriers with respect to imports, including tariffs and tariff-rate quotas; discriminatory and prohibitive charges and fees; and discriminatory licensing, registration, and certification regimes. Discussions continue within the context of Russia's WTO accession to eliminate these measures or modify them to be consistent with internationally accepted trade policy practices. Non-tariff barriers are frequently used to restrict foreign access to the market and are also a significant topic in Russia's WTO negotiations. In addition, large losses to U.S. audiovisual and other companies in Russia owing to poor enforcement of intellectual property rights in Russia is an ongoing irritant in U.S.-Russia trade relations. Russia continues to work to bring its technical regulations, including those related to product and food safety, into conformity with international standards.

==History==
see [[History of Russia]]

== See also ==
*[[Gallery of Russian painting]]
* [[Soviet Union]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] 1983 shootdown incident that intensified "2nd Cold War"

==Further reading==
===Guidebooks===
* ''Frommer's Moscow & St. Petersburg'' by Angela Charlton (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Moscow-St-Petersburg-Complete/dp/0470194030/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* ''Eyewitness: Russia'' by Kathleen Berton Murrell, (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-Russia-Kathleen-Berton-Murrell/dp/0789458802/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Russia & Belarus'' (Lonely Planet Travel Guides) by Mark Elliott (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Belarus-Lonely-Planet-Travel/dp/1741042917/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239324359&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
===Surveys===
* Goldman, Marshall I. ''Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia'' (2008), by a leading scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Petrostate-Putin-Power-New-Russia/dp/0195340736/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-5 extract and text search]
* Politkovskaya, Anna. ''Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Putins-Russia-Life-Failing-Democracy/dp/0805082506/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-9 extract and text search]
* Service, Robert. ''A History of Modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin'' (2005)
* Lucas, Edward. ''The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/New-Cold-War-Putins-Russia/dp/0230606121/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-12 extract and text search]

====references====
<references/>

==External Links==

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html The World Fact Book]

[http://russiatrek.org Russian cities and regions guide]

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:Russia]]
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]

Talk:Constitutional Republic

2010-12-13T07:28:53Z

AdamV: Speech by Ron Paul

== Speech by Ron Paul ==

Source links to a 404 page

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul76.html should be a suitable replacement but I can't for the life of me figure out how to edit it in, when I go to edit the section I'm greeted by "== References == <references/>" and nothing else [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 02:28, 13 December 2010 (EST)

Queen Elizabeth II

2010-12-10T03:44:34Z

AdamV:

[[Image:QueenElizabethII 2003.jpg|right|225px]]
Her Majesty '''Queen Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, born April 21, 1926) is the reigning monarch and current [[head of state]] (1952-) of the [[United Kingdom]] and of 15 other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] realms (see list below), including [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and [[Jamaica]]. She is the elder daughter of King [[George VI]] and the late [[HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother|Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother]].

In Britain, she is referred to formally as "Her Majesty the Queen", but is generally called simply "the Queen". Her full title, by virtue of the Royal Titles Act of 1953, is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

==Early life==
She was the first child of the Duke and Duchess of York, who later became King [[George VI]] and Queen Consort Elizabeth. At birth she stood third in line of succession to the throne after Edward, Prince of Wales (later King [[Edward VIII]]), and her father. It was not expected that her father would become King, or that she would become Queen.

Princess Elizabeth's quiet family life came to an end in 1936, when her grandfather, King [[George V]], died. His eldest son came to the throne as King Edward VIII, but, before the end of the year, the new king decided to give up the throne in order to marry a divorced woman, Mrs [[Wallis Simpson]].

Upon Edward's abdication, Princess Elizabeth's father acceded to the throne, and in 1937 Princess Elizabeth attended her parents' coronation in [[Westminster Abbey]]. This put her first in line to the throne.

The Princess received home tuition at Sandringham and [[Buckingham Palace]] during the 1930s, where her tutors included her father and Henry Marten, the Vice-Provost of Eton. She was also instructed in religion by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. Now that she had became first in line to throne, Elizabeth started to study constitutional history and law as preparation for her future role as Queen. Elizabeth also learned French from various French and Belgian governesses, this skill standing The Queen in good stead, as she often has cause to use it when speaking to ambassadors and heads of state from French-speaking countries and when visiting French-speaking areas of [[Canada]].

In 1940, at the height of [[the Blitz]], the young Princess was moved to the safety of [[Windsor Castle]], where she spent most of the war years, although in 1945 she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and trained as a driver, operating military trucks.

==Marriage and Children ==
She married [[Duke of Edinburgh|Prince Philip Mountbatten]] of [[Greece]] and [[Denmark]] on November 20, 1947. Their first child, [[Prince Charles]], now the [[Prince of Wales]], first heir to the throne, was born in 1948, and his sister, [[Princess Anne]], now The Princess Royal, two years later. After Princess Elizabeth became Queen, their third child, [[Prince Andrew]] (now known as the Duke of York), arrived in 1960, and the fourth, [[Prince Edward]] (now known as the Earl of Wessex and who will eventually become Duke of Edinburgh), in 1964.

==Death of Father==
On February 6, 1952, Princess Elizabeth, who was on a tour of [[Kenya]] and staying at the Treetops resort, received the news of her father's death at Sandringham and her own accession to the throne.

==Coronation==
On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth was crowned Queen of the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] and of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and her other realms and territories at [[Westminster Abbey]] by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], and took the [[English coronation oath|coronation oath]] in the traditional coronation ceremony that has been used for at least 1000 years.

==The Commonweath Realms==
[[image:Australian 50c coins.jpg|thumb|200px|Australian 50c coins showing two different likenesses of Queen Elizabeth II]]
*[[Antigua and Barbuda]]
*[[Australia]]
*The [[Bahamas]]
*[[Barbados]]
*[[Belize]]
*[[Canada]]
*[[Grenada]]
*[[Jamaica]]
*[[New Zealand]]
*[[Papua New Guinea]]
*[[Solomon Islands]]
*[[St. Christopher and Nevis]]
*[[St. Lucia]]
*[[St. Vincent and the Grenadines]]
*[[Tuvalu]]

==See Also==
[[British Royal Family]]
[[Category:British History]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Elizabeth 2}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Monarchs]]
[[Category:Anglicans]]
[[Category:Queens]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Queen Elizabeth II

2010-12-10T03:44:14Z

AdamV:

[[Image:QueenElizabethII 2003.jpg|right|225px]]
Her Majesty '''Queen Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, born April 21, 1926) is the reigning monarch and current [[head of state]] (1952-) of the [[United Kingdom]] and of 15 other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] realms (see list below), including [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and [[Jamaica]] . She is the elder daughter of King [[George VI]] and the late [[HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother|Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother]].

In Britain, she is referred to formally as "Her Majesty the Queen", but is generally called simply "the Queen". Her full title, by virtue of the Royal Titles Act of 1953, is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

==Early life==
She was the first child of the Duke and Duchess of York, who later became King [[George VI]] and Queen Consort Elizabeth. At birth she stood third in line of succession to the throne after Edward, Prince of Wales (later King [[Edward VIII]]), and her father. It was not expected that her father would become King, or that she would become Queen.

Princess Elizabeth's quiet family life came to an end in 1936, when her grandfather, King [[George V]], died. His eldest son came to the throne as King Edward VIII, but, before the end of the year, the new king decided to give up the throne in order to marry a divorced woman, Mrs [[Wallis Simpson]].

Upon Edward's abdication, Princess Elizabeth's father acceded to the throne, and in 1937 Princess Elizabeth attended her parents' coronation in [[Westminster Abbey]]. This put her first in line to the throne.

The Princess received home tuition at Sandringham and [[Buckingham Palace]] during the 1930s, where her tutors included her father and Henry Marten, the Vice-Provost of Eton. She was also instructed in religion by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. Now that she had became first in line to throne, Elizabeth started to study constitutional history and law as preparation for her future role as Queen. Elizabeth also learned French from various French and Belgian governesses, this skill standing The Queen in good stead, as she often has cause to use it when speaking to ambassadors and heads of state from French-speaking countries and when visiting French-speaking areas of [[Canada]].

In 1940, at the height of [[the Blitz]], the young Princess was moved to the safety of [[Windsor Castle]], where she spent most of the war years, although in 1945 she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and trained as a driver, operating military trucks.

==Marriage and Children ==
She married [[Duke of Edinburgh|Prince Philip Mountbatten]] of [[Greece]] and [[Denmark]] on November 20, 1947. Their first child, [[Prince Charles]], now the [[Prince of Wales]], first heir to the throne, was born in 1948, and his sister, [[Princess Anne]], now The Princess Royal, two years later. After Princess Elizabeth became Queen, their third child, [[Prince Andrew]] (now known as the Duke of York), arrived in 1960, and the fourth, [[Prince Edward]] (now known as the Earl of Wessex and who will eventually become Duke of Edinburgh), in 1964.

==Death of Father==
On February 6, 1952, Princess Elizabeth, who was on a tour of [[Kenya]] and staying at the Treetops resort, received the news of her father's death at Sandringham and her own accession to the throne.

==Coronation==
On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth was crowned Queen of the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] and of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and her other realms and territories at [[Westminster Abbey]] by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], and took the [[English coronation oath|coronation oath]] in the traditional coronation ceremony that has been used for at least 1000 years.

==The Commonweath Realms==
[[image:Australian 50c coins.jpg|thumb|200px|Australian 50c coins showing two different likenesses of Queen Elizabeth II]]
*[[Antigua and Barbuda]]
*[[Australia]]
*The [[Bahamas]]
*[[Barbados]]
*[[Belize]]
*[[Canada]]
*[[Grenada]]
*[[Jamaica]]
*[[New Zealand]]
*[[Papua New Guinea]]
*[[Solomon Islands]]
*[[St. Christopher and Nevis]]
*[[St. Lucia]]
*[[St. Vincent and the Grenadines]]
*[[Tuvalu]]

==See Also==
[[British Royal Family]]
[[Category:British History]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Elizabeth 2}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Monarchs]]
[[Category:Anglicans]]
[[Category:Queens]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Talk:Sarah Palin

2010-12-09T00:43:07Z

AdamV: /* Drug Use? */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Possibly 1960, when Kennedy was elected. At the dawn of TV, Kennedy set up the debate to his advantage, in what is known as the 1960 effect. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Liberals might, who would wish, by employing their [[Liberal tricks]], to smear a Conservative politician by implying illegality where none existed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:13, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::It's legal to have an abortion or an affair but I'm pretty sure if any politician had/did either one of those it'd be expected to be on their page as it's a pretty strong reflection on moral character. Why doesn't the same apply here? [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 01:22, 7 December 2010 (EST)
::::Trying marijuana once or twice isn't a reflection upon a persons moral character. Moral character is something developed over years, in living a life, in making mistakes and learning from them, in asking for help from Jesus, and being concerned, as the Politico story makes clear, of the kind of message decriminalizing the drug would send. I think most thinking Americans would find that story very appealing...and that is why Palin is so appealing to many Americans. I think that information should be included in her article. And Adam...did you see you were responding to a two-year-old thread? :P --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:24, 7 December 2010 (EST)
::: Haha, no I hadn't noticed. Valid points. I see the reasons for it not being included, just trying to play devil's advocate in an apparently 2 year old argument :p [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 19:43, 8 December 2010 (EST)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that we're missing the argument here. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers said "Under God" at some point, but whether the original writing of the Pledge contained that phrase. It did not. And not all Founding Fathers were quite as up-standing Christians as George Washington was. We can and will continue to debate whether "Under God" should be in the Pledge, but as to whether Ms. Palin was correct in her comment, I believe debating is a moot point. She meant (and I think it is clear, though many I'm sure will disagree) that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they said it with an "Under God." They did not.

