Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Conservative Bias in Wikipedia

2008-08-18T03:22:41Z

IlTrovatore:

== Again? ==

Am I wrong in thinking this article was created before and subsequently deleted? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

When a comment that is critical of a certain person is deleted from an article on any wiki without clear refutation, that is an example of censorship, and hence, of bias in favor of the person doing the censoring. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:22, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Science

2008-08-18T03:09:50Z

IlTrovatore:

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' is a methodology for discovering and classifying [[knowledge]]. The scope of science encompasses all measurable [[phenomena]]. Science falls under two scopes: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the scientific method. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]].
In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]]. In recent years, American scientists have been much more atheistic as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>
{{Clear}}
== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis, it involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time. The generally accepted scientific procedure is:

* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A hypothesis is made to explain to explain the observations
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
** If the experiment supports the hypothesis it is considered a theory
** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is developed

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Fossils

2008-08-18T02:50:09Z

IlTrovatore: Removed the phrase "The fossil record supports creation science and not the evolutionary view," as it expresses a viewpoint as fact.

'''Fossils''' are preserved remains of once-living organisms.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> They are usually formed when mineral-rich water makes its way into the deceased being's body. The minerals within the water aggregate within the spaces within the body and solidify. Once the organism's tissues have dissolved away, all that is left behind is a rock mold of the creature's shape.

== Evolutionist View ==

Scientists often use fossils to evaluate the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]]. They record the [[species]] that they find and compare them to living species in order to create a [[fossil record]] of life of Earth.<ref>Geologic Time: [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html "Radiometric time scale"]</ref><ref>The Virtual [http://www.fossilmuseum.net Fossil Museum"]</ref>

Scientists use a process known as [[radiometric dating]] to determine the age of the fossils. Radiometric dating is a technique in which scientists observe the amount of an elemental [[isotope]] within the fossil, then use the rate at which the isotope is presumed to decay to calculate when the organism died. There are a number of different methods, some of which claim to be able to date a specimen that died up to three billion years ago.<ref>Georgia Perimeter College - Historical Geology: [http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm "Radiometric Dating"]</ref> Since individual radiometric methods are independent they can be cross-checked with each other to reduce error.

In some fossils "organic matter" has been found. This is often used by creationists to claim that fossils are not very old. The "organic matter" is debatable and inconclusive at present. "Red blood cells" found in a T. rex fossil have not been proven to be red blood cells (The below article is from May 2006 and testing was still going on).

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.

Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin.
<ref>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php?page=3</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists often use the argument for rapid fossilization but the requirements for rapid fossilization are very specific and unusual in real life. There are a lack of articles in any of the major scientific journals on the matter. Judging from the large number of fossils from different rock layers and rock types around the world it would be unlikely that they all formed from these very specific conditions.

== Creation Science View ==

Many [[Young Earth Creationists]] disagree with the idea that fossils could be millions of years old because they believe the Earth to have been created only several thousand years ago. They point to the fact that some dinosaur bones have been found that still contain organic matter as evidence that these creatures were alive only several thousand years ago rather than 65 million years ago. They also point out that sometimes bones can fossilize very quickly if they are in the right place, so even though scientists predict that the process will usually take a very long time, this is not always the case.<ref>Answers in Genesis: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Dinosaur]]
*[[Fossil fuels]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fossils]]

User talk:WalksAmongUs

2008-08-18T01:55:57Z

IlTrovatore:

:Welcome to CP. We can sure use more people like you!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:00, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

sorry, i was supposed to put this on your talk page, not your user page.

Hello WalksAmongUs. I'm interested to learn more about your beliefs. Would you mind sharing some insight into how you reconcile your work as a scientist with your faith? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:55, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-26T18:36:53Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-26T18:07:14Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-26T17:36:03Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

User talk:DeanS

2008-06-25T04:04:52Z

IlTrovatore:

==Tribute to Dean==
Dean, I realise that messing with someone else's talk page is not done, and so I apologise, but thought that on this occasion it was more important to say this.

Conservapedia is an important project, and it needs you. You have been a very active contributor, and an inspirational and fair minded sysop: we cannot afford to lose people of your calibre. I appreciate that your faith and attachment to the Mormon creed have led you to this, but I appeal to you to reconsider: stand up for your faith on this ground, as you have done so far and been a fine ambassador for your church; and return to help continue building up Conservapedia into a great force for good. You have done so much already: please consider how much more there is to be done. Thanks for reading! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:09, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Request to come back==

Dean, you have my support as well as that of Learn Together. I have laid down some ground rules at [[talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] which I invite you to glance at. Please have confidence in me! I have an unbroken track record of success in every dispute I've mediated at wiki encyclopedias when I've been a sysop.

