Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The South

2007-05-11T17:52:35Z

Gulik2:

'''The South''' is a collection of eleven states in the southeastern [[United States]]: [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[North Carolina]], [[Missouri]], and [[Kentucky]].<ref>[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csa.htm The Civil War]</ref>

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]] due to their disgust for the policies of a [[Republican]] President, today they are known for their [[patriotism]] and commitment to [[morality in government]]. The South consists of [[red state]]s and is one of the strongholds of the [[Republican]] party and the [[Ku Klux Klan]].

Virtually all modern music, including [[jazz]], [[rap]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country and western]] styles, originated in the South.{{fact}}

Virtually all property acquired by the United States was at the urging of the South.{{fact}}

The South has always volunteered and served in the Armed Forces in disproportionately high numbers.{{fact}}

Compared to the rest of the United States, the South lags far behind in education. This is reflected in low reading and test scores<ref>[http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm Elections and IQ scores]</ref><ref>[http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg College Education and Voting]</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

McDonald's

2007-05-11T17:26:13Z

Gulik2:

'''McDonald's''' is an American fast food chain.

==Criticism==
McDonald's has often been accused of knowingly selling unhealthy food<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=yNFN1OpnkBkC&dq=fast+food+nation&pg=PP1&ots=l_kkxv7x65&sig=M0lMjzxa92mnxMp4CXMS3VaYpLk&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dfast%2Bfood%2Bnation%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPA2,M1 Fast Food Nation]</ref>. McDonald's states that health is not only an issue of food but also of a balanced active lifestyle<ref>[http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat.html McDonald's Corporate website]</ref>; this is why many McDonald's restaurants have a jungle gym for the children to play in and be active. McDonald's also sells salads and water, two healthy food items, and several drinks that are artificially flavored to taste like fruit. The documentary '[[Super Size Me]]' aimed at proving that McDonald's had no interest in healthy customers whatsoever<ref>[http://www.supersizeme.com/ Super Size Me]</ref>. Many people{{fact}} claim that as a private corporation, McDonald's has no responsibility to provide healthy food.

=== McLibel Trial ===

In 1990, McDonald's sued for [[libel]] several members of [[Greenpeace]]'s [[London]] branch, who'd been writing and distributing leaflets criticizing McDonald's. Of the five defendants, three repented due to lack of money for legal costs. The remaining two, [[Helen Steel]] and [[Dave Morris]], decided to take the case to court in 1994 with [[pro buono]] legal representation and public donations. This became known as the [[McLibel]] Trial.<ref>[http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html The McLibel Trial]</ref>

On day 102 in court - March 13th 1995 - McLibel became the longest ever UK libel trial, beating the previous record of 101 days in the Daily Mail vs The Moonies (1982).

On December 11th 1995 it became the longest civil case (as opposed to criminal) in British history.

On November 1st 1996 (court day 292), McLibel became the longest trial of any kind in English history.

On 19th June 1997, Mr Justice Bell took two hours to read his summary to a packed court room. He ruled that Helen and Dave had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on rainforest destruction, heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World and bad working conditions. But they had proved that McDonald's "exploit children" with their advertising, falsely advertise their food as nutritious, risk the health of their most regular, long-term customers, are "culpabably responsible" for cruelty to animals, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages.

('Not proved' does not mean that the allegations against McDonald's are not true, just that the Judge felt that the McLibel Two did not bring sufficient evidence to prove the meanings he had attributed to the leaflet.)

The Judge ruled that Helen and Dave had libelled McDonald's, but as they had proved many of the allegations, they would only owe half of the claimed damages: £60,000.

== External links ==
[http://www.mcspotlight.org/ McSpotlight.org]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:companies]]

The South

2007-05-11T15:27:55Z

Gulik2:

Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?

2007-05-11T07:29:15Z

Gulik2: /* Unsorted */

==Yes==
==No==
==Unsorted==
They tell us every chance they get that they dislike Bush. Also, that they are against the war in Iraq after they were for authorizing US Troops in harms way. Does anybody understand their position?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No more than the Republicans or any other political party. Is it wrong to change your position based on new information? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If your word is your bond, than yes, it is wrong to change your position. Especially, if it involves other peoples lives.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:So, as long as we're in Iraq, and US soldiers are dying there, we can't leave Iraq? Nice little monkey-trap we've ended up in.... --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, new issues could arise before November 2008, but I think you were talking about Iraq: the truth is the government acted on faulty intelligence, and Bush and Co. were more than happy to sweep any unfortunate inconsistencies under the carpet, now congress knows they've been lied to, that's why they've changed their position (of course the high casualty rate is an important factor as well)

I had no trouble finding what the democrats stand for, it's right here on the internet: their platforms include reforming and improving higher education, withdrawal from Iraq (they share this with some republicans), introducing universal health care, switching to different energy sources than oil (they share this with some republicans), and restoring America's image in the world.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Ah ha, Middle Man and Hoji- now congress knows they've been lied to? By whom? The public statements on Iraq were made well before Bush taking office. You have no trouble finding what democrats stands for is too grey an answer. Let's leave behind the Iraq statements and focus on pre-election '06. Democrats are for reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion. They are against reckless spending of pork projects. They are for removing corrupt officials from power. I can go on and on. Restoring Americas image in the world, would that be pre-9/11? Because I got news for ya, we were still not liked much before then. Maybe we've added the dislike from Europeans since then but Democrats are for 'Image in the World' or is it just what Europeans think that matters? --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:02, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:''They know they'e been lied to? By whom?''
:Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell, for two:
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces —
the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces
control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of
mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the
area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/04/rummy-called-out-in-atlanta/ Crooks and Liars.com] --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Populism, or at least the appearance thereof in some cases more than others. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Just to point out, jp, I think you equated "Clinton" with "liberal" a bit too much up there, where you said they authorized US troops to go in harms way. And if the conservative administration had not misled (perhaps outright ''lied'') to the legislature, then this whole mess wouldn't have happened; Bush could have been remembered for all the good he did (Though I can't think of anything good that he did). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:56, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-10T18:33:53Z

Gulik2:

Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-10T18:33:39Z

Gulik2:

Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [{Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Vestigial structures

2007-05-10T18:32:21Z

Gulik2:

'''Vestigial structures''' are those [[anatomy|anatomical]] structures which have no discernable function in their present form in modern [[species]], but may have had a function in that species' [[ancestor]]s.

Examples of vestigial structures include, but are not limited to, the [[human]] [[appendix]], the [[wing]]s of an [[ostrich]], the [[pelvis|pelvic]] bones of a [[whale]], and the [[eye]]s of the [[mole]] and the [[salamander]].<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/</ref>

Vestigial structures are some of the best evidence in favor of [[evolution]] and against [[Intelligent Design]] because they are easily explained by [[natural selection]], but it is very difficult to justify why a supposedly intelligent [[creator]] would include seemingly useless structures in the design of numerous [[organism]]s.

==External Links==
* [http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-vestigial-structures-evolutionary-remnants Modern Evolutionary Theory versus Intelligent Design: Vestigial Structures/Evolutionary Remnants]
*[http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/02/dembskis-blissful-misunderstanding-of.html Dembski's blissful misunderstanding of design]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Vestigial structures

2007-05-10T18:29:16Z

Gulik2:

Vestigial structures are those anatomical structures which have no discernable function in their present form in modern species, but may have had a function in that species' ancestors.

Examples of vestigial structures include, but are not limited to, the human appendix, the wings of an ostrich, the pelvic bones of a whale, and the eyes of the mole and the salamander.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/</ref>

Vestigial structures are some of the best evidence in favor of evolution and against Intelligent Design because they are easily explained by natural selection, but it is very difficult to justify why a supposedly intelligent creator would include seemingly useless structures in the design of numerous organisms.

== References ==
<references/>

* [http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-vestigial-structures-evolutionary-remnants Modern Evolutionary Theory versus Intelligent Design: Vestigial Structures/Evolutionary Remnants]

Talk:Vestigial structures

2007-05-10T18:26:36Z

Gulik2:

Article deletion by [[user:Conservative]] in 3....2...1.... --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Vestigial structures

2007-05-10T18:26:13Z

Gulik2: New page: Article deletion by user:Conservative in 3....2...1.... --~~~~~

Article deletion by [[user:Conservative]] in 3....2...1.... --14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized

2007-05-10T18:25:24Z

Gulik2:

I believe America was polarized, unintentionally, but I don't believe Bush was the culprit. My theory is that either the Republican congress of the 1990's or Democrat President Bill Clinton is to blame. Maybe neither, maybe I am wrong. I'll be waiting for your reply.

(1) Republicans in congress so harassed Bill Clinton that America got entrenched to two camps, Left and Right of center.

(2) Bill Clinton throwing out Right wingers, as attacking me, when he probally should have stepped down.

'00 elections were so narrow, both camps claim Presidency.
The seeds of polarization were laid before we were attacked on 9/11.
Initially, we put our differences aside and supported the President.
Some reverted back to their camps right after the Axis of Evil speech of '02.
As time passed, certain high profile people came out against Bush and against his Iraq policy.
This became a loud drum rally for the left and right, all that came together after the shock of 9/11 was wiped out.

If I am wrong, then this is what happened. Democrats, in charge for decades, found their parties livelyhood threatened by not owning any power. The loss of Presidency, both congresses, many governorships, all branches and then the Supreme Court- they were determined to take back power at any cost. That cost democracy dearly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I"m guessing you're a teenager, so you probably don't remember [[Newt Gingrich]] and Co's very organized, very determined, and very successful efforts to make "liberal" a cussword back in the '90's. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, wrong generation. I do remember the 1990's and a very organized, polarizing, democrat led institutions taking over- namely: NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and Teachers Union. They now own the rights to the Democrat name.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just sayin'--if you guys didn't insist upon treating "Liberal" as a synonym for "Child-molesting Bolshevik Satanist", maybe you'd have a slightly easier time finding common ground. And why is it always "Democrat" and not "Democrat''ic''"? --14:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Articles for deletion

2007-05-10T17:54:21Z

Gulik2:

I think {{[[Template:Delete Notice|Delete Notice]]}} already sorts tagged articles into [[:Category:Articles proposed for deletion]]. Might be a good start, but I have no idea if that template is still in active use or if this page is better. Just throwing info bits out there. We have very little organization with AFDs right now. :/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, thanks, I didn't know about that.