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Ethics Violation? ==

According to the report, she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits the the use of a public office for personal gain, but was also "proper and lawful." [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/ STORY] Should this section be updated to include this? I have the full report here if someone would like to use that as the reference, or I can do it. The PDF is 260+ pages, though:( [http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf REPORT] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: This is silly. I doubt we want to waste time on it. Executives can and should fire people. It should happen more often than it does. Your "was found in" doesn't say who did the finding and what their political views are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::The "finding" was done by a bipartisan committee charged by the Alaskan State Legislature with investigating improprieties of this nature. The investigation concluded that while Palin has the authority to fire executive-branch staff, she abused the responsibility to fire for just cause, since the investigation also found committee found that Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was based in part on a personal grudge and vendetta against her former brother-in-law, who Monegan refused to fire without cause. Conservatives are supposed to support hiring and firing on merit, and when Palin abused the powers she was entitled to use for personal reasons, she crossed an ethical line even if she didn't commit an illegal act. Considering how some people on CP obsess over Obama's "alleged birth" in Hawaii or the non-Christian nature of his name as "legitimate" issues, Palin's ethically questionable conduct as an elected official is absolutely relevant to an assessment of her candidacy for national office. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree with this post, and what I think should be included are 1) the partisan breakdown of the committee, 2) the second portion of the finding (that her actions were also "proper and lawful") with '''equal''' importance, and 3) the issues raised by the campaign over the committee and the campaign's proposed (and still ongoing, I believe) alternative. I didn't mean to imply that I just wanted something added about her being found in violation of state ethics law, but maybe a section explaining the context and the rest. Sorry if I gave you that impression. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 12:03, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The conclusions at the end of the section don't strike me as accurate. The report showed that the ethical issues were in the pressure that Palin allowed to be brought on Monegan to fire Wooten. It contained substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Todd Palin and others that clearly showed a pattern of abuse by permission, rather than direct acts by Palin herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

:Show me one person who said that Sarah Palin told them to take any steps at pressure that they did. Quite the contrary, all documentation shows that she was not involved. The report decided that didn't matter -- Palin herself needed to be censored anyway. Is it any wonder she wanted to be investigated by a group of Democratic appointments by the former governor believing that even they would be more fair than the posse that was put together? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::Well, for a start there's the sworn testimony of former Alaskan State Trooper Colonel Julia Grimes. In volume I of the [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20081010_TROOPER.pdf investigation report], pages 10-11, there are statements from her as to how she was contacted by both Todd and Sarah Palin on separate occasions. The Palins recounted examples of what they considered discipline-worthy conduct on the part of Trooper Woten (Palin's brother-in-law). Todd Palin had no official right to make calls like he did on behalf of the Governor, and Colonel Grimes cited Alaska Statute AS.39.25.080 to Mr. Palin, as part of explaining why state employees are prohibited from discussing personnel issues with anyone else. It was cutting off the conversation with Todd Plain that led to the follow-up call from Sarah Palin, in which Gimes testified of Palin: "Her questions were how can a trooper that behaves this way still be working and was concerned that we were taking this seriously and that we cared". I'm not going cut-and-paste additional excerpts of the report since it's available via the link, but anyone who reads it can see the pattern of additional improper questioning and intervention by Todd Palin and pressure by Governor Palin. Sarah Palin is politically smart enough to avoid breaking the law (which the report properly concluded she didn't), but the pattern of her actions was a violation of her trust per the Alaskan Statutes. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I fully agree with Dinsdale here. I think the article reflects what he has said, I have said, and what the report has said with adequate documentation as to who authored it and the campaign's issues with the handling of the investigation. To be honest, this was not really an "October surprise" and I doubt it will come to much as the findings were relatively mild in the scheme of things. Dinsdale provides more than enough sufficient commentary on this subject. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:Now that the debate is over, how impartial was the moderator (Gwen Ifill)?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::It is my understanding that she was considered to have been fair by the majority of the people watching, myself included. There can always be some points of differences and contentions, but, ironically, she came across as far more even-handed than most of the 'impartial' moderators or news anchors giving political interviews. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I found her to be fair as well - I don't think either participant would be justified in claiming otherwise. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Alaskan Independence party==

there should be something about the aip. if there is in depth speculation about obama's ties to bill ayers, a man whom he has denounced, we should be fair and talk about how palin told the aip, an extremely anti american group, to "keep up the good work".

:What is accurate and fair to state is that Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, per the Division of Elections in Alaska. Republicans are misleading in trying to connect Obama with actions Ayers participated in decades before they met, given that the context in which they met had nothing to do with Ayers' earlier activities. Sarah Palin, by contrast, knowingly consented to her husband's participation in a pro-separatist party for a 7-year period that included her time as Mayor of Wasilla. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree DinsdaleP. From my own perspective, McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate was a bit rapid fire and a bit impulsive, if you ask me. I'm not sure he knew as much about her past when he chose her as he retroactively learned.

:I disagree with Dinsdale, misleading trying to connect Obama with Ayers? The only misleading on the subject is by Obama. The decision to pick Palin was brilliant and satisfied nearly all who didn't like Romney or Huckabee, Pawlenty offered nothing. What we've learned about Sarah is that the left can't stand her and there is nothing to bring her down beside innuendo and smears. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::Obama met Ayers when the latter was on a board working to improve schools, decades after his involvement with the Weather Underground. For Palin to claim that this is "palling around with terrorists" makes it sound like Ayers is still active in that regard (he's not) or that Obama and Ayaers have a close relationship outside of their collaboration on the Annenberg project (they don't). So if she's making stump-speech claims based on falsehoods, that's misleading in my book, and poor behavior for a Christian. It's also interesting that while Ayers' activities with the Weather Underground took place when Obama was a child, Palin ''as an adult'' chose to condone her husband's participation in a separatist group, and made presentations to the same group herself as a politician. Her adult associations with the AIP and its active members is a lot more relevant than trying to create a connection between Obama and the actions Ayers took place in decades ago.
::Oh, and when I learned something about Palin and found it disturbing, I ''did'' the fair thing and researched it to make sure it was factual and not innuendo and smears. The response (not from you, Jpatt) was to be blocked and have the findings removed, instead of their truthful nature being challenged with evidence. That's a real shame, when the truth is supposed to matter here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Maverick ==

Here's what I'm bothered by. Palin tosses the concept of her and McCain as "Mavericks" around quite liberally...yet she fails to explain what she means by this self-identification. In the VP debate, she referred to herself and McCain as "a couple of Mavericks" six times (at least that's what I counted). What does it mean to be a Maverick???!?!?! Yet, she never went further with her explanation... [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not a maverick in Wasilla, but definetly as Governor. She has explained her stance, liberals refuse to listen. Must she explain the definition of Maverick to satisfy the left?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Image ==

In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== 2012 ==
Is it too soon to mention 2012 on this page? According to Townhall (here: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/11/palin_puts_brutal_2008_behind_her,_looks_to_2012 ) Gov. Palin has said she would "plow through that door" (ie become the nominee) if it's God's will and conditions are right.
:If you wish to include a tasteful entry that is fine. I should point out though that the way many of the news organizations reported it was basically a lie. The part about doing it only if it is God's will is important -- and was often left out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Unless she has a telephone to God I think wording reflecting that she will do it if ''she feels'' it is God's will would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

==Russia and Alaska==
I have an idea about an article showing the contemporary and/or historical influence of Russia and Alaska. I have been to Russia before. Over the past 300 years, I have read that Russian traders constructed several [[Russian Orthodox]] churches, now in the State of Alaska. These still stand, I have read. Does anyone have or can take a picture of one and give it to '''CP'''?

I think a simple, factual article like that (mentioning Saint Herman of Alaska, a Russian Missionary to Alaskian Eskimos) would help people to understand what Palin means when she cites Alaska's ongoing invovlement with its neighbor. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 09:55, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: Sounds great. You can create new entries, and I look forward to learning from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==The Future==

I'm not removing this section, but it needs some sourcing for the opinions that are being expressed. If not, I'd suggest that they be relocated to an essay because they currently appear to be a set of pro-Palin comments with no encyclopedic basis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

*I added a citation for the item, Dinsdale. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== My last edits ==

"a typical example" rather than "an example" is editorializing and unnecessary padding, as worded with "an" it is still written in a very conservative way, a professional conservative way. Also Palin is criticized for hunting, its a stupid reason to criticize someone, and reveals the ignorance of some of her detractors, but it does happen and since it is true and relevant it probably belongs here. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Bad Links ==

#47 and #48 link to articles that no longer exist so there would seem to be no basis for statement made in the sentence that refers to them. Can anyone find the articles?

==Where is the "Bridge to Nowhere?"==
Why isn't this on her page? That seems pretty important.

*~Yawn~ Important to whom? It was a contrivance of political convenience by both politicians and the media. That isn't especially notable, don't you think? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:11, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

But you think Obama POSSIBLY being a muslim is important enough to put on his page? CP is supposed to be filled with facts and unbiased truth. Not unverified purported rumors.[[User:GordonF|GordonF]]

: Yes, Obama is president and the verified facts put on his entry are of sufficient importance. Why do those facts bother you so much???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Wow! Check out this dishonesty from the left-stream media ==

The recent vandalization of this page made me check out the reference given:

<blockquote>
In light of her experience, and subsequent break up with the father of her child, Brostol Palin has since stated that she sees abstinence only education as "not realistic." [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/]
</blockquote>

You go to that link and see this:

*In her first interview since giving birth, the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said having a child is not "glamorous," and that telling young people to be abstinent is "not realistic at all."

And then you come to a link in the middle of the article:

[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/#cnnSTCVideo Watch Bristol Palin say that abstinence is "not realistic at all"]

Okay, so then when you click on that link and watch the video, the reporter states:

"..she also went on to say that stopping teen sex is quote 'not realistic at all.'"

But at no point in the video is Bristol shown saying anything of the sort. When you watch what she actually said, it's quite a bit different that what is being reported (imagine that!).

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eixcsj7FI6I YouTube clip from interview]

"Everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all."

It's obvious she means that even with abstinence being promoted, realistically some kids are still going to choose to have sex. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:10, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:The liberal view of sex is that it always okay among any parties competent to "consent". They absolutely refuse to consider any alternative. So, the idea that young people might benefit from being advised to abstain from premarital sex is abhorrent to them.

:The lie comes from their assumption that abstinence education '''cannot''' ever work; the truth is merely that they '''hope''' it does not work.

:The sexually immoral are desperate to hang on to their sin of choice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:*More from Bristol, in her own words, [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp here.] CBS even played a clip from ABC. And in an interesting behind-the-scenes nugget, take a look at how the CBS transcript refers to anchor Chris Cuomo, who conducted the GMA interview...typical liberal media deceit! [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

::I believe that we should seriously consider a law making it illegal to have sexual relations outside of marriage. It's a shame we no longer have people in office who aren't afraid to legislate based on their Christian beliefs and moral values.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:52, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Resignation ==

We should update this with her recent resignation. I'd prefer to have someone quote from the full text of the speech - most articles I've seen/read haven't even mentioned it, they've just stated that she announced she wouldn't be running again for governor and would be leaving office sometime before the end of July. The transcript is on her website here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Thanks![[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:24, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I don't think her quitting office needs to be mentioned. This article is a highlight of her personal and professional accomplishments as a leading Christian Conservative, and including that would not serve any meaningful purpose but only tarnish the article of an otherwise upstanding career. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 08:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: This article is a bibliography of Sarah Palin though, is it not? The resignation is part of her life '''and''' her political career, we would be remiss in not mentioning and covering this major fact and event of her life. [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 9:24, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

::::I disagree. It would only embolden liberals in their unending smear campains against Governer Palin. She quit for personal reasons. The encyclopedic artice is a place for facts, not personal issues. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:45, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::I agree her reason are personal, but as a public figure, she officially ended her term as governor, which is simply fact, "liberals" are already fully aware of this fact so it would change nothing in that regard. Speculations on the reasons why isn't necessary to write, but simply the fact she did resign as the reason her term ended, and ended early should be noted and entered. To not enter that on an encyclopedic bibliography of her would be derelict. - [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:54, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

*The Administrators agree with you, BMcP. Failure to add her resignation to our article was a big oversight. Sorry it took so long to note and respond to this. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:57, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Second paragraph: out of sequence? ==

The second paragraph of the lead seems out of place. While the first and third both talk about Palin and her Vice Presidential candidacy, the second recounts a specific incident from her political career. Should it be moved to another spot in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:00, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

== Huge quote ==

This is an awfully long article. Is there really a need to quote so extensively from her resignation speech? There is a link to it in the references after all. But I don't dare remove it because that may be regarded as "liberal vandalism". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 16:16, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== Down Syndrome ==

Sorry edited Down Syndrome to Down's Syndrome but reversed since it turns out that a 'UK-ism'. Nick Bowler

==Remove subsection==
The subsection, ''Reaction to Gulf of Mexico oil spill'' seems misplaced under ''Record as Governor'', as Palin ''was not'' governor at the time of the Obama administration's mismanagement of oversight leading to the spill. The section consists of a single sentence. Perhaps removing this subheading and merging the single sentence somewhere into the subhead on beleifs and views? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:07, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:Convention would dictate a "Current Activities" section or "Post Elected Office" section when dealing with public figures. I like ''Current Activities'', best, and it should be located after the intro and before more distant past information, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:42, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

==Resignation==

*On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<nowiki><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref></nowiki> Executive power was transferred to [[Lieutenant Governor]] [[Sean Parnell]].
Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]],<nowiki><ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref></nowiki> and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.

Makes it sound like they punished her for making an announcement.