After you cool off, I do hope you will consider making another try. We can do this together. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:01, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification==

Mr. DeanS, I am in no way attempting to humiliate you or anger you. I am simply posting on the LDS church with material that is historically accurate. Now, I've studied this stuff for a while now, but I know that you are a Mormon and it is very possible that you know far more than I do on the subject. So, if you wish to discuss the edits, or are able to show me where I am wrong with documentation, then I'll take my stuff out. But, I simply wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to attack you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You are one step away from being blocked. And before you post anywhere but on a sysop talk page, you better apologize for:
:#Attacking Dean
:#Lying, while saying your attack "was not an attack"
:#Using "historical" material as if it were obviously current and official.
:#Making such a fuss over the burden of proof.

:You do not dictate the terms under which you participate. Do what I say, or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Request to come back==

Amen, good sir. I am a Catholic, and a Progressive one at that, and I cannot understand why others who claim to be Christians feel that it is their prerogative to declare whether my views on Jesus and his teachings are valid or not. I admire your stance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HenryS

2008-06-25T03:21:17Z

IlTrovatore:

<center>''Complain below, please''</center>

I have noticed how often you have gone around and helpfully added category or whatnot to articles after I have fuddled them up. Just wanted to thank you. :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:There's not much going on right now. Recent changes is flooded with deletions. Thanks for creating the article, its always nice to get new content. Btw, are you going to start up a discussion for [[Liberal Style]]? Since we both know deletion is unlikely, perhaps request moving it out of the encyclopedia namespace? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::I try not to pick fights over any of the honeypot articles. I mean, if I were to go after Liberal Style I'd have to go after the literally thirty similar pages, and probably the forty-odd pages with nothing but quotes about homosexuality. I'd rather edit on issues of clear fact, rather than on things deemed "obvious" and get myself condemned as "clueless."--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I know that these thirty Liberal _____ articles will always exist on this site. But that is no reason to create even more of them (Conservative ______). The problem is that they are inherently unencyclopedic, though I am sure you know that already. A massive cross-namespace move isn't too difficult, why not pursue that? Perhaps to the "conservapedia" namespace? Or how about requesting adding all of them into a single "list of liberal characteristics" article, so that way there aren't so many of them? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That's a good point. If I write a petition to this effect, will you sign it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Most likely. Also ask CPAdmin1. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::[[User:TomMoore/Petition_Regarding_Ideological_Articles]] :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:23, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I already signed. I would wait a few days then present it to ASchalfly. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Alrighty.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Could you explain what was nonsensical about the article? The content was calculated from an actual page on Conservapedia, so I'm unsure about what exactly the issue was. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

The article was not witty, it was factual. I would say that any material that is supported with factual evidence and makes claims that do not seek to further an argument is appropriate for an encyclopedia. In fact, I believe that an encyclopedia is strengthened when it acknowledges and addresses its own editorial practices. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:34, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

On that note, can the article be reinstated? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:No. Please be serious about this project. We would all appreciate if you write about notable things. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

But what counts as "notable"? Why are all the "liberal _____" articles "notable," but an article detailing Conservapedia's editorial practices are not? Please do not dismiss this as a joke; I am asking you a serious question about what determines whether or not a topic is worthy of inclusion. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:The "Liberal ______" articles are not encyclopedic, I agree. If you want, go sign that petition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

In an effort to appease your desire for "encyclopedic content" while at the same time filling what I believe to be a valid need for commentary on Conservapedia's own editorial practices, I would like to create a page about the more general topic of Conservapedia's features and how they are used. I would like to work with you to accomplish this in a way that is agreeable to everyone, yet still portrays the truth. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== A lesson in irony (Guard Dog) ==

Second autoblock in just a few hours... XD Thanks for reverting it, and I'm sure that vandal got a good laugh out of it, too :P --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-25T03:15:48Z

IlTrovatore: /* YES */

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-25T03:08:19Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-22T04:48:29Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-22T04:45:56Z

IlTrovatore:

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-22T03:36:27Z

IlTrovatore: /* MAYBE? */

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-22T03:18:10Z

IlTrovatore:

Child

2008-06-20T03:48:26Z

IlTrovatore: New page: A child is a young human being.

A child is a young human being.

Zermelo-Fraenkel

2008-06-20T03:45:37Z

IlTrovatore: New page: In mathematics, '''Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, with the axiom of choice''', is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and is commonly considered the foundation of modern mathematics.<r...