:I'm also thinking of grouping all open AFD requests on a single page, using [[transclusion]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think that's a great idea! The current AFDs (with the exception of [[AFD Evolutionism]] maybe - Is that one still open? There was a draft version, and somebody removed the template, but the article's Talk page basically went on about it... I lost track, I think) are quite short, so the resulting all-in-one page should be a nice move. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll start doing it, if you'll help. I'd like to have two pages - or one page with two sections.

:Anyway, the parts would list:
:#pages marked for deletion - and they still exist
:#pages marked for deletion - but they were deleted

:We might even be able to "close" discussions with a "no consensus" or "senior staff decided" or whatever. (Note that I am not senior staff; I just got here! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, a centralized page should be a good starting point. I think the discussions will be picked up and closed quickly enough after that (most people just lose track of slow-moving AFDs, I think). Finding the AFDs shouldn't be TOO hard. Want me to list a few links on this article for now so we see what we're working with? Also keep in mind that I'm not staff, not even to mention senior. I only got a few warnings to brag with ;)
::Now that you mention it... there ''is'' a page with a few old AFDs... somewhere... gimme a sec. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ah yes, duh. [[Articles for Deletion]] - and I see you found it already. XD --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, after checking your Contributions, I begin to realize that you mean two pages with transclusions of the open and closed AFDs, right? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:::After some thinking, I've come to the conclusion that transclusion may be overkill. I see it being used on Wikipedia for subject-specific things like "video games" or "websites", but we have VERY few AFDs going at a VERY slow rate, so the list should be enough. Encouraging decision-making should be enough on this scale, I think. However, I will make a template for the AFD pages to create links to the Article, the history and the article's talk page, and insert it into the current ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeesh. At the rate you folks delete stuff, this place'll be empty. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?

2007-05-10T17:44:18Z

Gulik2: /* No */

{{debate-politics}}

==Yes==

Although I also posted below, in general I feel that one standard should be applied, especially in articles an a "trustworthy encyclopedia". Emphasizing [[human rights]] abuses in countries friendly to American values while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses which are hundreds of times greater, only serves the enemy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: MLK: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'. Any human rights abuse is wrong and should be criticised. That's a standard that we should consistently hold to. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:::::I've noticed no dearth of references here to the atrocities committed by Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Rest assured, Ed, if I saw an article here about Stalin that was as eager to soft-pedal his crimes as the article here about Pinochet, I would feel compelled to add a few unpleasant details. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the [[American Dream]]. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Quite a few of those "barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes" of the 20th century, like [[Rios Montt]]'s Guatemala and [[Pinochet]]'s Chile and the [[Shah]]'s Iran and even, for some years, [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq, were supported and in some places even installed and propped up by the United States. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why Do You Hate America?(tm) --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?

2007-05-10T17:36:43Z

Gulik2: /* Unsorted */

==Yes==
==No==
==Unsorted==
They tell us every chance they get that they dislike Bush. Also, that they are against the war in Iraq after they were for authorizing US Troops in harms way. Does anybody understand their position?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No more than the Republicans or any other political party. Is it wrong to change your position based on new information? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If your word is your bond, than yes, it is wrong to change your position. Especially, if it involves other peoples lives.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:So, as long as we're in Iraq, and US soldiers are dying there, we can't leave Iraq? Nice little monkey-trap we've ended up in.... --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, new issues could arise before November 2008, but I think you were talking about Iraq: the truth is the government acted on faulty intelligence, and Bush and Co. were more than happy to sweep any unfortunate inconsistencies under the carpet, now congress knows they've been lied to, that's why they've changed their position (of course the high casualty rate is an important factor as well)

I had no trouble finding what the democrats stand for, it's right here on the internet: their platforms include reforming and improving higher education, withdrawal from Iraq (they share this with some republicans), introducing universal health care, switching to different energy sources than oil (they share this with some republicans), and restoring America's image in the world.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Ah ha, Middle Man and Hoji- now congress knows they've been lied to? By whom? The public statements on Iraq were made well before Bush taking office. You have no trouble finding what democrats stands for is too grey an answer. Let's leave behind the Iraq statements and focus on pre-election '06. Democrats are for reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion. They are against reckless spending of pork projects. They are for removing corrupt officials from power. I can go on and on. Restoring Americas image in the world, would that be pre-9/11? Because I got news for ya, we were still not liked much before then. Maybe we've added the dislike from Europeans since then but Democrats are for 'Image in the World' or is it just what Europeans think that matters? --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:02, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Populism, or at least the appearance thereof in some cases more than others. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Just to point out, jp, I think you equated "Clinton" with "liberal" a bit too much up there, where you said they authorized US troops to go in harms way. And if the conservative administration had not misled (perhaps outright ''lied'') to the legislature, then this whole mess wouldn't have happened; Bush could have been remembered for all the good he did (Though I can't think of anything good that he did). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:56, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized

2007-05-10T17:34:41Z

Gulik2:

Talk:Dodo

2007-05-10T17:30:10Z

Gulik2:

Who are these [[environmentalist]]s and why should we care what they think? Isn't this a matter for scientists, such as [[biologist]]s? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:They're part of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-10T17:25:53Z

Gulik2: /* Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:55, 23 April 2007

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No '''bombings''' in the US--but we had the [[Beltway Sniper]]s and the [[Anthrax Mailer]] since then, and now this thing on the news yesterday about a group of wanna-be raiders planning to attack Fort Dix. And the world that exists '''outside''' the US has had plenty more bombings since Bush announced the Tenth Crusade.
:::On the other hand, just imagine the mess we might be in if Gore or Kerry had been President on 9/11--Osama Bin Laden might have been captured near the Pakistan border, and US troops wouldn't be hopelessly bogged down in Baghdad. What a hideous thought. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Fox "Noise" Channel]] is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

:::Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in ''the very same way.''
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was '''not''' "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to ''bring him to justice.'')
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

But colleges are liberal, didn't you know? You'd better get homeschooled about terrorism. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Missile Defense Shield'''? Unless the missiles in questions are RPGs, when do we need a "missile defense shield" for? The Soviet Union is DEAD, folks. Get over it and start strategizing for the enemy we have NOW. And against Terror, a Panel Truck Defense Shield would be a much better investment.
:::And here's a little much-needed [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/05/perspective.html perspective]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are the most capable in fighting Bush only, Republicans are so much more concerned about the fight against terror. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

May 10, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
Hoekstra Ridicules Dems' Environmental Intelligence

The 2008 intelligence authorization bill put before Congress this week diverts CIA and other intelligence resources away

from terrorism-related issues to study global climate change – and Rep. Peter Hoekstra believes that’s flat-out wrong.

: Okay. Let's do a [[Pascal's wager]]. I hate to be 'making tallies of lives', but from a utilitarian perspective, it's right on.

Say (and I know I'm pulling figures out of the air) the likelihood of a major terrorist attack, that kills 10,000 (which, one must remember, is a massive amount - especially for terrorism, which generally tries to achieve its goals through 'style' rather than 'substance', to use rather blunt terms) is 50% in the next 50 years.

Thus, on average, 5,000 people would lose their lives.

Global Warming - in the next 50 years, the [[IPCC]] estimates that 150 '''million''' will be displaced - maybe 10 million (a very [[conservative]] estimate) will die as a direct result of climate change. Let's go with the average notion on this site - say that there is a '''1%''' chance (I know it's more, because the evidence sort of shows it) of the above taking place.

Thus, on average, 1.5 million would be displaced, and 100,000 would die.

See? Terrorist bombs<Catastrophic sea level rise and desertification
--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.==

Then they ought to prove it. As it is, as many people die from terrorist attacks EVERY DAY in Iraq as died at Virginia Tech. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-10T17:21:31Z

Gulik2: /* Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are. */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:55, 23 April 2007

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No '''bombings''' in the US--but we had the [[Beltway Sniper]]s and the [[Anthrax Mailer]] since then, and now this thing on the news yesterday about a group of wanna-be raiders planning to attack Fort Dix. And the world that exists '''outside''' the US has had plenty more bombings since Bush announced the Tenth Crusade.
:::On the other hand, just imagine the mess we might be in if Gore or Kerry had been President on 9/11--Osama Bin Laden might have been captured near the Pakistan border, and US troops wouldn't be hopelessly bogged down in Baghdad. What a hideous thought. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Fox "Noise" Channel]] is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

:::Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in ''the very same way.''
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was '''not''' "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to ''bring him to justice.'')
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

But colleges are liberal, didn't you know? You'd better get homeschooled about terrorism. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are the most capable in fighting Bush only, Republicans are so much more concerned about the fight against terror. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

May 10, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
Hoekstra Ridicules Dems' Environmental Intelligence

The 2008 intelligence authorization bill put before Congress this week diverts CIA and other intelligence resources away

from terrorism-related issues to study global climate change – and Rep. Peter Hoekstra believes that’s flat-out wrong.

: Okay. Let's do a [[Pascal's wager]]. I hate to be 'making tallies of lives', but from a utilitarian perspective, it's right on.

Say (and I know I'm pulling figures out of the air) the likelihood of a major terrorist attack, that kills 10,000 (which, one must remember, is a massive amount - especially for terrorism, which generally tries to achieve its goals through 'style' rather than 'substance', to use rather blunt terms) is 50% in the next 50 years.

Thus, on average, 5,000 people would lose their lives.