How about we say that she resigned the governorship, to run for vice president along with McCain? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:16, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I follow you, Ed. BHO assumed office in January and she resigned in July. The plain truth is that Palin resigned because liberals were doing everything they could to impede her. The endless, frivolous attacks prevented Sarah from doing her best for Alaska and she wasn't about to shortchange her constituents. Palin's resignation was a noble move. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 19:28, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

::'''''"The endless, frivolous lawsuits",''''' taking up her time, and that of state employees, at great financial cost, is the cited reason. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

==Sarah Palin's Real American Stories show ==
I heard that Sarah Palin used to have a show on the Fox News Channel on April called [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/04/sarah-palins-real-american-stories-draws-2-million-viewers.html Real American] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/sarah-palin-hosting-fox-n_n_519082.html Stories]. So, does anyone know what happened with that show? Is it still airing? If not, will it air again? [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 10:54, 9 November 2010 (EDT)

:The shows were not a series, but rather a "special", using Van Sustren's time slot. Palin's actual limited new series is on TLC....8 part television event, they are advertising it as. It starts November 14th, and there are previews [http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/?mkcpgn=semtlc2 here.] --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:42, 9 November 2010 (EST)

::Ok, thanks for letting me know. I hope Sarah Palin can get a permanent show on Fox News to replace Shepard Smith at 7:00 P.M that way I could see less of the liberal Shep Smith. [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 1:31, 10 November 2010 (EDT)

:::IMHO you should re-think that observation. Sheppard Smith isn't a [[liberal]] by any stretch. While that isn't a conversation for this page, I would be interested in hearing from you as to why you think that via email, if you are so inclined. And keep in mind that Palin isn't at all interested in anchoring the news otherwise she would have already been signed to a multi-year contract! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:36, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2010-12-07T07:01:56Z

AdamV: /* Yes, it is possible */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

The inspiration for this debate topic comes from several sources, and is not meant to be an attack on religion. The main inspiration was contemplation about the novel ''The Lord of the Flies''. Is it the basic nature of man to devolve into savagery without moral guidance, or, given enough time, would man develop a moral framework to live by because of the inherent benefits to society? If so, could this happen without religion to frame the moral values against?

The related question is that if one assumes that religion is required for man to live a moral life, then what are the essential characteristics that religion must have in order for its adherents to live a moral life. Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims follow different tenets of faith, but it would be wrong to call someone immoral simply because they are devout in one faith and not another. That implies that there's a common baseline of morality to certain faiths, and that a person who follows those aspects of that faith would be leading a moral life.

The purpose of this debate is not to come up with simplistic yes/no or right/wrong answers, but to use a thoughtful question to allow members of the CP community to express their views on the subject so that others can develop new insights from reading them.

==Yes, it is possible==

I don't want to write volumes here so I am going to refer people to a good book on this topic that I read recently. It is "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. De Waal is a primatologist. The premise of the book is that the great apes exhibit behaviors that are the basis of moral action. So morality appears to have a evolutionary basis. De Waal also points to cross cultural studies of moral decision making that suggest that some moral thinking is basically hardwired and not dependent on cultural belief systems (including religious beliefs). It's pretty fascinating stuff.

The common belief seems to be that the theory of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that brute force and violence are the route to evolutionary success. In fact, all sorts of physical and behavioral adaptations can be successful. In the great apes, social behaviors that promote cooperation, empathy and sharing have proven to be successful strategies for survival. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 09:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:I believe it's absolutely possible. Whether one believes that we carry a divine spark or not, the reality is that we are all born as atheists in the sense that we have no knowledge of who or what to worship until we are taught by others. There is no reason to believe that a child could not be raised in a society where there no exposure to religion, but a thorough grounding in ethical values instead, and have that child grow up to lead a fulfilling and productive life. Cooperative society works better than every-man-for-himself anarchy, and that social factor along with the rule of civil & criminal law would be enough incentive to do the right thing or face material consequences. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:54, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I daily witness others that seem to live a proper life. Most consider a person moral if they are a law-abiding citizen. I can split hairs on morals. Can you live a moral life without knowing morals? In the Roman Catholic Act of Contrition it says "in what I have done and what I have failed to do." You can be a good person but fail to reach Heaven because your good human nature is not enough. Having morals is not enough, you need God in your life.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:I'm not sure that a law-abiding life and a moral life are the same thing. If I want to kill, steal, and otherwise do horrid things, and I only refrain because I'm afraid of getting caught and punished, am I, in fact, a moral person? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::That's the irony of it. You didn't commit a crime (law-abiding) but want to or fear the consequences (not moral). You are still perceived as being good when in fact you are not. Or the person that wants to do crime thinks they are moral for not committing the crime, they are still not. Can you be good without religion? Yes --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I think it's possible to be good without being religious, Jpatt. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and was taught (in my case at least) that because of original sin and man's inherently flawed nature, I was born into a less-than-moral state and had to use my life to follow God's guidance back into morality and grace. Could it also be true, though, that living a moral life for its own sake reaps its own rewards in this life?
:::I've just been laid off from my job, for example, and have to spend the next 30 days training my colleagues to take over my functions to get my severance package. It could be tempting to make the least possible effort at training so that when I'm gone, the company will acutely feel the loss. That's not the moral thing to do, though, and I'm giving the transition my best effort. What's relevant is that I'm not doing it because a poor effort would cost me my severance, I'm doing it because I like my colleagues and don't want their performance to suffer because I didn't help equip them to succeed. You can be just as missed by leaving on a high note of professionalism as you can by leaving with a petty "since you don't need me, you figure it out" bailout. The former helps you more in life, though, because it's a small world and people have long memories. You can find that in life it's better to do the moral thing for the long term happiness and benefits it brings to you, and not just to avoid negative consequences. Making the moral choice in how I leave this job has nothing to do with religion, but it's a moral choice all the same. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree 100%, I forgot my 'yes' at the end of my last statement. Sorry to hear about the job, certainly not good news. I'll be praying for you this week, new employment at the same pay scale. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the kind thoughts - being cut in a weak economy isn't fun, but this happened once before to me in the 1990's and the job I landed in turned out to be better than the one I was laid off from. My hope isn't so much for a job with the same pay, but one that doesn't cost me time with my family. I have some special-needs kids, and I'd take a pay cut to be able to telecommute or work on flex-time as I do now to be there when they need me. The companies that offer this will be rewarded by incredibly loyal employees. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Doesn't anybody read Kant anymore? Helloooo, categorical imperative? Kant doesn't mention religion at all in his works, and he's 99% right in his moral philosophy that says, basically, do not do anything that, if universally applied, would eventually contradict itself. Murder without reason, for example, fails this rule. [[User:Ckral|Ckral]]

Yes. In Dante's "Inferno", the very first level of Hell is Limbo, realm of the virtuous pagans. They are not punished there, but then, they lack paradise. Dante’s work is not an authoritative source, but his ideas are reasonable and I agree with them. In Biblical times, surely in the all the lands without Christianity there were some virtuous people, and if there were even just one, God would not consign him to eternal torment in Hell.-David

Yes. I do. In short, my morals rely on respect. The argument that we need religion for morals is because of a fear of a higher power punishing us for breaking laws of morality. Morality is a social construct depending on environment, not always a spiritual one. -Nonobu

Religion, like all other such institutions (many of which are more relevant by now) is not responsible for morality. A cursory examination of the history of all religion, and an emphasis on the "big three" in particular make that observation an easy one to make. -JBall

Definitely. Saying that men can't be moral without religion would be like saying men can't be moral with religion as they are only moral out of a fear of divine retribution or reward. Either statement is absurd. While religion can definitely act as a source of inspiration, a system of morality and a system to reinforce adherence to morality, it's not a requirement. There are enough examples of non-religious moral people, non-religious immoral people, religious moral people and religious immoral people to prove that religion isn't the sole factor, but rather one of potentially many [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 02:01, 7 December 2010 (EST)

==No, it is not possible==

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While I believe it is possible for an individual man not to profess a religion and still live according to a code of morals, I do not believe that it is possible for Man, collectively, to do so. Simply put: I believe that the development of concepts of morality and justice are so inextricably linked to religion as to be inseparable.

The moral man who does not profess faith in God is nonetheless informed by religious concepts of morality; thus, he is NOT living a moral life without religion. He is simply living a moral life in which religion is not the central fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:Those are interesting thoughts, but let me put an alternate premise forward. Most religions tend to have common values, like prohibitions against murder, stealing, deceit, etc. Given how wildly different some faiths can be, monotheism vs. pantheism for one example, isn't it more likely that man is inclined to develop moral codes that grow in sophistication along with their societies, and that these common, human-centric values are superimposed on different faiths rather than different faiths coincidentally arriving at the same moral codes? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::I would suggest that such a hypothesis is at least partially testable, thus:
:::1. Is there historical evidence of a civilization where concepts of morality and justice developed in the absence of religion, or before religion?
:::2. Is there evidence that a civilization can maintain concepts of justice and morality in the long term in the absence of religion?
:::To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Moreover, in the absence of God, I would want to know ''why'' those moral codes seem to be relatively universal. I think that you have to really strain credulity to claim that they're all due to biological imperatives. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

There was a billboard in NYC subway station from an atheist group: 
“A Million New Yorkers Are Good Without God. Are You?” 
question: 
1. What is good/morality? 
2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not? 
3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?([[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 12:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT))

Drawing upon the [[Old Testament]], the Apostle Paul summed up the deleterious condition of man in [[Romans 1]]:
{{cquote|
:''As it is written: There is none righteous, no not one;''
:''There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."
:''They are all gone out of the way, they have together become unprofitable, there is none that does good, no, not one."
:''Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips;''
:''whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;''
:''their feet are swift to shed blood;''
:''destruction and misery are in their way,''
:''and the way of peace they did not know.''
:''There is no fear of God before their eyes.''
:''But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God,''
:''because by the works of the Law none of all flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law is the knowledge of sin.''
:''But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets;''
:''even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,''
:''for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.'' (''Letter to the Romans'', 3:10-23)
}}
A holy God will not allow sin in His presence, (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4; 94:20; Rv. 21:27) and on that basis alone those who want to live a "moral life" without God are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven; they have about 70 years to do so, then comes the judgement. So the question should be: do you want Jesus Christ as your savior, or do you want Him as your judge? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Mitt Romney

2010-12-07T06:31:18Z

AdamV:

"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."[1]"

This entire sentence is awkward and irrelevant. 'the irony that the Mormon' just doesn't sound right. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Agreed. I was just thinking of a way to rewrite it. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:28, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

"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."

There is a difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex rights, so this isn't really a flip-flop.
:Also, let's face it, he said those things so he could get elected Governor of MA. To an extent I see that as stealthily putting one over on the MA voters, since I suspect his abortion and gay marriage views have always been what he claims them to be now. In MA it wouldn't matter, since neither issue would come up in a way that he could affect. Does saying them count as deceit in this case, or just, well, political expediency? You're not going to find anyone old enough to run for President who has been involved in politics who hasn't compromised themselves to some extent like this. Just my opinion, I guess. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Mcpannier's edits==

Missing and apostrophe in the word "States" in paragraph 3 of the Abortion section. It should be "State's."
The paragraph on Mitt's stem cell research stance is confusing. What are embryos creaded during fertility treatments? The link for that sentence doesn't work.
The poll for March is out of date. Here's the link to a late September poll: <http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm>. Romney had 10% in this poll.
Please fix these edits because the page is locked so I can't fix them myself.--[[User:Mcpannier|Mcpannier]] 08:10, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for your constructive suggestions Mcpannier. The changes have been made (except the stem cell paragraph wording). Submit your suggested changes here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:14, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

==Changes in his platform==

*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 September 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 10% within the GOP primary forecasts. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm</ref>

*Mitt Romney also changed his positions on [[gun control]]. He was originally for it, but recently joined the [[NRA|National Rifle Association]], an organization opposed to it.

*Following the split of the first three major elections in the 2008 primaries, Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Romney, stated that the battle between the top three candidates "is going to be like the Bataan Death March." <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_analysis;_ylt=Agy5R06oAxPw90acSddkhiSs0NUE</ref>
The Bataan Death March resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 prisoners of war during World War II, and has been labeled as a war crime.

Rather than pass on these criticisms as if we endoresed them, let's just describre the changes in his platform.

In case anyone criticized him for '''making the changes''', we can say '''who''' made this criticism and '''on what grounds'''.

For example, Joe Beaverhead said Romney is a horse's ass for softening his stance on abortion. [insert real example and ref here] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Political tone ==

I am very enthusiastic about this article because it began in very good shape and there was plenty of media attention on his campaign to bring valuable references. However, I am very concerned about the pro-Romney tone to this article. The lead paragraph makes him seem like a hero for bringing conservative change to liberal Massachusetts, but without any follow-up on his career. There is also a scarcity of business info and well-referenced support for many of his beliefs.

The article also emphasizes his Political beliefs with separate sections. I see this is a persistent happening on conservapedia, (see the McCain and Obama articles.) I recommend speaking about his career and his campaign as a chronological summary so that people can read this as an encyclopedia entry and not a political endorsement.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:20, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
==additions==
::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:27, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== First Line ==
Should read "former" governor--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:43, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Phyllis Schlafly

2010-12-07T06:25:33Z

AdamV:

== Could a sysop please add DEFAULTSORT to this article?==
Please see [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons]] for information regarding this request.