Global Warming - in the next 50 years, the [[IPCC]] estimates that 150 '''million''' will be displaced - maybe 10 million (a very [[conservative]] estimate) will die as a direct result of climate change. Let's go with the average notion on this site - say that there is a '''1%''' chance (I know it's more, because the evidence sort of shows it) of the above taking place.

Thus, on average, 1.5 million would be displaced, and 100,000 would die.

See? Terrorist bombs<Catastrophic sea level rise and desertification
--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.==

Then they ought to prove it. As it is, as many people die from terrorist attacks EVERY DAY in Iraq as died at Virginia Tech. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-10T17:17:24Z

Gulik2: /* yes */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:55, 23 April 2007

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No '''bombings''' in the US--but we had the [[Beltway Sniper]]s and the [[Anthrax Mailer]] since then, and now this thing on the news yesterday about a group of wanna-be raiders planning to attack Fort Dix. And the world that exists '''outside''' the US has had plenty more bombings since Bush announced the Tenth Crusade.
:::On the other hand, just imagine the mess we might be in if Gore or Kerry had been President on 9/11--Osama Bin Laden might have been captured near the Pakistan border, and US troops wouldn't be hopelessly bogged down in Baghdad. What a hideous thought. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Fox "Noise" Channel]] is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

:::Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in ''the very same way.''
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was '''not''' "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to ''bring him to justice.'')
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

But colleges are liberal, didn't you know? You'd better get homeschooled about terrorism. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are the most capable in fighting Bush only, Republicans are so much more concerned about the fight against terror. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

May 10, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
Hoekstra Ridicules Dems' Environmental Intelligence

The 2008 intelligence authorization bill put before Congress this week diverts CIA and other intelligence resources away

from terrorism-related issues to study global climate change – and Rep. Peter Hoekstra believes that’s flat-out wrong.

: Okay. Let's do a [[Pascal's wager]]. I hate to be 'making tallies of lives', but from a utilitarian perspective, it's right on.

Say (and I know I'm pulling figures out of the air) the likelihood of a major terrorist attack, that kills 10,000 (which, one must remember, is a massive amount - especially for terrorism, which generally tries to achieve its goals through 'style' rather than 'substance', to use rather blunt terms) is 50% in the next 50 years.

Thus, on average, 5,000 people would lose their lives.

Global Warming - in the next 50 years, the [[IPCC]] estimates that 150 '''million''' will be displaced - maybe 10 million (a very [[conservative]] estimate) will die as a direct result of climate change. Let's go with the average notion on this site - say that there is a '''1%''' chance (I know it's more, because the evidence sort of shows it) of the above taking place.

Thus, on average, 1.5 million would be displaced, and 100,000 would die.

See? Terrorist bombs<Catastrophic sea level rise and desertification
--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.==

Talk:Federal Reserve System

2007-05-06T11:18:37Z

Gulik2: /* AFD */

Hmmm...wonder why people are so quick to mention that the past fed chairmen were Jewish? Anti-semitism by any other name....[[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: I thought this was Conservapedia, not Politically Correctpedia. The religious views of prominent people are important to mention because only Christians are capable of faithfully leading this country, its scientific endeavors, and its economy in ways that please the Lord. If you don't think so, feel free to make changes here and at [[Albert Einstein]], [[Max Born]], [[John von Neumann]], [[Existentialism]], etc. All of these articles (and many more) point out the religious affiliations of people. Besides, why only highlight the mention of Jews? I also mentioned Ayn Rand's atheism, but that didn't seem to bother you. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 17:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. It's common to list someone's religion in their biography page, not on a government agency page. You wouldn't say 'The Theory of Relativity was developed by the Jew, Albert Einstein,' or 'the movie 'Die Hard' starred Bruce Willis, a reform Jew.' So only Christians are capable of leading this country, its science and economy? Hmmm...maybe we need a series of laws, preventing Jews from holding public office, attending university, or owning businesses...sound familiar? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 17:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If you want to edit the article to make it biased against [[Christianity]], go ahead. But that would totally violate the spirit of this encyclopedia. Just look at the [[Wikipedia Bias|Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and you will see why this is true. The article on the [[Renaissance]] makes no mention of Christianity. Therefore, it is biased against Christianity. By the same token, not mentioning the religions of major public figures involved in a controversial quasi-governmental agency would make the article biased '''towards''' their religious views. Any article that does not favor Christianity is clearly biased against Christianity. Another example: The [[Great Flood]] should be presented as fact because 60% of Americans think that it is a fact. Likewise, an even greater majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Therefore, anyone who believes otherwise has an incorrect philosophical grounding upon which to base decisions about government or economics. To deny this is to exhibit blatant anti-Christian bias. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 18:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Does simply believing something make it true? Does not explicitly supporting something make you against it? If I, for example, went into the articles about The St. Valentines murders, the Mai Lai (sp?) Massacre, and Watergate and stated that everyone involved was a Christian, would you think I was trying to make things biased against Christians?

You say since a majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Since a majority of Iranians are Muslim, does that make Islam a fact in Iran? Buddhism a fact in Japan? Atheism a fact in Cuba? If 60% of Americans did NOT believe in Noah's flood, would you agree that it didn't happen?

But we're off topic. My point is, this is an encyclopedia. Unless you have evidence that those involved with the Fed are part of some Jewish conspiracy, I don't think their religion has anything to do with the article. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== AFD ==

This article needs AFD or major rewrite.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite. It's a real organization, and belongs in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 07:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Capitalism

2007-04-28T17:22:24Z

Gulik2:

"Anti Semitic"? You _are_ aware that Karl Marx was Jewish, right? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
*He was ethnically Jewish yes. However, his parents were converts to Christianity. He was not raised Jewish and wrote many anti-semitic essays. He was a self-hating Jew! Google it. -- [[User:CoulterMan|CoulterMan]] 18:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut:

:an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated

It's still capitalism, even if the government runs some businesses. There is no bright line of division between free market capitalism and a totally planned economy. Even under the Soviet Union, there was a thriving black market. Maybe we need an [[economic spectrum]] to describe the gradations of control. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:I endores this view and beleive Marxist rhetoric needs to be kept out of this article. Capitalism is not an ideology, unlike Marxism, and there is no comparison between the two on that basis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd argue it is, but its tenets are rarely articulated. Anyone want to take a crack at it? (The big one seems to be that ANYTHING [[Enron|a corporation]] does to make money is inherently good.)

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-04-28T07:43:51Z

Gulik2: /* Who's "Liberal", anyway? */

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-04-28T07:36:40Z

Gulik2: Who's "Liberal", anyway?

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

<SARCASM>Strangely, in real life, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Milgram experiment

2007-04-27T06:03:44Z

Gulik2:

This is an amazing experiment in the history of psychology, the significance of it can not be underestimated. After 50 years of discussion I still don't think we are close to fully understanding all of the ramifications from its results. I hope people here who have not heard of it before will take some time to consider it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:00, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:The main ramification I've taken from is that some people will do ANYTHING if an Authority Figure tells them to. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Media bias

2007-04-27T05:36:32Z

Gulik2:

Media bias is distortion of news, commentary, non-fiction articles, textbooks, documentaries, speech codes and the like to favor one side's ideas and over another's (see [[partisan]]ship).

Most journalism schools in free countries address the issue of eliminating bias, although efforts are not always successful. Dictatorships which suppress [[freedom of the press]] are notorious for their media bias, particularly when all media are controlled directly by a [[one-party government]].

==Sources of bias==

#Deliberate propaganda: Presenting bias with the intention of benefiting the media establishment.
#Institutional bias: The reporters and editors of a media organisation may hold political views, which influence their reporting.
#Sensationalism: Media depends on viewers for financial support. Thus 'irrelevant' stories may receive attention disproportionate to their impact.
#Omission: The inverse of sensationalism, media may overlook important but boring stories.
#Simplification: Highly complicated subjects may be omitted or greatly simplified, to avoid alienating viewers or making them feel uneducated.
#Bias avoiding: Ironically, attempts to avoid bias may themselves induce bias. This is particularly evident in popular reporting of scientific news. If the vast majority of scientists in a field support one position, and a minority support an opposing position, media may feel obliged to give equal air time to both sides - thus introducing a bias towards the minority position.
#Political correctness or sensitivity: Fearful of appearing racist or discriminatory, media may avoid any stories which reflect negatively on a ethnic, social or religious group, especially if the group is a minority.
#Audience bias: Readers or viewers tent to read news sources with which they agree. Thus, media must reinforce the existing views of their audience, or risk losing them. This source of bias can also reinforce the effect of a moral panic.