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Schlafly, Phyllis}}</nowiki> near the categories, usually near the end of the article. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 17:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Done.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==A Choice, Not An Echo==
[[A Choice, Not An Echo]] has an article, which can be linked from this one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:41, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Please unlock this for editing ==

It would be nice if this page was unlocked for editing, as to say the least, it is rather short.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 12:34, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: OK, but our [[rules]] will be enforced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== "Bunch of losers" ==

It'd be nice if we could also add Mrs. Schlafly's description of the protesters as "a bunch of losers" [http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/620003.html] [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that quote captures the insight and style as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I believe it captures a certain amount of insight into the style of Mrs. Schlafly, so to speak. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Please unlock==
I found a reference for the first lady designation located [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4780636/Conservatives-first-lady-sparked-pro.html here] and would like to add it. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

: The references is done. Thank you so much. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
==Category Change==
As per the <nowiki>[[Category:Writers]]</nowiki> page, I moved all of the contents to <nowiki>[[Category:Authors]]</nowiki> except for this page. Anyone with unlocking ability wish to take this on? Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. Thanks much and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

==Her views vs. the American Left==

If anyone would like to help me contrast the views of Phyllis Schlafly with the views of the American Left, we can unprotect the article.
*http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/D00F2F30B4689B3A8625744B00821014?OpenDocument:

People typically just say 'I disagree' or 'Her views are outrageous', but they don't say what they disagree with or why. Maybe they don't even know. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:Sure. I know a bit about her views from studying the Goldwater campaign, so perhaps I can be of some use. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:57, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::I respect her a great deal, but disagree with several of her views and would be willing to contribute to an analysis of them (not as a "representative liberal", but as someone who disagrees on specific issues themselves). The first example that comes to mind is Mrs. Schlafly's view that restraining orders are, in general, unfair to men and a tool of the feminist agenda <ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/aug08/08-08-08.html</ref>. Another is her contention that spousal rape is not comparable to rape by a stranger, because when a woman marries she's consented to sex, and as long as no other beatings or violence take place a husband has the right to force a sex act on his wife even when she's unwilling. <ref>http://www.studlife.com/2.3474/1.94406</ref> --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:17, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::Dinsdale, we're not here to discuss ''your'' views or disagreements on the matter, but rather her relation to a broad political movement. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Then I'm happy to stay out of it. The reason I posted here was in response to Ed Poor's statement above that "People typically just say 'I disagree' or 'Her views are outrageous', '''but they don't say what they disagree with or why'''. Maybe they don't even know.". I'm willing to provide some specific examples that are supposedly never provided, but if this is unwelcome then I'll stay out of this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 10 December 2008 (EST)

<references/>

Talk:Sarah Palin

2010-12-07T06:22:16Z

AdamV: /* Drug Use? */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Possibly 1960, when Kennedy was elected. At the dawn of TV, Kennedy set up the debate to his advantage, in what is known as the 1960 effect. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Liberals might, who would wish, by employing their [[Liberal tricks]], to smear a Conservative politician by implying illegality where none existed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:13, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::It's legal to have an abortion or an affair but I'm pretty sure if any politician had/did either one of those it'd be expected to be on their page as it's a pretty strong reflection on moral character. Why doesn't the same apply here? [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 01:22, 7 December 2010 (EST)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that we're missing the argument here. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers said "Under God" at some point, but whether the original writing of the Pledge contained that phrase. It did not. And not all Founding Fathers were quite as up-standing Christians as George Washington was. We can and will continue to debate whether "Under God" should be in the Pledge, but as to whether Ms. Palin was correct in her comment, I believe debating is a moot point. She meant (and I think it is clear, though many I'm sure will disagree) that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they said it with an "Under God." They did not.

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Ethics Violation? ==

According to the report, she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits the the use of a public office for personal gain, but was also "proper and lawful." [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/ STORY] Should this section be updated to include this? I have the full report here if someone would like to use that as the reference, or I can do it. The PDF is 260+ pages, though:( [http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf REPORT] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: This is silly. I doubt we want to waste time on it. Executives can and should fire people. It should happen more often than it does. Your "was found in" doesn't say who did the finding and what their political views are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::The "finding" was done by a bipartisan committee charged by the Alaskan State Legislature with investigating improprieties of this nature. The investigation concluded that while Palin has the authority to fire executive-branch staff, she abused the responsibility to fire for just cause, since the investigation also found committee found that Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was based in part on a personal grudge and vendetta against her former brother-in-law, who Monegan refused to fire without cause. Conservatives are supposed to support hiring and firing on merit, and when Palin abused the powers she was entitled to use for personal reasons, she crossed an ethical line even if she didn't commit an illegal act. Considering how some people on CP obsess over Obama's "alleged birth" in Hawaii or the non-Christian nature of his name as "legitimate" issues, Palin's ethically questionable conduct as an elected official is absolutely relevant to an assessment of her candidacy for national office. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree with this post, and what I think should be included are 1) the partisan breakdown of the committee, 2) the second portion of the finding (that her actions were also "proper and lawful") with '''equal''' importance, and 3) the issues raised by the campaign over the committee and the campaign's proposed (and still ongoing, I believe) alternative. I didn't mean to imply that I just wanted something added about her being found in violation of state ethics law, but maybe a section explaining the context and the rest. Sorry if I gave you that impression. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 12:03, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The conclusions at the end of the section don't strike me as accurate. The report showed that the ethical issues were in the pressure that Palin allowed to be brought on Monegan to fire Wooten. It contained substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Todd Palin and others that clearly showed a pattern of abuse by permission, rather than direct acts by Palin herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

:Show me one person who said that Sarah Palin told them to take any steps at pressure that they did. Quite the contrary, all documentation shows that she was not involved. The report decided that didn't matter -- Palin herself needed to be censored anyway. Is it any wonder she wanted to be investigated by a group of Democratic appointments by the former governor believing that even they would be more fair than the posse that was put together? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::Well, for a start there's the sworn testimony of former Alaskan State Trooper Colonel Julia Grimes. In volume I of the [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20081010_TROOPER.pdf investigation report], pages 10-11, there are statements from her as to how she was contacted by both Todd and Sarah Palin on separate occasions. The Palins recounted examples of what they considered discipline-worthy conduct on the part of Trooper Woten (Palin's brother-in-law). Todd Palin had no official right to make calls like he did on behalf of the Governor, and Colonel Grimes cited Alaska Statute AS.39.25.080 to Mr. Palin, as part of explaining why state employees are prohibited from discussing personnel issues with anyone else. It was cutting off the conversation with Todd Plain that led to the follow-up call from Sarah Palin, in which Gimes testified of Palin: "Her questions were how can a trooper that behaves this way still be working and was concerned that we were taking this seriously and that we cared". I'm not going cut-and-paste additional excerpts of the report since it's available via the link, but anyone who reads it can see the pattern of additional improper questioning and intervention by Todd Palin and pressure by Governor Palin. Sarah Palin is politically smart enough to avoid breaking the law (which the report properly concluded she didn't), but the pattern of her actions was a violation of her trust per the Alaskan Statutes. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I fully agree with Dinsdale here. I think the article reflects what he has said, I have said, and what the report has said with adequate documentation as to who authored it and the campaign's issues with the handling of the investigation. To be honest, this was not really an "October surprise" and I doubt it will come to much as the findings were relatively mild in the scheme of things. Dinsdale provides more than enough sufficient commentary on this subject. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:Now that the debate is over, how impartial was the moderator (Gwen Ifill)?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::It is my understanding that she was considered to have been fair by the majority of the people watching, myself included. There can always be some points of differences and contentions, but, ironically, she came across as far more even-handed than most of the 'impartial' moderators or news anchors giving political interviews. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I found her to be fair as well - I don't think either participant would be justified in claiming otherwise. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Alaskan Independence party==

there should be something about the aip. if there is in depth speculation about obama's ties to bill ayers, a man whom he has denounced, we should be fair and talk about how palin told the aip, an extremely anti american group, to "keep up the good work".

:What is accurate and fair to state is that Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, per the Division of Elections in Alaska. Republicans are misleading in trying to connect Obama with actions Ayers participated in decades before they met, given that the context in which they met had nothing to do with Ayers' earlier activities. Sarah Palin, by contrast, knowingly consented to her husband's participation in a pro-separatist party for a 7-year period that included her time as Mayor of Wasilla. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree DinsdaleP. From my own perspective, McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate was a bit rapid fire and a bit impulsive, if you ask me. I'm not sure he knew as much about her past when he chose her as he retroactively learned.

:I disagree with Dinsdale, misleading trying to connect Obama with Ayers? The only misleading on the subject is by Obama. The decision to pick Palin was brilliant and satisfied nearly all who didn't like Romney or Huckabee, Pawlenty offered nothing. What we've learned about Sarah is that the left can't stand her and there is nothing to bring her down beside innuendo and smears. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::Obama met Ayers when the latter was on a board working to improve schools, decades after his involvement with the Weather Underground. For Palin to claim that this is "palling around with terrorists" makes it sound like Ayers is still active in that regard (he's not) or that Obama and Ayaers have a close relationship outside of their collaboration on the Annenberg project (they don't). So if she's making stump-speech claims based on falsehoods, that's misleading in my book, and poor behavior for a Christian. It's also interesting that while Ayers' activities with the Weather Underground took place when Obama was a child, Palin ''as an adult'' chose to condone her husband's participation in a separatist group, and made presentations to the same group herself as a politician. Her adult associations with the AIP and its active members is a lot more relevant than trying to create a connection between Obama and the actions Ayers took place in decades ago.
::Oh, and when I learned something about Palin and found it disturbing, I ''did'' the fair thing and researched it to make sure it was factual and not innuendo and smears. The response (not from you, Jpatt) was to be blocked and have the findings removed, instead of their truthful nature being challenged with evidence. That's a real shame, when the truth is supposed to matter here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Maverick ==

Here's what I'm bothered by. Palin tosses the concept of her and McCain as "Mavericks" around quite liberally...yet she fails to explain what she means by this self-identification. In the VP debate, she referred to herself and McCain as "a couple of Mavericks" six times (at least that's what I counted). What does it mean to be a Maverick???!?!?! Yet, she never went further with her explanation... [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not a maverick in Wasilla, but definetly as Governor. She has explained her stance, liberals refuse to listen. Must she explain the definition of Maverick to satisfy the left?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Image ==

In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== 2012 ==
Is it too soon to mention 2012 on this page? According to Townhall (here: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/11/palin_puts_brutal_2008_behind_her,_looks_to_2012 ) Gov. Palin has said she would "plow through that door" (ie become the nominee) if it's God's will and conditions are right.
:If you wish to include a tasteful entry that is fine. I should point out though that the way many of the news organizations reported it was basically a lie. The part about doing it only if it is God's will is important -- and was often left out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Unless she has a telephone to God I think wording reflecting that she will do it if ''she feels'' it is God's will would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

==Russia and Alaska==
I have an idea about an article showing the contemporary and/or historical influence of Russia and Alaska. I have been to Russia before. Over the past 300 years, I have read that Russian traders constructed several [[Russian Orthodox]] churches, now in the State of Alaska. These still stand, I have read. Does anyone have or can take a picture of one and give it to '''CP'''?

I think a simple, factual article like that (mentioning Saint Herman of Alaska, a Russian Missionary to Alaskian Eskimos) would help people to understand what Palin means when she cites Alaska's ongoing invovlement with its neighbor. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 09:55, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: Sounds great. You can create new entries, and I look forward to learning from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==The Future==

I'm not removing this section, but it needs some sourcing for the opinions that are being expressed. If not, I'd suggest that they be relocated to an essay because they currently appear to be a set of pro-Palin comments with no encyclopedic basis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

*I added a citation for the item, Dinsdale. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== My last edits ==

"a typical example" rather than "an example" is editorializing and unnecessary padding, as worded with "an" it is still written in a very conservative way, a professional conservative way. Also Palin is criticized for hunting, its a stupid reason to criticize someone, and reveals the ignorance of some of her detractors, but it does happen and since it is true and relevant it probably belongs here. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Bad Links ==

#47 and #48 link to articles that no longer exist so there would seem to be no basis for statement made in the sentence that refers to them. Can anyone find the articles?

==Where is the "Bridge to Nowhere?"==
Why isn't this on her page? That seems pretty important.

*~Yawn~ Important to whom? It was a contrivance of political convenience by both politicians and the media. That isn't especially notable, don't you think? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:11, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

But you think Obama POSSIBLY being a muslim is important enough to put on his page? CP is supposed to be filled with facts and unbiased truth. Not unverified purported rumors.[[User:GordonF|GordonF]]

: Yes, Obama is president and the verified facts put on his entry are of sufficient importance. Why do those facts bother you so much???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Wow! Check out this dishonesty from the left-stream media ==

The recent vandalization of this page made me check out the reference given:

<blockquote>
In light of her experience, and subsequent break up with the father of her child, Brostol Palin has since stated that she sees abstinence only education as "not realistic." [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/]
</blockquote>

You go to that link and see this:

*In her first interview since giving birth, the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said having a child is not "glamorous," and that telling young people to be abstinent is "not realistic at all."

And then you come to a link in the middle of the article:

[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/#cnnSTCVideo Watch Bristol Palin say that abstinence is "not realistic at all"]

Okay, so then when you click on that link and watch the video, the reporter states:

"..she also went on to say that stopping teen sex is quote 'not realistic at all.'"

But at no point in the video is Bristol shown saying anything of the sort. When you watch what she actually said, it's quite a bit different that what is being reported (imagine that!).

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eixcsj7FI6I YouTube clip from interview]

"Everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all."

It's obvious she means that even with abstinence being promoted, realistically some kids are still going to choose to have sex. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:10, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:The liberal view of sex is that it always okay among any parties competent to "consent". They absolutely refuse to consider any alternative. So, the idea that young people might benefit from being advised to abstain from premarital sex is abhorrent to them.

:The lie comes from their assumption that abstinence education '''cannot''' ever work; the truth is merely that they '''hope''' it does not work.

:The sexually immoral are desperate to hang on to their sin of choice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:*More from Bristol, in her own words, [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp here.] CBS even played a clip from ABC. And in an interesting behind-the-scenes nugget, take a look at how the CBS transcript refers to anchor Chris Cuomo, who conducted the GMA interview...typical liberal media deceit! [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

::I believe that we should seriously consider a law making it illegal to have sexual relations outside of marriage. It's a shame we no longer have people in office who aren't afraid to legislate based on their Christian beliefs and moral values.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:52, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Resignation ==

We should update this with her recent resignation. I'd prefer to have someone quote from the full text of the speech - most articles I've seen/read haven't even mentioned it, they've just stated that she announced she wouldn't be running again for governor and would be leaving office sometime before the end of July. The transcript is on her website here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Thanks![[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:24, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I don't think her quitting office needs to be mentioned. This article is a highlight of her personal and professional accomplishments as a leading Christian Conservative, and including that would not serve any meaningful purpose but only tarnish the article of an otherwise upstanding career. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 08:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: This article is a bibliography of Sarah Palin though, is it not? The resignation is part of her life '''and''' her political career, we would be remiss in not mentioning and covering this major fact and event of her life. [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 9:24, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

::::I disagree. It would only embolden liberals in their unending smear campains against Governer Palin. She quit for personal reasons. The encyclopedic artice is a place for facts, not personal issues. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:45, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::I agree her reason are personal, but as a public figure, she officially ended her term as governor, which is simply fact, "liberals" are already fully aware of this fact so it would change nothing in that regard. Speculations on the reasons why isn't necessary to write, but simply the fact she did resign as the reason her term ended, and ended early should be noted and entered. To not enter that on an encyclopedic bibliography of her would be derelict. - [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:54, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

*The Administrators agree with you, BMcP. Failure to add her resignation to our article was a big oversight. Sorry it took so long to note and respond to this. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:57, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Second paragraph: out of sequence? ==

The second paragraph of the lead seems out of place. While the first and third both talk about Palin and her Vice Presidential candidacy, the second recounts a specific incident from her political career. Should it be moved to another spot in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:00, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

== Huge quote ==

This is an awfully long article. Is there really a need to quote so extensively from her resignation speech? There is a link to it in the references after all. But I don't dare remove it because that may be regarded as "liberal vandalism". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 16:16, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== Down Syndrome ==

Sorry edited Down Syndrome to Down's Syndrome but reversed since it turns out that a 'UK-ism'. Nick Bowler

==Remove subsection==
The subsection, ''Reaction to Gulf of Mexico oil spill'' seems misplaced under ''Record as Governor'', as Palin ''was not'' governor at the time of the Obama administration's mismanagement of oversight leading to the spill. The section consists of a single sentence. Perhaps removing this subheading and merging the single sentence somewhere into the subhead on beleifs and views? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:07, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:Convention would dictate a "Current Activities" section or "Post Elected Office" section when dealing with public figures. I like ''Current Activities'', best, and it should be located after the intro and before more distant past information, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:42, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

==Resignation==

*On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<nowiki><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref></nowiki> Executive power was transferred to [[Lieutenant Governor]] [[Sean Parnell]].
Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]],<nowiki><ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref></nowiki> and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.

Makes it sound like they punished her for making an announcement.

How about we say that she resigned the governorship, to run for vice president along with McCain? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:16, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I follow you, Ed. BHO assumed office in January and she resigned in July. The plain truth is that Palin resigned because liberals were doing everything they could to impede her. The endless, frivolous attacks prevented Sarah from doing her best for Alaska and she wasn't about to shortchange her constituents. Palin's resignation was a noble move. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 19:28, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

::'''''"The endless, frivolous lawsuits",''''' taking up her time, and that of state employees, at great financial cost, is the cited reason. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

==Sarah Palin's Real American Stories show ==
I heard that Sarah Palin used to have a show on the Fox News Channel on April called [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/04/sarah-palins-real-american-stories-draws-2-million-viewers.html Real American] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/sarah-palin-hosting-fox-n_n_519082.html Stories]. So, does anyone know what happened with that show? Is it still airing? If not, will it air again? [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 10:54, 9 November 2010 (EDT)

:The shows were not a series, but rather a "special", using Van Sustren's time slot. Palin's actual limited new series is on TLC....8 part television event, they are advertising it as. It starts November 14th, and there are previews [http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/?mkcpgn=semtlc2 here.] --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:42, 9 November 2010 (EST)

::Ok, thanks for letting me know. I hope Sarah Palin can get a permanent show on Fox News to replace Shepard Smith at 7:00 P.M that way I could see less of the liberal Shep Smith. [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 1:31, 10 November 2010 (EDT)

:::IMHO you should re-think that observation. Sheppard Smith isn't a [[liberal]] by any stretch. While that isn't a conversation for this page, I would be interested in hearing from you as to why you think that via email, if you are so inclined. And keep in mind that Palin isn't at all interested in anchoring the news otherwise she would have already been signed to a multi-year contract! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:36, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Talk:Movement conservative

2010-12-07T06:15:05Z

AdamV: /* Sarah Palin */ new section

Don't think [[Sean Hannity]] qualifies. He typically prefers less [[conservative]] guests, and has even been unfair to at least one real conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin ==

Added a few words before Sarah Palin since everyone else listed has (except for St. Paul). Not sure if Vice Presidential running mate in 2008 or former governor of Alaska or something else was the way to go, went with former governor (first thing listed on her page on conservapedia)

Movement conservative

2010-12-07T06:11:37Z

AdamV:

[[Category:Conservative]]A '''movement conservative''' is one who supports all or nearly all [[conservative]] principles with a coherent philosophy, and who advances broad [[conservative]] goals both individually and through teamwork. This is contrasted with [[Republican in name only|cafeteria]], or single-issue, or self-serving approaches.

Put another way, a '''movement conservative''' is a conservative who seeks to help others, and the nation, by explaining, advocating and defending the logical and beneficial conservative approach. A movement conservative is not primarily seeking political gain for himself, but advocates the insights and values of [[conservatism]] for the benefit of others.

Examples of movement conservatives would include:

*[[St. Paul]]
*The late Senator [[Jesse Helms]]
*The late President [[Ronald Reagan]]
*The late Congressman [[John Ashbrook]]
*The late Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by Soviets.
*The late Journalist [[Robert Novak]]
*Activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
*Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]
*The late University President [[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[United Nations]] Ambassador [[John Bolton]]
*Columnist [[Thomas Sowell]]
*Talk-radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]
*U.S. Representative for [[Minnesota]]'s 6th District [[Michele Bachmann]]
*Author and talk-radio host [[Mark Levin]]
*Former Governor of Alaska [[Sarah Palin]]

==See also==
*[[Conservative Movement]]

{{Conservatism}}

Living wage

2010-12-06T23:28:52Z

AdamV:

The '''living wage''' entails the idea that no wage-earning laborer should ever be paid lower wages than those that would keep him and his family above [[poverty level]]. It was an operating principle of Franklin D. Roosevelt's [[New Deal]]. Although most aspects of the living-wage program were repealed in 1964, the [[minimum wage]] lives on as a vestige of it.

{{quotebox|
In urging the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] said, "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean the wages of a decent living."
<ref>[http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2004/11/feature/]</ref>}}<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Sin

2010-12-05T21:00:12Z

AdamV: Venial sin and Mortal sin links looping

== Venial sin and Mortal sin links looping ==

I removed the [[ ]]'s around venial sin and mortal sin as they were just linking back to the same section of the same page. I'm not sure if they were intended to be their own pages?

Sin

2010-12-05T20:58:11Z

AdamV: /* Roman Catholic */

''For the mathematical function, see [[sine]].''

'''Sin''' is a failure to conform to the standard of [[morality]], or the state of the world that results from such failure.

== Meaning of sin ==
The root meaning of the English word ''sin'' is actually, "He is guilty as charged." This in turn implies that the person committing the offense knew, or ought to have known, that his act would ''be'' an offense before he committed it. This word actually captures the meaning that many religious traditions ascribe to sin.

The [[Greek]] word used in the original [[New Testament]] and translated "sin" in English is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia'') (whence ''[[hamartoma]]'' a malformation of [[cell]]s that are within their usual place in the body). This word captures the ''[[Christian]]'' meaning of sin much better. ''Hamartia'' means ''missing a target.'' Thus sin does not require bad intentions, but might result from a misunderstanding. This is not to say that the consequences are any less dire, however. It does mean that sin need not be intentional; it can be a knowing (but not intentional), reckless, or negligent act.

=== Required: a moral context ===
Sin, which is a moral failure, cannot exist in the absence of a code of [[morality]].

This is not to say that sin requires a context of ''divinity.'' The context in which sin ceases to have meaning is not [[atheism]] ''per se'' but rather [[amoral]]ism -- the doctrine that says that no person may properly define what is moral for another, because no two people will ever value the same thing to the same degree, or value the same collection of things by the same rank structure.

Whether any man ''ever'' lives without some form of moral code--even if that code is, "I denounce as sin any disagreement with myself or any attempt to stand in my way"--is [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?|debatable]]. Nevertheless, without ''some'' form of moral context, sin has no meaning.

== Differing views of sin ==
==== Jewish ====
In [[Judaism]], and certainly in ancient practice, the preferred method of [[atonement]] for sin was blood [[sacrifice]]. The Book of [[Leviticus]] prescribed multiple animal sacrifices for atonement for various types of sin. But by far the most important atonement--on the Day of Atonement (''[[Yom Kippur]]'')--was made by the high priest of the [[Hebrew]] people (originally [[Aaron]], brother of [[Moses]]). This involved making a blood sacrifice, entering the [[Holy of Holies]] (in [[Latin]], ''sanctum sanctorum''), and sprinkling some of the blood from the sacrifice on the [[Ark of the Covenant]].

Animal sacrifice has not been part of Jewish practice since the destruction of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] by the future Emperor [[Titus]] in 70 AD. But the [[Old Testament]] did not imply that animal sacrifice was the sole ''necessary'' measure for reconciliation. Simple repentance and prayer sufficed numerous times in Bible history.

Today, though animal sacrifices are no longer observed, Jews do observe ''Yom Kippur'' and other festivals related to repentance and reconciliation. But a movement now exists to attempt to regain exclusive control of the [[Temple Mount]] area in [[Jerusalem]], rebuild the Temple, and resume the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings prescribed in the [[Torah]].

In traditional Jewish thought, sin may be balanced by the good deeds one performs throughout life; the image of scales weighing one's life are prominent in folklore, similar to other ancient Middle Eastern religions such as ancient Egypt.

=== Christian views ===
''See also: [[Seven Deadly Sins]]''
==== Roman Catholic ====
Catholics classify sins as venial sin and mortal sin ([[grave sin]]).<ref> [http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html What is a Mortal Sin?]</ref>

[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] doctrine distinguishes [[original sin]], or the sin of [[Adam]], from ''personal'' sins, which require individual reconciliation with God. A personal sin may be ''mortal'' (a particularly grave matter that the perpetrator commits by deliberate intent) or ''venial'' (a less grave matter that could result from a misunderstanding). The RCC distinction is: Mortal sins cut a person off from the grace of God; venial sins do not, but still injure one's relationship to God. A mortal sin is defined in the Roman Catholic church as being any transgression (a) regarding a grave matter, (b) which was premeditated and (c) committed with full knowledge of its sinful nature. A venial sin is defined as any sin which does not fulfil all three conditions for a mortal sin.

The one mortal sin that, to a Catholic, would be unforgivable (because its successful commission leaves no opportunity for reconciliation later), is [[suicide]]. Beyond that, a person may receive reconciliation for a mortal sin by making [[confession]] to a [[priest]] and receiving the ceremony of [[absolution]]. One can reconcile from a venial sin by the sacrament of reconciliation, or by receiving communion, or [[Holy Eucharist]].