==Notes==

* Christian groups accuse BBC drama of inciting anti-Christian bias <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013849.php</ref>

* Canadian Jewish Authors Castigate Anti-Christian Media Bias <ref>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053005.html </ref>

* European Media and Anti-Israel Bias, A British journalist in Israel, Fatah leader caught by an Israeli army camera saying, "Don't start the stoning yet" <ref>http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/European_Media_and_Anti-Israel_Bias.asp</ref>

* Recognizing Bias in Middle East Reporting: Rules for Reporters. What is media bias and why is it practiced against Israel? The Media's Anti-Israel Bias <ref>http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=leftNav&drill=antiIsrael</ref>

* Anti-Israel Bias – An Endless Battle, trying to counter the anti-Israel bias in the media is an increasingly challenging proposition. <ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060904a.aspx</ref>

* Does the Media's anti-Israel bias matter? <ref>http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/5294.htm</ref>

* Fighting hate & bias <ref>http://geocities.com/fightinghate</ref>

* Addressing Anti Israel Media Bias · European Media and Anti-Israel Bias <ref>http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_media_anti_israel_bias.php</ref>

* The day when the media will not be anti-Israel biased <ref>http://haveitclearly.blogspot.com/2007/03/when-media-is-not-anti-israel-biased.html</ref>

* Tom Gross on New York Times & Israel on National Review Online <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross031403.asp</ref>

* French Media Bias Against Israel Blamed for Anti-Semitic Violence <ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/1313954/</ref>

* WorldNetDaily: Liberal bias against Christians? Not a chance! <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34045</ref>

==External links==

*[[Accuracy in Media]] (AIM) non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog <ref>http://www.aim.org/index</ref>
*[[CAMERA]] Dedicated for accuracy in reporting on the middle east <ref>http://camera.org</ref>
*[[ChronWatch]] A noted media watchdog and conservative news organization, with a mission to provide honest, alternative views to the increasing liberal-bias <ref>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/</ref>.
*[[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR) A media watchdog organization.<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php</ref>
*[[HonestReporting]] A fast-action website that monitors Mideast media bias, <ref>http://www.honestreporting.com/</ref>
*[[MediaResearch]] (MRC) A leading media watchdog<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp</ref>
*[[NewsBusters]] A blog dedicated to "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" <ref>http://newsbusters.org/</ref>
*[[Take a pen]] Encourages fighting it <ref>http://take-a-pen.org</ref>.
* [http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/broadcast_news/bw_bias_in_the_news.cfm How to detect bias in the news]
== References ==

<references />

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-04-27T05:34:42Z

Gulik2:

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School

2007-04-27T05:19:19Z

Gulik2:

Isn't that kinda like protesting people for being black?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Being black is not morally wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

It was 50 years ago.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Just as an interesting question, Bohdan... when the scientists identify a genetic reason for homosexuality, will your views change? Will other conservative groups change their views? How would these views change? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Can God's word change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why would God create a gay person, Bohdan? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::have the scientists identified a genetic reason? The reason is obvious. Romans 1:27[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::It's kind of scary you can quote bible verses...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am sorry that my knowledge of the Bible frightens you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::I think that if you were gay, Bohdan, you're views would be different. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I am deeply offended by your statement. But it doesnt make sense. If i was a Nazi, i would likely view them differently, but that doesnt make it right. Their are many disgusting things that i were, i would sympathize. If i was in the kkk i would view them differently[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Sorry if I offended you. So now you are equating homosexuals to nazis and the KKK? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Alas, perhaps i confuse you. I am trying to show the flaw in you above statement. But homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is quite clear.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Ah yes, the "because the Bible said so" argument. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Therein lies the problem[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::The problem is, Biblical literalism cannot be swayed by science, logic, or reason. So the debate is pointless if neither side will budge. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Then i guess we should stop. Shall we call it a draw?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::::::Well, the problem is really whether or not societal norms trump the Bible, and their will always be two camps in that argument. And each camp broils down to thinking something very unpleasant will happen to the other after they die.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::The difference is that, because of homophobia, something very unpleasant happens on earth in the meantime :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*Bohdan, you still haven't answered my question. Can the Word of God change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::sorry i was unaware it was intended for me. can you explane it more?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Staple, would you care to define "Word of God"?
::::It's like this, Bohdan; Christianity implicitly supports a flat earth. However, when this was proven wrong, most Christians abandoned that view, even though it says so in the Bible. So, could God's word change? I say yes. What about you? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I will need chapter and verse for your claim first[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]Here is my position [http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm]. I think I do not need to say anymore.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::::::::Revelation 7:1 is just one of the many verses in the bible.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 00:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*This is what you stated: ''my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change''. Because Hoji was talking about when scientist prove a genetic link will your mind change. And that is the response you gave.

The Word of God is really not for me to define since it is up to Bohdan who stated it first and Conservapedia to define.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I have heard of some scientist linking homosexuality to smell.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well that was the point I was trying to make actually. But he did bring up the wrong objection, because 50 years ago being black was a sign of moral inferiority. I believe that it's only a matter of time before true homosexuality is genetically identified. However, I think that we'll always have the issue of latent homosexual curiosity, which is where I think most of the debate stems from anyway. I believe religious conservatives believe that all homosexuals are merely those who gave into curiosity. However, I think homosexual curiosity is an aspect of every human being, but being truly homosexual is also a separate condition of humanity.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: But there is no "gay gene." The homosexual activists claim that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (of which there are examples), but a homosexual cannot become a heterosexual (of which there are examples).

: The homosexual movement is really a belief system more than anything else. A big part of the movement, for example, is about censorship of opposition to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yknow, it's interesting, I know a pair of fraternal sisters at my college, and one is gay and the other is straight. It's quite weird really. I would think though that if sexuality was more a social response, they would both be either gay or straight.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Really? I totally just believe you, without citations or anything. Well, actually, I don't. links pl0x? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Homosexuality is genetic? The liberal unholy grail. The truth is that much of what is homosexual sex - namely anal sex - causes disease. [http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1][http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/][http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm][http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=37809] That is what we know now and it is not some liberal pie in the sky unholy Grail to seek like homosexuality is supposedly genetic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nobody's denying that it causes disease. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is due almost exclusively to straight sex/rape. But that doesn't mean that straight sex is bad, does it? Just because something ''could'' be dangerous doesn't mean it ''always'' is.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::All I know is, somewhere in history, down the line, someone had sex with a monkey. And that had to have been an akward morning...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

* If God's word _can't_ change, then all you called "Christians" are actually just a bunch of heretical Jews. What's with this "New" Testament? The Torah wasn't GOOD enough for you? :) Or do you mean "can it change NOW"? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Religious text will ALWAYS be open for interpretation, and those that hold to a poor interpretation will die out and fall to the wayside of history. It's not like we haven't seen it happen many times before.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, but that's not my point--the New Testament was VERY different in theme and nature than the Old Testament. Different enough to become a completely different religion. (I've heard the old/new split described as "what happened when God got religion".:) --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I always grew up with the understanding that the New Testament was supposed to replace/trump the Old Testament.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So, that's a vote for "yes, God can change His mind", then? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School

2007-04-27T04:30:47Z

Gulik2:

Internet slang

2007-04-27T04:28:07Z

Gulik2:

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms, designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

== List of Internet slang ==

'''ROTFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing

'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud

'''ATM:''' At The Moment

'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.

'''BRB:''' Abbreviation for Be Right Back

'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.

'''U:''' you

'''Ur:''' your, you're, you are

'''4:''' for, four

'''l8r:''' later

'''BBL:''' be back later

'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit

'''GG:''' gotta go, got to go, good game

'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own"

'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.

'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly

'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.

'''L33T''' Stands for Elite

'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.

'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience

'''GDR''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.

'''D00d''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".

[[category:internet culture]]

Talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School

2007-04-27T04:07:05Z

Gulik2:

Isn't that kinda like protesting people for being black?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Being black is not morally wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

It was 50 years ago.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Just as an interesting question, Bohdan... when the scientists identify a genetic reason for homosexuality, will your views change? Will other conservative groups change their views? How would these views change? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Can God's word change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why would God create a gay person, Bohdan? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::have the scientists identified a genetic reason? The reason is obvious. Romans 1:27[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::It's kind of scary you can quote bible verses...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am sorry that my knowledge of the Bible frightens you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::I think that if you were gay, Bohdan, you're views would be different. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I am deeply offended by your statement. But it doesnt make sense. If i was a Nazi, i would likely view them differently, but that doesnt make it right. Their are many disgusting things that i were, i would sympathize. If i was in the kkk i would view them differently[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Sorry if I offended you. So now you are equating homosexuals to nazis and the KKK? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Alas, perhaps i confuse you. I am trying to show the flaw in you above statement. But homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is quite clear.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Ah yes, the "because the Bible said so" argument. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Therein lies the problem[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::The problem is, Biblical literalism cannot be swayed by science, logic, or reason. So the debate is pointless if neither side will budge. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Then i guess we should stop. Shall we call it a draw?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::::::Well, the problem is really whether or not societal norms trump the Bible, and their will always be two camps in that argument. And each camp broils down to thinking something very unpleasant will happen to the other after they die.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::The difference is that, because of homophobia, something very unpleasant happens on earth in the meantime :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*Bohdan, you still haven't answered my question. Can the Word of God change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::sorry i was unaware it was intended for me. can you explane it more?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Staple, would you care to define "Word of God"?
::::It's like this, Bohdan; Christianity implicitly supports a flat earth. However, when this was proven wrong, most Christians abandoned that view, even though it says so in the Bible. So, could God's word change? I say yes. What about you? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I will need chapter and verse for your claim first[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::::Revelation 7:1 is just one of the many verses in the bible.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 00:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*This is what you stated: ''my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change''. Because Hoji was talking about when scientist prove a genetic link will your mind change. And that is the response you gave.

The Word of God is really not for me to define since it is up to Bohdan who stated it first and Conservapedia to define.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I have heard of some scientist linking homosexuality to smell.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well that was the point I was trying to make actually. But he did bring up the wrong objection, because 50 years ago being black was a sign of moral inferiority. I believe that it's only a matter of time before true homosexuality is genetically identified. However, I think that we'll always have the issue of latent homosexual curiosity, which is where I think most of the debate stems from anyway. I believe religious conservatives believe that all homosexuals are merely those who gave into curiosity. However, I think homosexual curiosity is an aspect of every human being, but being truly homosexual is also a separate condition of humanity.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: But there is no "gay gene." The homosexual activists claim that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (of which there are examples), but a homosexual cannot become a heterosexual (of which there are examples).