Roman Catholic doctrine historically included two other controversial holdings. One is [[purgatory]], a place where the soul must be held to "purge" him of all traces of sin before he can gain entry to [[heaven]]. Redemption from purgatory allegedly required the payment of a monetary fee by the deceased's relatives to the Church. The other is the [[indulgence]], a fee paid to the church by the perpetrator in advance. Indulgences have not been sold for centuries, and recently [[Pope]] [[Benedict XVI]] issued an [[encyclical]] casting doubt on the entire concept of purgatory.<ref>''Encyclical Letter, Spe Salvi, Of The Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, To The Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Men And Women Religious, And All The Lay Faithful, On Christian Hope'' 30 November 2007 [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html Vatican website] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>

===== Virgin Mary =====
Roman Catholic doctrine holds that not only was [[Jesus]] sinless, but so, also, was His Mother, [[Virgin Mary|Mary]]. The belief that the Virgin Mary was sinless at conception is called the [[Immaculate Conception]].

The [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] teaches that the Virgin Mary was born with Original Sin but that she was cleansed of this sin at the time of the Annunciation. The Church also teaches that by free will she did not commit any actual sin.

This doctrine, called ''Marianism'', is not ''universally'' held by all Catholics, however.

==== Anglican Communion ====
The [[Anglican Communion]], essentially the breakaway church of the [[United Kingdom]], retains the Roman Catholic tradition of confession and absolution of sin. But instead of an individual process, confession in Anglican churches is a group activity, and absolution is pronounced by a [[Minister (Protestant)|minister]] to the entire church-going group. Purgatory and indulgences have no place in Anglican doctrine.

==== Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ====

In the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.

The Orthodox churches, including Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, differ little from [[Judaism]] in their holding of what sin is and how to reconcile it--except that animal sacrifices have never been part of Orthodox tradition.

==== The Reformation ====
In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] launched the [[Protestant Reformation]]. In his famous "95 theses" he asserted the doctrine of ''[[Sola Scriptura]]''--literally, "by Scripture only." Luther rejected out-of-hand most of the various categories of sin, and the elaborate rituals that attended its so-called reconciliation.

Sin, according to Luther, is any failure to observe God's commandments or other Godly precepts that one may determine from the New Testament. ''Reconciliation'' from sin was a ''private'' matter between God and any of His followers. A priest was ''not'' required, because that would imply that a human being, of whatever office, could stand in the place of God.

Salvation was strictly by faith and strictly by grace. Luther drew directly on the letters of [[Paul]] that addressed this very subject.

==== The Baptist Tradition ====
The [[Baptist|Baptists]] would generally agree with Luther. Like him, Baptists hold that sin is an act or omission that displeases God, and the state of being that the perpetrator falls into, and remains in until he has confessed this sin.

Baptist churches do not tend to engage in corporate, collective confessions. Rather, Baptist practice depends heavily on {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=18|verses=15-20|version=KJV}}, which prescribes this procedure for the handling of sin that gives offense to a fellow believer:

# The aggrieved person, or the minister if the aggrieved person has asked him to, tries to encourage the perpetrator to repent. ''Repentance'' (Greek ''metanoia'') means a change of mind, or a change of heart.
# Failing that, whoever tried to talk to the perpetrator the first time, tries a second time and brings a witness.
# If this still does not bring repentance, and a cessation of the behavior, then and only then does the matter come before the entire church. The minister lays out the case, and puts the matter to a vote as to whether the offender ought to be allowed to remain in fellowship.

Not all Baptist churches practice this discipline, however. In such environments, sin is a matter between the offender and God (and the person or persons to whom the offender might have given offense). Some observers suggest that churches suffer when they fail to practice discipline as they should.

==== Fundamentalists ====
: ''Main Article: [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]''

The above article is a comprehensive theory of sin, and its effects on the offender, on mankind as a whole, and on the entire world.

=== Islam ===
In [[Islam]], sin is very simple: anything that runs counter to the will of [[Allah]] (Arabic for [[God]]). In Islam, sin is simply an act, never a state of being.

Islam recognizes five gradations of sin, in order of severity:

# Mistakes.
# Immorality.
# Transgressions.
# Wickedness and depravity.
# Ascribing a partner to God. Thus this one special instance of [[blasphemy]] is held worse than any other sin a man can commit.

In Islam, permanent reconciliation cannot come in life. Instead, at death, a person has his "good deeds" measured against his "bad deeds" (sins). If the good outweighs the bad, then the person must walk a tightrope over a lake of fire in order to cross into heaven. Islam, however, offers one important exception: any person who dies ''in the course of an act that advances the Muslim faith'' gains automatic entry into heaven, regardless of any prior sins he has committed. The usual, and some Muslims (particularly the [[Wahhabism|Wahabbi]] sect) say the only, context for such a death is ''[[jihad]]'', literally ''holy [[war]]''. Furthermore, ''jihad'' is a ''physical'' war against non-adherents to Islam.

Other Muslims will say that ''jihad'' is not physical at all, but refers instead to a personal struggle that every Muslim must engage in continually against sin and the temptations thereto.

Still others state that two forms of Jihad are known:
# The greater Jihad, which is the internal struggle within a person against sin.
# The lesser Jihad, physical war against the infidel.

Those who make that distinction state that what they call the "lesser jihad" is practiced only by fanatical holders to Islam. A ''fanatic'' is one who holds to a set of beliefs uncritically--that is, without being willing to judge them. Since the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|World Trade Center incident]], a number of Muslims ''have'' begun a critical analysis of Muslim doctrine (both verbal and written) and the place of Islam in the civilized world. Whether those voices can find sufficent logical support in the written texts that define Islam is debatable.

=== Totalitarianism ===
[[Totalitarianism]] is a [[philosophy]] of [[government]] that holds that the government ''must'' have absolute authority over ''all'' aspects of life. [[Communist]]s are totalitarians, just as the [[Nazi]]s were.

Totalitarian authorities and their apologists have their concept of sin as well: it is anything that works against the government, or tries to thwart its goals. This is true even in a regime that is explicitly [[Atheism|atheistic]] in world view. Reconciliation generally requires recantation.

=== Environmentalism ===
[[Environmentalism]] also has a standard of value: ''the good of the planet as a wild system.'' Anything that harms the earth or makes it less wild is sinful in this system. The controversy surrounding [[global warming]] is, at root, a controversy about environmentalism as a source of moral values, and the allegation that humans in general, and/or some humans in particular, have transgressed against the environmentalist moral standard.

== Summary ==
Some religious and philosophical traditions consider sin to be a deliberate act; others say that it can be merely a mistake. Some say that reconciliation for sin requires a certain work; others that reconciliation is by the grace of [[God]] (or, for some, a cult leader), and still others (most notably the Objectivists) say that reconciliation is not required, except perhaps to any particular affronted person.

[[atheism|Atheists]] typically lack a concept of sin, and may even ridicule it. More generally, ''amoral'' individuals deny that sin exists, because sin presupposes a moral code that someone might breach.
==Further reading==
* Bretzke, James T. ''A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Morally-Complex-World-Engaging-Contemporary/dp/0814651585/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260605470&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Connolly, Hugh. ''Sin'' (2002) 168pp very brief history of sin in Christian theology; 120pp
* Paulson, Ronald. ''Sin and Evil: Moral Values in Literature''(2007) 403pp.; focus on Swift, Dickens, Hawthorne, Melville, James, Conrad, Faulkner, Greene, and Vonnegut

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Citizendium

2010-12-05T20:37:17Z

AdamV: /* Reception & criticism */ new section

Let's email Larry Sanger and ask him to describe his project in a "trustworthy" way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:18, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reception & criticism ==

Reception and criticism section has neither of those things in it? [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 15:37, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Talk:Democratic Party

2010-12-05T20:31:37Z

AdamV: /* Some Factual Innacuracies */

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:ICK, no kidding, I like how the article is slanted to make it seem like all democrats are sinners and I bet that a equal number of republicans were slave owners {{Unsigned|User:MrRandom}}

::Your bet is on, my good man. I got $100 cash that says '''no Republicans''' were slave owners. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave (http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html). E-mail me for the address to send the $100. --[[User:Nimble|Nimble]] 11:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

You make no sense. Bush is clearly a lord of the sith for being so black and white in his quote

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How about a more sound explaination. Just because the majority of the democrats voted against invading Iraq does not mean they support terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the use of force to coerce a particular ideology. Terrorism is not only in Iraq. There are terrorists in every nation of the world, including the U.S. The violent acts instigated from the KKK, IRA, or Freedom Fighters, is terrorism. As long as people feel oppressed and that something is unfair, there will always be terrorism.[[User:Idealist101|Idealist101]]

If you admit that Bush is not a terrorist for attacking another country he had no right to attack, then you also admit that people who did not support him in his illegal attack are not terrorists. His fault is clearly the greater one and we are excusing his, therefore the smaller fault (if it can even be called that) is clearly excusable. Enough said. [[User:Squiddy|Squiddy]]

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, my idea of an "economic liberal" is Milton Friedman who saw no difference between "economics" and "politics" (like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek who devoted most of their writing effort to things most people consider political theory). And while Reagan invoked Friedman for authority, he ignored virtually everything Milton Friedman advocated for government policy. For example, instead of legalizing drugs, Reagan renewed the initiative to add extra million Americans to the already large number of wards of the state. (Felons in prison.) Reagan, has have most Republicans, have ensured that corporations get free lunches by not needing to pay for the resources they deplete nor the damage their pollution does - even Friedman argued that pollution costs needed to assessed. In any case, I don't think the Democratic Party and Republican Party are measurably different in having no real economic theoretical basis for policy, with the apparent difference being Republicans claiming a theory that they reject when they make the proposals they want, while the Democrats just make their proposal; in the end, the Democratic policies are not inconflict with their claimed economic principles, while the Republicans are very clearly in conflict. [[User:Mulp|Mulp]] 00:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Have you read [[Adam Smith]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:48, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::See here for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productive_and_unproductive_labour&diff=prev&oldid=106451910], Wikipedia quotes Smith,
:::::''"There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. "''
:::::This is typical quote mining of Smith taught by every Marxist professor in the United States. I had to finish the quote,
:::::''A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. '''The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well."''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
::And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing '''why''' policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The first major expansion to [[Iraq War]], for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
The sentence: '''Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then '''shall we'''? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the ''Status Quo Antebellum.'' In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the ''United States Statutes at Large'' found here <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:While ''Status Quo Antebellum'' referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

==Needed citations==
This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.
:WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the [[New Ordeal]] (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how [[Strom Thurmond]] supported FDR for a fourth term. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

Um... if FDR was president when the depression ended, regardless of the reason wouldn't that techincally make it correct to state that he DID lead us out of it...? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Oh wait I'm sorry, I keep forgetting FDR was the biggest commie there ever was save for maybe Marx. How silly of me.

== Religion section ==

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. Someone should put in the name of another prominant catholic senator. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 10:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexual section==
I removed the bit about the hate crime law making it illegal to criticize homosexuality, as there is no basis for this. Some wingnut saying "this law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays" (which is all the citation said) does not mean hate crime law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays. It wouldn't trump the first amendment. People are still allowed to be racist, in spite of current hate crime legislation. This won't change when it comes to homosexuality either. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

#You shouldn't have deleted the sources, just because you disagree with how they're interpreted.
#Unless you are completely new to wiki collaboration, you already know that [[edit war]]ring is counter-productive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for the block. Now, the article still has major problems, and the sentence I removed is a blatant violation of item #6 on [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia| this list]]. I think some compromise phrasing can be worked out. I don't mind the conservative slant on the article as a whole (it is Conservapedia after all); everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. I'm going to take a shot at rephrasing the problematical part without removing the source, as it were. I'd appreciate not getting blocked for it. If there is a problem let's discuss it here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually we got about a half dozen or a dozen different cites that all say the samething, i.e. the [[110th Congress]] is seriously considering criminalizing the preaching of the Gospel. So if it's a nuke arms race on sources you want, you will get it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd be very curious to see such sources, particularly if they can actually cite actual proposed legislation. The "source" currently given does nothing but quote a random critic. If Michael Moore jumps up on a table and says "The Republicans want to send immigrants to slaughterhouses!" I would hardly think it appropriate to add that Republicans condone the mass murder of foreigners to their article. We need more than the someone-says-so approach. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:30, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
This compromise is meaningless:
*''although a law passed by Congress would have no power to overrule the freedom of expression guaranteed by the [[First Amendment]]''
Of course "a law passed by Congress" would have no power to do anything unless the President signs it, or unless a two/thirds majority overrides a veto. Both cases are highly unlikely. Everybody knows, this Bill does not stand a WP:SNOW. But ''this is'' the "Democratic Party" mainspace, and criminalizing the Gospel as a meaningless gesture to a valued constituency ''is'' or ''was'' the position taken by Democratic Congressional leadership. There is no way to poo-poo that now that it is plain as day that Democratic Congresspeople '''lied''' to thier constituents when they (a) ran for office, (b) introduced a Bill they knew the President would never sign, and (c) they would never garner enough GOP votes to override a Presidential veto.