: The homosexual movement is really a belief system more than anything else. A big part of the movement, for example, is about censorship of opposition to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yknow, it's interesting, I know a pair of fraternal sisters at my college, and one is gay and the other is straight. It's quite weird really. I would think though that if sexuality was more a social response, they would both be either gay or straight.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Really? I totally just believe you, without citations or anything. Well, actually, I don't. links pl0x? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Homosexuality is genetic? The liberal unholy grail. The truth is that much of what is homosexual sex - namely anal sex - causes disease. [http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1][http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/][http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm][http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=37809] That is what we know now and it is not some liberal pie in the sky unholy Grail to seek like homosexuality is supposedly genetic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nobody's denying that it causes disease. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is due almost exclusively to straight sex/rape. But that doesn't mean that straight sex is bad, does it? Just because something ''could'' be dangerous doesn't mean it ''always'' is.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::All I know is, somewhere in history, down the line, someone had sex with a monkey. And that had to have been an akward morning...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

* If God's word _can't_ change, then all you called "Christians" are actually just a bunch of heretical Jews. What's with this "New" Testament? The Torah wasn't GOOD enough for you? :) Or do you mean "can it change NOW"? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School

2007-04-27T04:04:14Z

Gulik2:

Isn't that kinda like protesting people for being black?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Being black is not morally wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

It was 50 years ago.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Just as an interesting question, Bohdan... when the scientists identify a genetic reason for homosexuality, will your views change? Will other conservative groups change their views? How would these views change? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Can God's word change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why would God create a gay person, Bohdan? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::have the scientists identified a genetic reason? The reason is obvious. Romans 1:27[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::It's kind of scary you can quote bible verses...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am sorry that my knowledge of the Bible frightens you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::I think that if you were gay, Bohdan, you're views would be different. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I am deeply offended by your statement. But it doesnt make sense. If i was a Nazi, i would likely view them differently, but that doesnt make it right. Their are many disgusting things that i were, i would sympathize. If i was in the kkk i would view them differently[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Sorry if I offended you. So now you are equating homosexuals to nazis and the KKK? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Alas, perhaps i confuse you. I am trying to show the flaw in you above statement. But homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is quite clear.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Ah yes, the "because the Bible said so" argument. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Therein lies the problem[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::The problem is, Biblical literalism cannot be swayed by science, logic, or reason. So the debate is pointless if neither side will budge. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Then i guess we should stop. Shall we call it a draw?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::::::Well, the problem is really whether or not societal norms trump the Bible, and their will always be two camps in that argument. And each camp broils down to thinking something very unpleasant will happen to the other after they die.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::The difference is that, because of homophobia, something very unpleasant happens on earth in the meantime :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*Bohdan, you still haven't answered my question. Can the Word of God change?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::sorry i was unaware it was intended for me. can you explane it more?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Staple, would you care to define "Word of God"?
::::It's like this, Bohdan; Christianity implicitly supports a flat earth. However, when this was proven wrong, most Christians abandoned that view, even though it says so in the Bible. So, could God's word change? I say yes. What about you? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I will need chapter and verse for your claim first[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::::Revelation 7:1 is just one of the many verses in the bible.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 00:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*This is what you stated: ''my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change''. Because Hoji was talking about when scientist prove a genetic link will your mind change. And that is the response you gave.

The Word of God is really not for me to define since it is up to Bohdan who stated it first and Conservapedia to define.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I have heard of some scientist linking homosexuality to smell.--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 23:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well that was the point I was trying to make actually. But he did bring up the wrong objection, because 50 years ago being black was a sign of moral inferiority. I believe that it's only a matter of time before true homosexuality is genetically identified. However, I think that we'll always have the issue of latent homosexual curiosity, which is where I think most of the debate stems from anyway. I believe religious conservatives believe that all homosexuals are merely those who gave into curiosity. However, I think homosexual curiosity is an aspect of every human being, but being truly homosexual is also a separate condition of humanity.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: But there is no "gay gene." The homosexual activists claim that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (of which there are examples), but a homosexual cannot become a heterosexual (of which there are examples).

: The homosexual movement is really a belief system more than anything else. A big part of the movement, for example, is about censorship of opposition to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yknow, it's interesting, I know a pair of fraternal sisters at my college, and one is gay and the other is straight. It's quite weird really. I would think though that if sexuality was more a social response, they would both be either gay or straight.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Really? I totally just believe you, without citations or anything. Well, actually, I don't. links pl0x? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Homosexuality is genetic? The liberal unholy grail. The truth is that much of what is homosexual sex - namely anal sex - causes disease. [http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1][http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/][http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm][http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=37809] That is what we know now and it is not some liberal pie in the sky unholy Grail to seek like homosexuality is supposedly genetic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nobody's denying that it causes disease. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is due almost exclusively to straight sex/rape. But that doesn't mean that straight sex is bad, does it? Just because something ''could'' be dangerous doesn't mean it ''always'' is.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::All I know is, somewhere in history, down the line, someone had sex with a monkey. And that had to have been an akward morning...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

* If God's word _can't_ change, then all you called "Christians" are actually just a bunch of heretical Jews. Or do you mean "can it change NOW"? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Meme

2007-04-27T04:01:03Z

Gulik2:

A '''meme''' is a the smallest meaningful unit of information with in the context of a given culture. The term was was developed most notably by [[Richard Dawkins]] the mid 1970s. The term is derived from the word [[gene]] which is a unit of hereditary biologic information. Dawkins proposed the idea that social information could change and propagate through a culture in a way similar to genes in a population of organisms.

Dawkins, being an outspoken [[atheist]], has categorized [[religion]] in general (and [[evangelistic]] religions, such as [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]] specifically), as being especially quick-spreading memes.

The [[Internet]] has been a source for the creation and prorogation of what many feel are memes. On the Internet an idea can be developed and quickly acquire modifications from users around the world such that the root idea becomes the basis for multiple spin-off ideas, subsets of ideas, and other similar iterations. In this sense, a "meme" evolves, taking on a life of its own through the contributions of users of varied cultural backgrounds.

Many "memes" are humorous in nature. "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" was an early Internet "meme," and "[[lolcat]]" is a popular emergent meme. Other memes focus on potential dangers, such as cell phones causing fires at Gas pumps.

== Popular Internet Memes ==
===LOL Cat===
[[image:Lolcatexample.jpg|thumb|right|200px|<center>An example of an "lolcat" designed by a Conservapedia editor to mock the vandals who attack this site.</center>]]A "'''lolcat'''" is a [[meme]] (runaway, modified internet theme) in which the author takes a picture of a cat, and adds a funny, anthropomorphic caption that is potentially grounded in science fiction, or computer programming, subculture.

Either way, the goal of the "lolcat" is to be funny, self-referential, and build on previous iterations of the "lolcat" meme. Most "lolcat" images include references and liberal use of [[internet slang]], such as "lol," etcetera.

"Lolcats" are [http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/04/18/uh-heey-they-talkin-bout-lolcats-on-da-radio/ receiving increased notice] as a prominent part of internet subculture. The most prominent "lolcat" site is [http://www.icanhascheezburger.com I Can Has Cheezburger?].

===All Your Base Are Belong to Us===
'''"All Your Base"''' was a meme popular in 2001, based on a poor Japanese to English translation of the 1989 videogame "Zero Wing." It spawned a massive [http://allyourbase.planettribes.gamespy.com/ video], based on the meme's title catchprase, a notable translation error.

===YTMND===

'''YTMND''' or '''Your The Man Now Dog''' is a site dedicated to images/animated gifs that load sound bites in the background that loop.

St. Augustine

2007-04-27T03:57:43Z

Gulik2: /* References */

'''Saint Augustine''' or '''Augustine of Hippo''' (354-430 A.D.) is considered one of the great fathers of the Christian church, and has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.

== Life ==

Augustine was born in 354 AD at Tagaste in Roman North Africa to a pagan father and a Catholic Christian mother. His early adult life, which is described in his autobiographical book ''Confessions'', was characterized by religious confusion and searching. Although raised as a Catholic by his mother, he converted to [[Manichaeanism]] soon after leaving home to study at an academy in the city of [[Carthage]]. He eventually grew discontent with the Manichaeans, however, not least due to the influence of his mother and of [[Saint Ambrose]], the bishop of [[Milan]]. His break with Manichaeanism did not mean an immediate return to the Catholic faith. Instead, he turned at first to the study of [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonic]] philosophy.

Augustine's ultimate return to Catholicism took place in 386. In the ''Confessions'', Augustine describes it as a miraculous conversion following a long period of personal crisis and soul-searching. He relates how, while sitting in his mother's garden in Milan, he heard a voice commanding him to take up a nearby Bible and read. At random, he read Romans 13:13 ("Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying")

Following his conversion, Augustine was consecrated as priest and returned to Tagaste. In 396, he was elected bishop of the regional capital [[Hippo Regius]]. He died in 430 during the [[Vandal]] siege of Hippo.

== Theology ==

== Legacy ==

It is difficult to overvalue Augustine's importance for the development of early Christianity. Through his numerous letters, sermons and scholarly works, he took an active part in the theological discussions of his day.

He is considered one of the greatest of the [[Church Fathers]], and has been named a [[Doctor of the Church]] by the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

He is also notable for being one of the first to write a [[Rule]] for the community of priests at his cathedral in Hippo. This Rule was later to become the foundation for the [[Augustinian Order]].

== Books ==
Augustine's writing is hailed as marking the beginning of the modern literary tradition, with its self-critical and deeply analytical subjects. His most noted works are listed below.
# '''''[[Confessions]]''''', describing Augustine's travels from a member of the polytheistic Roman [[intelligentsia]] to a devoted Christian. Augustine examines his own personal failings in life, from his love life to his own moral shortcomings, before rejoicing in his salvation through Christ, which he struggled to attain, leading to a climactic [[epiphany]] resulting in his conversion. It is the first book to deeply consider the inner workings of the author's mind.
#'''''[[City of God]]''''' (''Civitas Dei''), written in the aftermath of the sack of [[Rome]] by [[Alaric the Visigoth]], Augustine wrote ''City of God'' to answer the question of the day - if Rome had been the City of God, and now it had fallen, what's to become of [[Christianity]]? So central was the safety of Rome to all philosophies, that this was a concern at the time. Augustine dispels the fears of Christians in this work by reminding them that the true City of God (in the minds of the faithful) is ever-present, and can never be destroyed.
#'''''[[On Christian Doctrine]]''''' (''De Doctrina Christiana''), written in the twilight of Augustine's life, in which Augustine explains how he has approached the [[Bible]] as the word of God. Augustine somberly reflects that his mind - or indeed, the mind of any mortal man - can never fully understand God's word, since it is too beautiful, complex, and rich to be completely understood by a feeble human mind. In this sense, Augustine carries some trace of [[Plato]] into [[Christianity]]. Augustine describes 7 levels of Biblical [[exegesis]], the last being almost unattainable, and self-critically remarks that even in a life of study he has barely reached the 5th. To Augustine, literalism was the 1st level of exegesis - shallow and unsearching.

== Notable quotes ==

<blockquote>''Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. '''Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn'''. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. '''If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven''', when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. '''For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion'''.'' -- De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") [http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm]</blockquote>

== References ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Augustine of Hippo, Saint}}
[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[category:Christianity]]

Prohibition in the United States

2007-04-26T04:51:08Z

Gulik2:

: ''This article discusses the particulars of prohibition in the [[United States of America]]. For an overview of prohibition throughout the civilized world, see [[Prohibition]].''

'''Prohibition''' in [[United States of America|American]] parlance typically refers to the movement and body of law that prohibited the manufacture, sale, transport, import, or export of intoxicating [[liquor]] within, into, or from the [[United States of America]] from 1920 to 1933.

== History ==
=== Growth of alcohol consumption ===
Alcoholic beverages have been part of almost every culture since the beginning of recorded [[history]]. But alcohol consumption in colonial America was initially slow to grow. (Beer was a common exception to this, as the colonists and even the early citizens of the Republic preferred beer over the often polluted water.) The colonials and early citizens tended not to forbid alcohol itself but the act of ''intoxicating'' oneself with alcohol.<ref name=Colony>[http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Alcohol_in_America.htm Alcohol in America] at "Prohibition: The Noble Experiment," April 20, 2005 (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

The following [[Bible]] verse summarizes the dichotomy of American feelings toward alcohol in America's early years:{{Bible quote|And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess;...|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=18|version=KJV}}

The records of the [[National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism]] show that alcohol consumption was at a relatively low level in 1850, the earliest year for which they have records, and enjoyed steady growth until the five years immediately before 1920. In fact, alcohol consumption, primarily of distilled spirits ([[whiskey]], [[gin]], and the like), rose steadily throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, as whiskey became more plentiful and less expensive. Indeed, whiskey was [[legal tender]] for debts, even public ones like [[tax]]es.<ref name=DUI>[http://www.dui.com/drunk_driving_research/research/colonial_america.html Alcohol Consumption in America, 1800-55] in the research archive of dui.com (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

Beginning after the end of the [[Civil War]], however, consumption of [[beer]] became more popular, until in 1890 beer displaced distilled spirits as the beverage of choice. With the tremendous growth in beer demand and the establishment of large-scale breweries, a new kind of retail establishment called the [[saloon]] appeared. At their height, saloons were so numerous that many places had one saloon (or more) for every 200 lawful residents.<ref name=OSU>Kerr, Austin (1996), and Shelton, Mitchell (2006), [http://prohibition.osu.edu//default.cfm Temperance and Prohibition], Department of History, [[Ohio]] State University, Columbus, Ohio.</ref> The saloon existed primarily to sell liquor. But the typical saloon became famous for other activities, such as [[gambling]] and [[prostitution]]. Worse yet, they often sold liquor to [[minor]]s.<ref name=MSNPro>[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564677_1/Prohibition.html Prohibition] at MSN Encarta</ref>

=== Temperance movements ===
The spectacle of increased liquor consumption, and the unsavory activities associated with its sale, were impetus enough for many concerned citizens. But the bad effects on the men who consumed the highest amounts of liquor were worse. In those times, men were the primary consumers of liquor; women were either not permitted to partake or, more commonly, had little desire to partake. Instead, women observed the bad effects of liquor on their husbands. [[Carrie Nation]]<ref name=Carrie>[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574293/Carrie_Nation.html Carrie Nation] at MSN Encarta</ref> became the most famous agitator for a total prohibition against liquor after her first husband died of alcohol-related illnesses. After agitating for various State prohibition laws, she ultimately took the law into her own hands by barging into illegal saloons and using a [[hatchet]] to wreck furniture and beer and whiskey barrels. She was arrested some 30 times, and used the honoraria she earned from lecturing to pay her bail.<ref name=Carrie/>

Even before Carrie Nation began her campaign, politicians everywhere spoke against the consumption of liquor. By 1855, 13 of the 31 states had prohibited liquor entirely; the first prohibition law was passed in [[Maine]] in 1840<ref name=Temperance>[http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Temperance_movement/ Temperance movement] at the Knowledge Rush Encyclopedia</ref>. [[Abraham Lincoln]] famously called liquor "an [[Egypt]]ian [[angel]] of [[death]]."<ref name=MSNPro/>

In 1873, matters came to a head with the great "Women's War" or "Women's Crusade."<ref name=OSU/> The two most famous organizations formed to have liquor tightly regulated, or prohibited entirely, were the [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] and the [[Anti-Saloon League]]. The latter organization began in [[Ohio]] in 1893 but swiftly gained national importance. These organizations had one issue: the outright prohibition on the sale of intoxicating liquor. First content with the passage of new State laws, they eventually set a goal to amend the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] to prohibit intoxicating liquor nationwide. Another key force was the United States Prohibition Party, founded in 1869.<ref name=USPP>[http://www.prohibitionists.org/index.html Partisan Historical Society] (official site)</ref><ref name=USPPKR>[http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/United_States_Prohibition_Party/ United States Prohibition Party] at the Knowledge Rush Encyclopedia</ref>

=== World War I ===
The federal election of 1916 saw the election of enough [[House of Representatives|Representatives]] and [[United States Senate|Senators]] to propose a constitutional amendment banning the manufacture, sale, transport, import, and export of alcoholic beverages. But the [[First World War]] added another impetus to what became known as the "dry movement." Grain was scarce, and Americans considered the distillation of grains to make alcohol an unpatriotic waste of a resource that, they felt, the country needed to make bread for its soldiers overseas.<ref name=DH>Mintz, S. (2003), "Prohibition," in ''Digital History,'' retrieved April 7, 2007 from [http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441 DigitalHistory.UH.edu]</ref> Indeed, the NIAAA records show a sharp decline in liquor consumption in the five-year period bracketing that war.<ref name=OSU/>

=== Amending the Constitution ===
Passage of the [[Eighteenth Amendment]] in [[Congress]] was swift. In January 20, 1919, the amendment achieved ratification. Pursuant to the amendment's terms, the amendment took effect on January 16, 1920. In October 28, 1920, Congress, acting on its "power to enforce" the amendment, passed the [[National Prohibition Act]] or '''Volstead Act'''<ref name=TIH1028>[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/oct28.html Today in History: October 28] at the [[Library of Congress]]</ref>, named for Senator [[Andrew Volstead]] ([[Republican Party|R]]-[[Minnesota|MN]]), which defined an [[alcoholic beverage]] as anything containing more than 0.5% [[ethanol]] by volume and providing for strict enforcement.

=== Enforcement ===
Enforcement was largely in the hands of the [[Internal Revenue Service]], which is why agents of the still-extant [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms]] are still called "revenuers" today. Arguably the most famous "revenuers" of all time were [[Eliot Ness]], who operated in [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]], and the team of [[Isadore Einstein and Moe Smith]] in [[New York City]].<ref name=DH/> These were the most dedicated of the 2500 "Prohibition agents" who enforced the law at the height of federal enforcement efforts. Sadly, these men operated on a shoestring national budget ($5 million US at first, later increased to $300 million) and were vastly outmatched in numbers and resources. Worse yet, many politicians still partook of intoxicating liquor themselves, leading to a widespread perception of people in authority as hypocritical.

The latter part of the thirteen years of prohibition saw the rise of [[organized crime|organized criminal gangs]] in virtually every city in the country, and the manufacture of liquor on a small scale at millions of locations.<ref name=WeWantBeer>Miller, Carl H. (2000), [http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/prohibition_1.shtml We Want Beer], retrieved April 7, 2007 from BeerHistory.com</ref> This was the era of "[[speakeasy|speakeasies]]" (liquor-selling establishments that admitted people by invitation only and on the speaking of a [[password]]),<ref name=Hanson>Hanson, David J., [http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/Prohibition.html Prohibition: the Noble Experiment], SUNY-Potsdam, Potsdam, NY (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref> "[[bootlegger]]s" (those who smuggled [[alcoholic drinks]] either for their own consumption or for sale), and of a general contempt for the law. [[Al Capone]], the most famous "gangster" in US history, built a vast and sprawling empire on the profits from the distribution of illicit liquor. (Ultimately the IRS obtained evidence of tax evasion against him, and upon conviction on that charge he was sent to [[Alcatraz]] Prison in [[San Francisco]] Bay.)

The original Volstead Act provided a medical exception to prohibition, in that a person could have a doctor prescribe alcohol to him.<ref name=RxEx>[http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sanmateo/history/smpro26.htm A 1926 Alcohol Prescription Slip] in the History Archive of San Mateo County</ref> Many willing doctors wrote prescriptions, often on highly dubious premises.<ref name=About>Rosenberg, Jennifer, [http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/p/prohibition.htm Prohibition], About.com (Retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

The government continued to expect cooperation with the authorities to the end, and issued two scathing reports calling for tougher enforcement in 1927<ref name=rep27>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/wick/wick1a.html History of Prohibition Enforcement before the Bureau of Prohibition Act of 1927] at the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy</ref> and 1931.<ref name=rep31>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/wick/wick1.html Report on the Enforcement of Prohibition Laws in the United States, January 7, 1931] at the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy</ref>

=== Repeal ===
The [[Crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] carried with it the spectacle of widespread [[unemployment]]. The "wet" forces, never dormant nor idle, quickly created a public perception that if only the beverage industry were legitimate once again, many of these suddenly unemployed workers could be gainfully employed once again.<ref name=About/> The [[Association Against the Prohibition Amendment]] would quickly capitalize on this perception and run candidates for [[Congress]] that favored repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Congress did pass the [[Twenty-first Amendment]] and, in an unprecedented move, bypassed the State legislatures and called for the special election of ratification conventions in the several States. Thirty-eight of these conventions--two more than needed--passed repeal in December of 1933.