SOooooooo......DNC rot just will not play here in CP. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:Please prove that the Democratic Party has introduced legislation "criminalizing the Gospel". And are you saying it is dishonest to introduce a bill if you don't have enough votes to override a veto? I can't imagine you are, because that is a ridiculous statement to make, but I can't see how whether or not they have 2/3 of Congress is relevent to the actual contents of the hate crime bill, which is what is being discussed here. The issue is not whether or not the bill's status in regards to WP:SNOW but what the bill actually says. Give us a source. A ''real'' source. If you don't want the bit about the First Amendment in there, fine, whatever, but at the moment all that has been established is that ''critics allege'' the bill would prohibit criticism of homosexuality. To say otherwise blatantly contradicts the statement made that "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts", which is ''exactly'' what this article is doing. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:46, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::Here's some cites:
::*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
::*[[Hate crime#References]]
::*Plus what's on the mainspace here. And to trash them, you are going to have to do better than, "those are just a bunch of paranoid, intollerant, right-wing ''[[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|Christer]]'' sites." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::You'e sending me to another Conservapedia article as a ''source''? Oh come on! As for the references at those pages, some are the same as the ''source'' here, and amount only to the say-so of another critic. One is about a legislation in Canada, which, last I checked, was out of the jurisdiction of the US Congress. Only one referenced any particular incident at all, a single event in Philly wherein people were charged with an assortment of crimes. That the charges were thrown out just shows it was a case of wrongful arrest, not of hate crimes criminalizing the Bible. While wrongful arrest and misintepretation of law are serious issues, they are not the issue in this article. Where are the primary sources? Where are excerpts from hate crime bills that make preaching the Bible illegal? Let's hold the articles here to some standards, okay? Even Wikipedia does a better job than this. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::oowww low blow...ok, since you've been upfront & civil about it, and have addressed some specific valid points, I'll get the information for you. Not sure I can do it all tonite, but I'll put it on the front burner for the AM if I can't do it tonite.

::::The point you raised about jounralists opinions is valid, but most of the cites we've linked to in these three entries are not simply editorial opinions, the are direct references to persons and experts involved in these issues. And a further note, we also have the views of minority members of Congress which say basically the same thing. And of course, we can also look at the exact language of the Bill, which is quoted in part in some of these cites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:01, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was not meant to be a low blow. If ever I were to ask for a source on Wikipedia and I were pointed to another Wikipedia article I would naturally rake that user over the coals. Wikipedia does have an strict policy on reliable sources, although exactly what sources can be considered reliable is a subject of endless debate. I'm not sure what the policy here is, but I suppose there must be one. In any case, I would assume that not taking journalists for their word would apply to many other professions as well, particularly partisan hacks from either side of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans are perfectly capabile of demonizing the stance of the opposition on any number of controversial issues, and taking their word as fact is not going to aid the credibility of this site. As of now it has been established that critics do allege that hate crime legislation would prohibit criticism of the homosexual lifestyle, but I see no evidence that the legislation would do this. I'd like to be able to put the "critics allege" bit back in (minus the bit on the 1st amendment, if you're so against it) without getting banned for "edit warring" without warning. And let us not equate someone shouting "Die, Fag! Die!", which may be considered either protected speech or a threat on someone's life (and a subject worthy of debate), with reciting passages from the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah (which ''is'' protected speech, regardless of what critics allege hate crime legislation says, or even what the bill itself says). The former, if it were addressed by hate crime law, could hardly be considered a blanket ban on all speech critical of homosexuality. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 23:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Actually I was just too lazy to cut out references links, so i just pointed you that direction with those articles. As to WP's RS, this makes me laugh, because truth be told, I've had somewhat of an impact on creation of WP:ATT, WP:BLP, as well as WP:V being rewritten, and modifications to RS's. While in theory they contain many good guidelines, what's faulty in them is their not being evenhandedly enforced. And this goes for WP:NOR, NPOV and few others as well.

::::::Me personally, I'd recommend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance this] as a guideline. The problem with WP's policies are, they were written by somebody who learned Journalism ethics in Journalism School, and we know what the value of that is. The state of Journalistic ethics only deteriorates more year after year. Journalists make a mockery of their pretense to it, and in WP you have people with no ethics whatsoever not even pretending to be ethical. So I don't have a high opinion of WP's or for that matter any kind of broadcast or written Journalism standards at all. I'm only interested in historiography, the historical method, and rules of evidence.

::::::In the morning, I'll take a look at the entire issue. It seems to go beyond just hate crimes speech,and homosexuals are already defined as a protected class. But as we demonstrated on the [[Talk:Homosexuality]] page yesterday, the Law doesn't even clearly define what a homosexual is. The last homosexual homicide in the US was in 2004, according to FBI stats, yet it was neither a male or female who was murdered. So unless the killer was another transexual (i.e. "the same", as what is commonly known as the meaning of the term "homo") creating a protected class & requiring the compiliation of statisitcs of hate crimes is just more pure garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, everyone's had ample time to come up with anything to support the statement in question and no one has done so. All the single citation says is that opponents argue that the hate crimes legislation would prohibit criticism of homosexuality (I'm still not sure how get this interpretation, we have hate crime legislation covering race and religion in many places and it's still not a crime to say bad things about blacks, Jews, and other minorities). So I'm going to add "opponents argue" to the beginning of the statement. I really don't see how this can be a controversial edit. If you're going to blatantly say that unlike Wikipedia (where does Wikipedia do this exactly?) Conservapedia does not state the opinions fo journalists as fact, you should really stick by it. And I would hope that it wouldn't be taken to mean that the opinions of anyone who isn't a journalist ''can'' be stated as fact. That would be downright silly. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:"Experts"? Is that really the best you can do? sigh. Well, I'll add "some" to that. Clearly not all "experts" agree on that statement. The single "source" certainly doesn't support that assertion. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

===gas tax===

:I also added that it was "certain" Democrats who proposed a 50 cent increase in the gas tax. From the article cited it appears it was only one (and I'm quite sure the proposal has gone nowhere). Hardly a part of the overall Democrat agenda. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::It's not really "certain Democrats," it's the Democratic Leadership that proposed a 50 cent per gallon gas tax increase which impacts poor people trying to hold and job and get to work most. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::According to the article it was a single committee chair (admittedly of the committee most relevant to the issue); saying "Democratic Leadership" seems to imply Pelosi, Reid, and other high-ranking Democrats supported it, and I see no evidence that they did. {{Unsigned|PortlyMort}}

::::As a general rule Committe Chairs do not go against the wishes of the Majority Leader or Speaker, particularly in the House where rules are different (in the Senate, Committee Chairs get thier position by Seniority, in the House it is by appointment, and only trusted Chairs who will do the bidding of the Speaker get the appointment). If Conyers was going against Pelosi & Hoyer, it would be a big news item. Thier silence and the media's silence, only gives them cover, whereas if it's an unpopular measure, they got the fall guy set up and it becomes the blame game. And in the blame game, it will come back to Pelosi, Hoyer, et al the House Democratic Conference Leadership. The Committee Chairs do not act on their own. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Okay, I'm not expert here, but it seems to me that committee chairs have quite a bit of independent power ''within their committees''. Now, if the measure were ever to get out of committee (and if it does I'll eat my hat and and add another 15,000 articles to Conservapedia personally) that would be a different story. This looks like posturing to me. The whole idea of raising taxes on gasoline and using the money to fund alternative energy in an effort to get us off foreign oil (and oil in general, eventually) has been widely discussed among liberals. (They often make comparisons to Europe, where gas is enormously more expensive, but ignore factors like the geographic differences between a small country like Britain and a large one like the U.S., among other things.) If they could find a way to apply it just to the rich the concept would probably have some support in Congress, but they know that this would screw the poor much more, and would send Congress back to the Republicans in a heartbeat. This seems to be a way to let Dingell propose it, let it die quickly in committee so they can appeal to the liberal base by looking like they're doing something without actually having to enact anything or deal with the consequences. Pelosi would not want to touch this; Dingell, one of the longest-serving Congressmen in history, is pretty safe. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:55, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::All that dances around the fact that (a) the Democratic Leadership proposed a consumption tax at a point in time that will disproportionately hurt the same very people whom allegedly, according to themselves and media allies, they were elected to help, and (b) we are not here to promote lies and coverups. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::And ''that'' dances around the fact that the "Democratic Leadership" you cite is a single person: Rep. Dingell. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:24, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::There is no indication he's acted on his own, going public, since Pelosi, Hoyer & whatsisname the whip haven't rejected it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Have they indicated they ''support'' it? Seems were both drawing conclusions here. You assume their apparent silence is tacit approval; I don't, since they obviously don't comment on every item brought up in every committee. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:34, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Oh, so Dingell goes public with an idea to drag the poor over the coals which needs a majority in the House, Pelosi ''et al'' remain mum on the concept, and that means she opposes it. Don't think so... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::You don't ''think'' so, but you don't ''know''. That's my point. And what has Bush et al said about it? Nothing? I guess they approve too maybe? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::In reading these articles (probably in WP, too) you will see a primary characteristic of difference between Dem & Repub, left & right, lib & conserv, is on the tax issue. Dems almost ''always'' under ''all circumstances'' advocate and promote higher taxation. Repubs almost always under all circumstances advocate tax cuts. It is not surprising, therefore, after 12 years in the wilderness, one of the first things Dems would do is propose tax increases.
:::::::::::::As to the absurd reference to Bush, what? Bush is of like-mind with Pelosi ''et al''? Go ahead, promote that idea if you wish; let's see if you get any beleivers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Typo==
"Crongressional." Can't edit the article for whatever reason. [[User:ZCE|ZCE]]
:Fixed. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:11, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Democrat Party ==

Why are we using the term "Democratic Party"? The preferred, non-liberal-biased term is "Democrat Party" (or "Democrat congressman", or "Democrat Agenda", etc.) "Democratic" is bad because it evokes small-d democratic (which they are not), whereas "Democrat" emphasizes "rat" (which they are). In fact, using the loaded term "Democratic Party" is one of the main stream media's indications of liberal bias.-- why do we emulate? Can we get consensus for change?

:Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)
:Nah. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:The official name of the party is clearly the "Democratic Party." No point in stooping to factual inacuracies.

:To Mr. Comedian who can't sign his name: Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)

== history ==

I wrote the history sections and previously posted some of it to Wikipedia and Citizendium. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
==drop florida stuff==
The Florida stuff is not very important now so I dropped it [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Some Factual Innacuracies ==

There were a few things I noticed on the main page that I thought should be changed (just for the sake of factual correctness)
- 4 of the last 10 presidential terms have been democrats, not 3.
- the cost of the proposed healthcare bill is 65 billion, not 1 trillion
- there is the contradiction with gay marriage. Under "gay rights" it says dems don't support Gay Marriage, but right under that it says they do.
- Again, for the sake of honesty, the original (Jeffersonian) Democratic Party never became "defunct." {{Unsigned|TheoryMaker}}

:For argument's sake, how do you (as a Democrat) come off chatting all righteous like?

:-1 update since the numbers have changed and you notified the world of your intentions, make the change
:-2 that figure you gave 65 billion healthcare, that wouldn't even cover 1 year. Trillion was way low.
:-3 the majority of Democrats are for gay rights,
:-4 how much is the Democratic party paying you? I mean come down off your high horse. Honesty, integrity, morals has long been dead, given way to far left ideologues. You might as go by what your leaders say "New Democrats." A new breed of patriotism, patriotism to self, glory to thy money. You are right, the party of slavery hasn't changed a bit.

:In retrospect,--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:06, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Updated Healthcare section ==

Updated healthcare section to include the passing of ObamaCare/The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Someone might want to have a quick check over, I'm inexperienced when it comes to editing but I think it looks alright [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 15:31, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Democratic Party

2010-12-05T20:28:37Z

AdamV: /* Healthcare */

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from liberal to moderate
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is the [[pro-abortion]], higher taxes party, while the [[Republican Party]] is the [[pro-life]], lower taxes party. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today Republicans sometimes call it the "[[Democrat Party]]" as a term of ridicule. There are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, together with the majority of state governorships, legislatures, and most large cities, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress into federal law.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s. They mostly reject [[gay marriage]].

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Jimmy Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and vote with the Democratic Caucus, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] was very close until September, when the collapse of the financial system soured the voters on the GOP.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Gestapo care]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Talk:Scientology

2010-12-03T02:26:09Z

AdamV: /* Hate to say it */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== Archives ==

[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1|Archive 1]] [[Talk:Scientology/Archive2|Archive2]]

----

== Typos ==

This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Hackers? ==
C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a "hacking group" and I had no reason to call them anything else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.
::::The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.
::::Could simply refer to them as "a group" instead of "a hacking group." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Well if anyone is confused, they can see [[hacker]], which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Alright. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)
I've removed the reference to hackers. Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to [[hacker]] should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it. The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers. Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas. Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply "group", though, because it's more than just a group of ''people'', right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::::Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do ''more'' than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than "group of people". What's so wrong with using descriptive language? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: "Hackers" is a bit like "Fundamentalists". The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.
:::::: As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks. The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack. In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one. Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== A chance? ==
This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.
: Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition? Whose opinion is it? The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news). If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious. Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible. Whose opinion is that? [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the "you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist" notion. Is the revelation one you spend 200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu. {{unsigned|Craan}}

== Meow ==

Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Cat problem==
Scientology is a religion, not a science. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)
: Agreed. The category should be changed to "Religion." Funny, whoever put "Pseudoscience," but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

*For purposes of this encyclopedia, "Scientology" (''no matter what our personal opinions are'') is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States. CP is an American wiki. End of discussion. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Missing Parenthesis ==
There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - "Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.''')''' [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fair Game ==
Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are "fair game" for being "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." -[[User:Birry|Birry]] 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)
:I second the motion to include.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:09, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::I support this as well. We need to show the facts about Scientology. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:29, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I agree with them. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:33, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

*Editors can post their suggestions to change here, but I do not support any changes to what we have here, as it opens up Pandora's Box once again. Scientology is a very minor "religion", and without its celebrity members, would never be noticed by anyone. The fact that two socks of previously blocked instigators made accounts to support revisiting this doesn't exactly inspire confidence. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:20, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

==Hate to say it==

...but Scientology is no religion! Hubbard made many many comments to the effect of "the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion." This is a proven fact! Religions like Christianity and Judaism have a history of faith capital, if you will. People have died for these beliefs, struggled for them, lived ascetic lifestyles to prove their faith. Scientology, as far as I've ever read of it, is just a religion for famous people like Kabbalah. A majority of them tend to have what my dad calls "Hollywood views", too. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 10:28, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Ya I'm inclined to agree. The first four words of this article identify it as a religion and that's quite debatable. Perhaps some more neutral wording can be used? Unless there's some kind of consensus on Scientology being classified as a religion? But based on what I've read on the talk page, Scientology being labeled as a religion isn't a popular idea here :p. (with great reason) [[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 21:26, 2 December 2010 (EST)

== Beliefs ==

Something should be stated concerning their beliefs, the following is an example.
Scientologists believe that they have thetans, which are comparable to a soul, on or iside them (sometimes they have more than one according to scientology). When they die their souls are taken to Venus where they are brainwashed about their past life, then are loaded into capsules (they are first given new bodies). They are the dropped into the ocean somewhere off of the coast of california. There they either drown or make it to land, Where they have a chance to start a new life in of californias big cities.
Although this story is ridiculous it is affirmed by scientlogist doctrine, you ca look elsewhere to affirm this. I just hope people can see how ridiculous this religion is (all i said about their beliefs is true!). Semper Vigilo ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 19:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT))

==Controversy==
Why the hands off? An article on an organization that has so often manifested itself as a religious mafia (Operation_Snow_White, etc.) should at least have section that provides more detail, or sources thereto, about the controversy (to put it mildly) that Scientology has stirred. Even though CP would face intimidation for it. Such an org with does not further the cause of truth, honestly, and righteousness, and is in fact anti-Christ.

"Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that
he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955

Federal Indictment against Scientology for Conspiracy against the Federal Government of the United States:

“The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes.” –Federal prosecutor’s memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges

The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Here is more on them:
[http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm]
[http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm]
[http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607]
[http://www.clambake.org]
[http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/cooper/sos.html]
[http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoASMyv9Cek]
[http://www.xenutv.com]
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5694888509800082473&ei=fmJpSe-EIY6cqALgzqndBw&q=scientology+video&hl=en]
[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:36, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I could help you add this information to the main text, just write it edited. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

In lieu of a more comprehensive entry, may the below suffice for now.

==Controversy and criticism==

Both the status of Scientology as a religion<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm</ref> and its beliefs as well as its practices and manner of operation have been a subject of condemnation by both religious and secular sources.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm]</ref><ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref><ref>http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7</ref>
<ref>http://www.clambake.org</ref>

Christian apologist Craig Branch of Watchman Fellowship begins a documented examination of Scientology by stating,
<blockquote> Controversy continues to rage around Scientology, due mostly to the totalitarian and abusive nature of its practices. The evolution and history of Scientology raises serious and fundamental questions about freedoms and protections of religion and even what or who defines a religion. Scientology is an anomaly on even a diverse religious landscape. It does, in fact, involve religious belief (in what most outsiders would regard as science fiction). But that belief appears to have been built chiefly as a cover for exploitive commercial operations...Scientology's history of terror and abuse appears to be the result of its founder's delusion and paranoia. <ref>http://www.watchman.org/Sci/scientologymafia.htm</ref></blockquote>

Such charges are due in part to the tendency of Scientology to engage in intimidation and unethical or unlawful practices against those who have criticized or publicly opposed it, from former members, to national publications, to the [[United States]] government. This has resulted in Scientology being termed a "religious mafia", and "a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04.html</ref><ref>cf. Scientology: the Sickness Spreads," Reader's Digest, September, l981, reprint, p.2</ref> In response to journalist Paulette Cooper's 1972 book, ''The Scandal of Scientology'',<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref> Scientology launched filed 19 lawsuits against her,<ref>http://www.paulettecooper.com/scandal.htm</ref> contrived a false bomb threat made in her name, and planned and implemented various other attempts over the course of almost 15 years. A strategy called ''Operation Freakout'' sought "To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks."<ref>http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/pcof1.html</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/pc/freako.htm</ref>

This plan was prevented from full implementation when a 1977 FBI raid on Scientology headquarters revealed the Scientology plot, among 48,000 documents detailing strategies against critics of the church. Comprehensive evidence revealed the theft of government documents by Scientology, spies planted in the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, and the planting of listening devices, as part of ''Operation Snow White''.

The raid finally resulted in the conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of the Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and 10 more Scientologists. All received prison terms, though all are now free.<ref>Robert W. Welkos and Joel Sappell, 'Burglaries and Lies Paved a Path to Prison'' The Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidec062490,0,111873,print.story</ref><ref>The Watchman Expositor (Vol. 14, No. 5)</ref>

The original objective of Operation Snow White was to expose and expunge "all false and secret files of the nations of operating areas", and included plans to use blackmail, and to infiltrate and steal potentially damaging classified files on Scientology activities in various countries, from [[Algeria]] to the United States.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732.htm</ref> These ranged from ''Operation Project DIG (AUDITION)'' in Australia, which called for giving compromising information on Conservative politicians to the Australian Labor Party so that the latter "could give the Federal Labor something to smear Victorian Conservatives with", to ''Project GRUMPY'' in Germany, which upheld obtaining files "by any means" from police, Interpol and immigration authorities.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732p.htm</ref>

In 1991 Time magazine wrote a major exposé of Scientology, describing it as ''The Cult of Greed'', being <blockquote>
a hugely profitable, global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html Time, ''The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power'' pp. 32-33]</ref></blockquote>

Scientology unsuccessfully sued Time magazine over the revelatory story.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref>

Numerous other authors and publication have been additional targets of Scientology retaliation.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/index.html</ref> In 1995, ''The American Jurist'' Magazine published, ''Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics'', which notes, <blockquote>
It is typical of the Church of Scientology to use lawsuits -- very many of which are dismissed as frivolous -- to intimidate, harass and quell its critics and defectors into silence. This scheme is even written into the church's doctrine.<ref>[http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/amjurist1195.html The American Jurist, November 1995]</ref> </blockquote>

Many other authorities have voiced concurring opinions,<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/crtquot.htm</ref> and or provided documented examples.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/criminal.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp944.htm ''Church of Scientology probes Herald reporter - Investigation follows pattern of harassment''. The Boston Herald, March 19, 1998</ref><ref>http://www.scientology-lies.com</ref>

In 1996, the popular ''Cult Awareness Network'', abbreviated as ''CAN'', a primary Scientology critic, was forced into bankruptcy by Scientology. An undercover Scientologist had infiltrated CAN, then 50 Scientologists filed suit against it, many containing almost identical language, after having sought to join the organization almost simultaneously and being denied. CAN's link to cult deprogramming enabled Scientology to file a lawsuit which resulted in a massive fine which added to CAN's legal debt, forcing bankruptcy. Legal maneuvering resulted in Scientology having control of the name and equipment, etc. and files of the old CAN, through Scientology associates. The files were then turned over to the ''Foundation for Religious Freedom'',<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c19.html</ref> one of many which serve as a "front" group for Scientology, or which are inordinately favorable to them.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f00.html#ffrf</ref><ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/#VIII</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/cult-front-groups-latest.htm</ref>

An addition source of controversy has been the death of 36 year old Lisa McPherson at Scientology's Clearwater headquarters, which she was undergoing "care".<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/mcpherson.htm</ref>

Doctrinally Scientology is non-Christian (Hubbard even denied there was a Christ<ref>http://www.lermanet2.com/cos/nochrist.html</ref>), and is seen to be manifesting a form of [[New Age]] belief.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/hubrel03.htm</ref> One researcher concludes that it is "an oversimplified form of regular psychotherapy mixed with hypnosis."<ref>Russell Miller,''Bare Faced Messiah'', Chapter 9</ref>

It is also pointed out that Satanist Aleister Crowley, was Hubbard's mentor and he lived with Crowley protege John Parsons, engaging in sex magic at their black magic mansion hospice (Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1990, p. A1).<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref>

Liberal religious cult apologist<ref>http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html</ref> J. Gordon Melton dismisses the charge that Scientology is a cult, as he does in regard to certain other dangerous groups.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c31.html</ref>

===Negative quotes===
Quotes from Scientology and other material<ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html</ref> <ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/shortquotes.htm</ref><ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/sciequot.htm</ref> are often published in support of the critical position.

<blockquote>
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. - L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the dissemination of material.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, Manual of justice, 1959
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill… (Scientology is) the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” – Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members."
- Cynthia Kisser, the network's Chicago-based executive director, as quoted in Time, 5/6/91
</blockquote>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.watchman.org/sci/index.htm Various Christian doctrinal and historical articles on Scientology]
*[http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607 An exhaustive information source on Scientology]
*[http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm Scientology as a "Religion"]
*[http://www.clambake.org Extensive information critical of Scientology from secular source]
*[http://www.waltermartin.com/scient.html Christian apologist Walter Martin on Scientology, audio and text]
*[http://www.xenutv.com Video source, including report by ABC’s Nightline]

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Europe

2010-11-25T04:43:24Z

AdamV: /* Muslim population */

Added new layout to the article, which should make it easy to contribute in sections. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:33, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sounds too much like it's a country ==
This article reads very much like Europe is a country. It should really be re-written. For instance, it talks about the average age of Europeans being so and so much. I've read it differs alot between countries.
Also, politics differ alot between the countries.
I feel there are alot of people in the United States who think Europe is one country. Shouldn't we inform them that's it's just a continent?

== Muslim population ==

The article says there are 15 million Muslims in Europe and I was wondering where that number was gotten from. Is it referring to just the EU? I've seen estimates range from 20-100 million depending on what sources/if Turkey is included or not. 15 seems a little low? {{unsigned|AdamV }}

:Here is a good lead for you to follow...[http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/11/muslim-population-in-european-cities.html]. I agree with what you say....way too low a figure. Please don't forget to sign with the button up in the edit panel, or using four "~" --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 22 November 2010 (EST)

Oh sorry, not used to saying anything on talk pages. Finding a reliable number seems really tricky though, lots of contradictions/variance
[[User:AdamV|AdamV]] 23:43, 24 November 2010 (EST)

Family Research Council

2010-11-25T04:41:45Z

AdamV:

The '''Family Research Council''' was founded in 1981 as a division of [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]]. In 1992, it was split off from Focus on the Family to be able to have a more independent political voice for conservative family values. The current president is [[Tony Perkins]], having taken over the position in 2003.

{{Conservatism}}

[[Category:Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Christian Organizations]]

Talk:Europe

2010-11-23T01:39:07Z

AdamV: /* Sounds too much like it's a country */

Vancouver

2010-11-23T01:22:25Z

AdamV: /* Vancouver Sports Franchises */

[[File:Vancouver1.jpg|thumb|450px]]
'''Vancouver''' is a city located in southwestern [[British Columbia]], [[Canada]]. Named after Captain [[George Vancouver]], an English explorer, the city was founded in 1886 when the first Canadian transcontinentinetal railway arrived. In November of 2008, the city elected Gregor Robertson as its mayor. Vancouver has a population of 578,041 while its CMA has a population of 2,116,581. <ref> 2006 Canadian Census : [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Search/SearchForm_Results.cfm?Lang=E]</ref> Greater Vancouver is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country. It is also the largest city in the Pacific Northwest and is the second-largest metropolitan area (second to [[Seattle]])

'''Vancouver''' is also the name of a city in Southern [[Washington|Washington State]] in the [[United States of America|US]], across the [[Columbia River]] from [[Portland]], [[Oregon]]. <ref>http://www.cityofvancouver.us/default.asp Offical Website</ref>

==Vancouver Sports Franchises ==

[[Vancouver Canucks]] ([[NHL]] [[Hockey]])

[[British Columbia Lions]] ([[CFL]] Football)

 The XXI Olympic Winter Games took place in 2010 and were held in Vancouver and in the resort community of Whistler some 60 miles to the north west.

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.tourismvancouver.com/visitors/ Tourism Vancouver]
* [http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/ Offical Website of 2010 Winter Olympics]

[[category:Canadian Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]