=== Remaining Prohibitions ===
Repeal did not immediately mean that everyone across the country had the right to drink. States retained the right, under the new amendment, to regulate or even prohibit liquor as they saw fit. Although no States prohibit liquor today, different States have different regulations governing its manufacture, sale, and transport. (For example, some States allow the private sales of liquor, while others insist that all liquor be sold in "State Stores" operated by State alcoholic beverage control boards.) Liquor is still prohibited in some counties, even if not State-wide. And practically no State allows minors to purchase, attempt to purchase, consume, or transport intoxicating liquor.

[[Islam]] prohibits the imbibition of alcohol in all its founding documents. This has recently led to the spectacle of Muslim [[taxi]] drivers refusing to pick up fares in the United States who are transporting alcoholic beverages.<ref name=Cabbie>Lyderson, Kari, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501727.html Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol], ''The Washington Post'', Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page A02 (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

== Effects of Prohibition and Repeal ==
A large body of misinformation persists about the effects of prohibition and of its eventual repeal. To begin with, the ''per capita'' consumption of intoxicating liquors declined significantly during this period.<ref name=OSU/><ref name=MSNPro/> In addition, two economists estimated that the prevalence of [[cirrhosis]] of the [[liver]] declined by ten to twenty percent during the Prohibition era.<ref name=cirrhosis>Dills, Angela K., and Miron, Jeffrey A., [http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/285 Alcohol Prohibition and Cirrhosis], ''American Law and Economics Review'', 6(2):285-318, 2004 (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

Crime did rise, and this consisted chiefly of direct flouting of the law and the spectacle of members of rival gangs killing one another in all-out wars for "territories" in the major cities, especially in Chicago. But perceptions of a massive crime wave are grossly exaggerated.<ref name=MSNPro/> Sadly, what is not exaggerated are the reports of widespread contempt for the law and for all authority, and the establishment of powerful [[Organized Crime]] syndicates in the United States.

One often overlooked effect, not so much of prohibition ''per se'' as of the movement that established it, is [[women's suffrage]]. Women did not seriously agitate for the vote until they had a rallying issue. That issue was prohibition, and the concern of these women was that the men would simply vote to continue to enjoy their liquor, and women would continue to feel the secondary effects of desertion of the home, domestic physical abuse, and neglect of the husband's duty to provide. Ironically, women did not definitively win the vote (the [[Nineteenth Amendment]]) until ''after'' prohibition was already a part of the [[Constitution]].

The NIAAA data compiled by Kerr<ref name=OSU/> clearly show that alcohol consumption sank to a bottom in 1933 and has been rising ever since. Today the ''per capita'' consumption of liquor is higher than ever. So, too, are its bad effects, effects that any person, not merely any specially affected subgroup, may feel under the right circumstances.<ref name=DUI2>National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, [http://www.dui.com/drunk_driving_research/research/alcohol_prohibition.html A Short History of Alcohol Temperance and Prohibition], DUI.com (retrieved April 7, 2007)</ref>

Repeal did not destroy the organized criminal gangs. Instead of selling alcohol, they moved on to other illicit activities. These gangs, of course, persist today.

== Prohibition in Popular Culture ==
At least one [[motion picture]] and one long-running [[television]] series had their basis in the career of [[Eliot Ness]]. Another television project drew its basis from the careers of [[Isadore Einstein and Moe Smith]], though this was clearly a comedy.

[[Al Capone]] has been the subject of many motion picture projects about his life and career. In some of these projects his character is the leading character; in others he is a force-of-nature who affects the lives of others.

CBS-TV had a comedy series in the early 1970's that centered on an illicit bar operator and his mobster cousin in 1920's Chicago. Many other [[television]] and [[motion picture]] projects were set in or shortly after the Prohibition era and sometimes featured bootleggers as minor or major characters. In other projects, some characters would challenge the judgmental attitude of other characters who had lived during the Prohibition era, typically by asking them whether they never took an illicit drink when the sale of liquor was illegal. (Such lines often perpetuated the common misconception that the ''consumption'' of intoxicating liquor by adults, as distinct from its ''manufacture, sale, transport, import, or export'', was unlawful.)

At least one comedy motion picture was made about prohibition's repeal. That project featured a gangster who tried to "go legit" after prohibition ended.

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [[Prohibition]]
* [[War On Drugs]]

== External Links ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States Prohibition in the United States] by [[Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Prohibition]]

Talk:Pseudoscience

2007-04-26T04:43:48Z

Gulik2: /* Proposed revision */

[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]{{fact}}
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]{{fact}}
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]{{fact}}
*[[Ufology]]{{fact}}

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2007-04-26T02:42:02Z

Gulik2: As long as we're listing lies....

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

= And, of course, the page is locked. =
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

= References =
<references/>

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

MS NOW

2007-04-26T02:40:09Z

Gulik2:

[[Image:April 2nd MSNBC.png|right|thumb|MSNBC logo.]]
'''MSNBC''' is a 24-hour cable news channel. It is the lowest rated of the three major cable news channels.

The channel was started in 1996 as a joint venture between [[Microsoft]] and [[NBC]]. On December 23, 2005, ending a partnership that soured long before, Microsoft and NBC announced that they would dissolve their joint ownership of the cable news channel, with NBC taking control. NBC completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel, with an 82 percent stake.[[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30610F93E540C778EDDAB0994DD404482]]

MSNBC has received criticism from both liberal and conservative groups regarding the channel's perceived biases. The conservative media watchdog group the Media Research Center<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp About Media Research Center] www.mediaresearch.org</ref> argues that MSNBC has a [[liberal]] slant, citing shows by [[Keith Olbermann]] and [[Chris Matthews]], while the liberal Media Matters for America<ref> [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters for America homepage] www.mediamatters.org</ref> decries the channel's alleged conservative slant, citing shows by left-[[libertarian]] [[Tucker Carlson]] and centrist [[Joe Scarbourough]].

In the past, MSNBC shows have featured [[Mitch Albom]], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Phil Donahue]], [[Bill Moyers]], [[Maury Povich]], and [[Michael Savage]], among others. That varied programming was gradually reduced as NBC veered more leftist in its POV.

In 2003, in an effort to appear more patriotic, MSNBC fired talk-show host [[Phil Donahue]]. An internal memo read, in part, “Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.” <ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html]</ref>

==External links==
* [http://msnbc.msn.com Official Site]
* [http://www.setstudio.com/pages/msnbc/ Photos of the MSNBC studio]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:broadcasting]]

White Horse of Uffingham

2007-04-26T01:28:47Z

Gulik2:

[[Image:Whitehorseofuffingham.jpg|thumb|right|The White Horse of Uffingham]]
The White Horse of Uffingham is a [[neolithic]] site in south [[Oxfordshire]], [[England]]. It gives it's name to the Vale of White Horse, the district in which it is located.

Carved into the hillside in an abstract style is the shape of a horse running free. Close by is [[Waylands Smithy]] and [[Dragon Hill]]. Local legend has it that a horse tethered overnight at Wayland's Smithy will be shod by the ghost of a blacksmith. Dragon Hill is named as such for the belief that it is the site of [[St. George]]'s slaying of the [[dragon]]. Dragon Hill is site of Druidic worship to this day.

The White Horse is 3,000 years old. <ref>http://www.londontourist.org/daytrip.html</ref>

The White Horse is relatively close to both [[Avebury]], the location of the world's largest stone circle and the even more famous [[Stonehenge]].

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-04-26T01:27:07Z

Gulik2:

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/flood}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/naturalism}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/supporters}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/scientists}}

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

Hi,
I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C.
But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity.
Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust.
So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there.
Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

It took Einstein and his colleagues years to figure out relativity, believe me when I say both the math and the concepts behind it are extremely complicated.
Whereas creationism can be explained in, well, how fast can you say "God did it"? (It took me less than 2 seconds)

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment and later experiments with more accurate clocks]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If you think that creationism can be adequately described as "God did it", you have no idea of creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, "God magically did it 6000 years ago, in 6 days". (8 seconds)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If that is intended to prove that you ''do'' have a reasonable idea of creationism, you have failed miserably. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What else is their, except for misquotations and claims that the Devil put fossils in the ground to mislead us?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Neither of those things. Spend a month reading articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here] and you should have a reasonable idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proof ==

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock"
thats it just show some proff of your theory

== 45% support ==
The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of ''the Earth'' nor the ''labels people apply to themselves''. While all YECs ''do'' believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe ''the Earth'' was also created then ''and identify themselves as YECs'').

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

: Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

[[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is a travesty ==

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Medical science is part of science. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion![[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without [[liberal]] bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sure[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] knows what he is doing.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).
:::Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views ''on equal footing'' with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject ''is'' so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's ''wrong''. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::''(M's reply has been moved to a new section below ([[#Misinformation|Misinformation]]) for clarity.)—Philip J. Rayment''

:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The 6,000 year time estimate must be wrong. [[Stonehenge]] is older than that. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 21:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, but that's where you've fallen for the [[Worldwide Evil Science Conspiracy]]'s vile deception. Someone who read the Bible says that it says the earth is only 6000 years old, so any so-called 'discoveries' that contradict that are EVIL LIES BY [[SATAN]] [[fnord]].

== spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is ridiculous ==
Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat s*** crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is ridiculous as it stands. The article should restrict itself to decribing YEC, not refuting evolution...that is for another place.
Also, you state statistics that most Americans believe this, and that most scientists dont, then go on to say that consensus doesnt make it so. So, I guess if the Americans that were polled agree that YEC is true, that it is, and if most scientists agree that it is false, well, they be godless wizards, see Leviticus 20.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

* I am not a YEC so I am glad this article is locked. Since I have nothing contribute to a Young Earth article, I may proceed to edit Old Earth articles without a fair and balanced rebuttal here. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Excuse me, it's not locked. But only the beautiful people can edit it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811] Not cool at all, gentlemen. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unprotected subpages==

I propose a technical solution: use an undocumented feature of templates to create editable subpages. I introduced this technique at Wikipedia, and it's used quite a bit for their administrative pages (see [[transclusion]], which I'll write eventually).

Anyway, just click on the "edit" button on the right side of any section under "Draft" at the top of this page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

Regarding the last few edits, which copy-pasted entire sections from [[Theory of evolution]]:

Seriously, is this article becoming "Theory of Evolution II"? Conservative's new playground now that he may only do minor changes to Theory of Evolution?

I guess that sorta proves all the critics right - large part of that article weren't about evolution at all. It's just modular creationist talk. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Title does not fit content ==

There has got to be more content about YEC itself, but this article spends most of it's time refuting evolution. We already have an article for that ([[Theory of evolution|Criticisms of the theory of evolution]]). This should be a scholarly explanation of YEC, not a evo-bashfest. I'd love to add YEC-bashing to the [[Theory of evolution]] article, but I am one of the editors who thinks it is necessary to show restraint. Just a thought... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that much of this article is actually lifted almost word for word from the 'evolution' article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I suppose I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in using an evo article to create a YEC article. I don't even know where to start with explaining how wrong that is. Ban me now, Ban me now!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::There we go. All the stuff which appears in the 'evolution' article is now gone. Perhaps some of it is better here than there, but I'll leave that for the YECs to hash out for themselves. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::many of the major reasons why people reject the theory of evolution are the same reasons they accept young earth creationism. I see no problem with overlap. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Perhaps that means that the [[evolution]] article shouldn't defer to one perspective, then?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Ames, I have no idea what you are saying. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
The converse is a concern I have expressed to you. I am just arguing that if the YEC viewpoint is represented so very well here, maybe it shouldn't all be on the evolution page, but instead have a reference FROM the evolution page to this page. To cut down on server size and be better organized.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The panel already ruled on the theory of evolution article AmesG. It is not being gutted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It was totally worth a try. I'm sure if we came to a consensus, though, they would respect it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there will never be a consensus (or even a proper discussion that may lead to one) since a few sysops will shout "THE PANEL HAS DECIDED! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT! END OF DISCUSSION! ANDY AGREES!" before things can get going. Add to that the resignation after the Panel's decision, and you got a dead article, basically. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anyone Notice... ==
That this is almost the same article as [[evolution]]?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
: *downgrades the headline level* Yes. *points at upper two sections* And Tsumetai's deletion of the duplicate material juuuust got reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Verb number should agree with the number of the subject in a sentence. I would fix the first sentence, but, well.... And for the sake of parallelism, the evolutionary age of the universe should also be included.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the first sentence; thanks for pointing that out. The evolutionary age of the Earth ''is'' included, in the first sentence; I don't follow what you are getting at there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::I guess you figured it out, since you added the age of the universe on 21 April.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::No I didn't. I changed one word[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=119444&oldid=116007]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Misinformation ==

''(Continuation of a discussion starting in [[#This article is a travesty|This article is a travesty]], above. I have also reformatted [[user:M|M's]] posts a little—Philip J. Rayment.)''

Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

There also seems to be some copy-pasting going on, as I've seen the following text verbatim in several different articles:
{{QuoteBox|According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.}}

If a Christian scientist can work on experiments involving evolutionary principles (as the great majority of genetics or biological experiments do), why is it assumed that any scientist, no matter their personal beliefs, will actively try to discriminate against valid research?

(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.

Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to double-comment, but I just noticed that there's at least one instance of inaccurate quote-mining on this page. Here's the quote by Mark Ridley in the entry:

{{QuoteBox|"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831}}
And here's the ''complete'' quote:

{{QuoteBox|`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.' (page 831)

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832) }}

He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--[[User:M|M]] 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Most of what you list there is not ''misinformation'' per se, but ''omission of information'' that you think should be there. That's something quite different.
:I'd say that the reason that the article doesn't have the fossils that you mention (whales, early-mammals, elephants, horses, hominids) is that there are no such transitional fossils between different kinds of creatures. (That is, for example, there are fossils that appear intermediate between different types of horses, but not between horses and something else.)
:You say that it dismisses ''Archaeopteryx'' for no good reason, but you are wrong for several reasons. (1) It is not dismissing ''Archaeopteryx'', it is quoting Alan Fedducia dismissing ''Archaeopteryx''. (Admittedly the footnote does not make that clear, but if you look at the reference, you can see that. I'm in the process of improving the footnotes.) (2) So what that it had teeth? Some other extinct birds had teeth; that doesn't make it transitional. (3) It ''did not'' have a reptilian tail—it had the tail of an ''Archaeopteryx''! That it might have some similarities to a reptilian tail doesn't make it a reptilian tail and doesn't make it transitional. Besides, I don't know of any reptile that had feathers on its tail!
:As for ''Tiktaalik'', you haven't explained what is 'not good' about the reasons.
: Discrimination is not "assumed"; it is well documented.
: "''There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not''". As do you. Perhaps there are none?
: Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate viewpoint; I'm not so sure about the balanced bit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==

In regard to E.J.H. Corner's quote, here is the rest of it:

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

"Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh).

Please remove the quote from the article or add it in its entirety.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Why? You haven't explained what's wrong with just quoting the part that's quoted. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The above paragraph wasn't displaying properly -- it looks like four spaces is wiki markup for preformatted text, or something. I changed the spacing and added an initial quote mark to the second paragraph for readability.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:A single leading space is wiki markup for preformatted text. The extra spaces are redundant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2007-04-25T06:54:15Z

Gulik2: /* No */

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

:Of course it is. "Coercive Interrogation" has a long and proud history of being used to fight evil. Without the use of the rack and the thumbscrew, how could the witches of the middle-ages been convinced to admit to such crimes as flying through the air, shapeshifting, cursing cattle, stealing men's er... 'members' by magic, eating babies, or having actual physical 'biblical intercourse' with Satan? Who Would Jesus Waterboard? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 13:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Emperor Norton

2007-04-25T06:52:02Z

Gulik2: New page: '''Joshua Abraham Norton''', was a San Francisco investor untl he was rendered bankrupt in 1859, whereupon he took up himself the role of Emperor of the United States of America and Pr...

'''Joshua Abraham Norton''', was a [[San Francisco]] investor untl he was rendered bankrupt in 1859, whereupon he took up himself the role of Emperor of the United States of America and Protector of Mexico. The natives of the city humored him, printed his proclamations in the newspapers, and permitted him to support himself by selling 'promissory notes', which are now worth many times their original value.

in 1880, Norton was buried with full [[Masonic]] honors. Between 10,000 and 30,000 people are said to have attended his funeral, which was marked by an [[eclipse]] of the sun.

THe [{Discordians]] have a saying: "Everybody understands Mickey Mouse. Few understand Hermann Hesse. Hardly anybody understands Einstein. And nobody understands Emperor Norton."

=== External Links ===
[http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/nort.html]
[http://www.knauer.org/mike/discordia/norton.php]

San Francisco

2007-04-25T06:45:59Z

Gulik2:

'''San Francisco''' is a city in [[California]] and is generally considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Its mayor, [[Gavin Newsom]], attempted to perform [[same-sex marriage]]s despite the practice being explicitly illegal under California law. Not surprisingly, the marriages were nullified by the courts shortly thereafter.

Famous San Francisco landmarks include the [[Golden Gate Bridge]] and [[Alcatraz Island]].

See also:
* [[Emperor Norton]]

[[Category:US Towns and Cities]]

Torture

2007-04-25T06:41:08Z

Gulik2:

The term torture refers to punishments which inflict severe pain or mutilation on prisoners. Governments, armies and tyrants have inflicted torture on opponents throughout recorded history, chiefly against [[slave]]s and [[rebel]]s, but also against political or religious dissidents.

It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited.

In the West, the best known cases of torture were inflicted by ecclesiastical and political authorities during the Middle Ages. A well-known example from historical fiction occurs in ''[[Ivanhoe]]'', and well-known examples from real history can be found in the [[Malleus Maleficarum]]<ref>[http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/] The Malleus Maleficarum</ref>, a manual for [[Witch Hunt|Witch Hunters]].

In the 20th century, opposition to torture on [[human rights]] grounds began, yet torture persists in countries as diverse as [[China]] and [[Sudan]]. 

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment defines torture as:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition</ref>

Torture is widely practised in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Since 1997, incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries, according to Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific. <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext</ref> By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include: <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods</ref>

* Rape and sexual abuse in custody

* Mock execution or threat of death

* Prolonged solitary confinement

* Electric shocks

* Suspension of the body

* Suffocation

The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]". Despite this, President [[George W. Bush]] used one of his first ever vetoes on the [[McCain Amendment]], which was intended to prohibit torture in stronger language that was previously used.

Toture, and 'Degrading treatment' are prohibited by the [[Geneva Convention]], which the Bush Administration insists does not apply to [[Enemy Combatants]], the new category they created specifically to describe captives suspected of being [[Terrorists]].

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/14/2devos.pdf?rd=1 Mind the Gap: Purpose, Pain, and the Difference between Torture and Inhuman Treatment] by Christian M. De Vos

Talk:Deceit

2007-04-25T02:53:16Z

Gulik2: /* The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" */

Talk:Deceit

2007-04-25T02:49:32Z

Gulik2: And, of course, the page is locked.