In mathematics, '''Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, with the axiom of choice''', is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and is commonly considered the foundation of modern mathematics.<ref>mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html</ref>

User talk:HenryS

2008-06-20T03:37:21Z

IlTrovatore:

Debate: As a Creationist, What Would You Do If Time Travel Were to Prove the Validity of the Evolutionary Model?

2008-06-20T00:34:14Z

IlTrovatore:

{{debate}}

This is a purely hypothetical question, seeing as it has not yet been shown that mankind has the ability to construct a time machine. If this were possible, however, and natural history could be studied firsthand, and it were found that the evolutionary model is more or less correct and that no creation ever occurred, what would you, as a creationist, do to reconcile your religious beliefs with reality? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 12:05, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is an absurd debate topic. It would be like the prosecution in a murder trial asking the defendant "If you did commit the murder, how would you have done it?" What possible use would any answer be other than to twist the defendant's words? Besides, we could better ask the Darwinist what he will do when he dies and finds himself before God and is compelled to answer why he was teaching falsehood. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 13:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

This is kind of silly. If we hypothetically had time travel available to us, then why not simply go back to the life of Jesus? We could see firsthand if He did miracles, was resurrected, etc. That's more vital to Christianity than the Genesis issue. Even if the Genesis story isn’t literal that doesn’t destroy Christianity. But if Christ isn’t resurrected, then, as Paul put it “our faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't agree that this an absurd debate topic. I wanted to raise the question of what those with faith would do if they were to discover that their faith was unfounded (I am not excepting myself from this question). Perhaps I ought to rephrase it like that: what if time travel were to demonstrate that the basis of your religious beliefs was an untruth? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HenryS

2008-06-20T00:23:42Z

IlTrovatore:

Debate: As a Creationist, What Would You Do If Time Travel Were to Prove the Validity of the Evolutionary Model?

2008-06-19T16:05:25Z

IlTrovatore: New page: {{debate}} This is a purely hypothetical question, seeing as it has not yet been shown that mankind has the ability to construct a time machine. If this were possible, however, and natura...

User talk:HenryS

2008-06-19T03:34:17Z

IlTrovatore:

User talk:HenryS

2008-06-19T03:24:37Z

IlTrovatore:

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T20:57:42Z

IlTrovatore: /* More on changing his name */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,
JMarks.

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Olive

2008-06-18T20:49:54Z

IlTrovatore: New page: In biology, an olive is the fruit of the olive tree (''Olea europaea'') and is an important part of the agriculture and culinary tradition of many countries in the Mediterranean region. <r...

In biology, an olive is the fruit of the olive tree (''Olea europaea'') and is an important part of the agriculture and culinary tradition of many countries in the Mediterranean region. <ref>http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/olive.html</ref>

It is unclear how long olives have been domesticated, but references to olives in the ''Iliad'' indicate that they have likely been farmed since at least around 8000 or 9000 BC. <ref>Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Le monde d'Homère, Perrin 2000, p19
</ref>

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T20:43:26Z

IlTrovatore: /* More on changing his name */

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T19:14:13Z

IlTrovatore:

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. In 2007, Obama was the most [[liberal]] Senator, according to an article published by the conservative [[National Journal]].<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref>.

[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002.

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, those single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180. annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President George Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him 'George Bush'.
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Cholera

2008-06-18T19:12:38Z

IlTrovatore: New page: Cholera is diarrheal disease caused by intestinal infection with the bacterium ''Vibrio cholerae''. The infection is often without symptoms, but often it can be quite severe. Approximately...

Cholera is diarrheal disease caused by intestinal infection with the bacterium ''Vibrio cholerae''. The infection is often without symptoms, but often it can be quite severe. Approximately one in 20 infected patients exhibit profuse watery diarrhea, vomiting, and leg cramps. In these persons, rapid loss of body fluids leads to dehydration and shock. Without treatment, death can occur quickly. <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/cholera_gi.html</ref>

Although cholera is mostly unheard of in the developed world, it is still prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and other undeveloped areas where pagan and heathen infestations abound. <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/cholera_gi.html</ref>

Liberal Christianity

2008-06-18T19:01:00Z

IlTrovatore: Removed the following nonsensical statement: "Also, Christians are to strive to be the best though many liberal churches support abortion."

'''Liberal Christianity''' refers to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the ''witness'' of [[God]] rather than the ''word'' of God, to be [[hermeneutics|interpreted]] in its [[history|historical]] context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodism|Methodist]], [[Presbyterian]], and [[United Church of Christ]] churches.<ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8028_1.html ''What Liberal Protestants Believe''] Beliefnet. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to any political agenda or set of beliefs.

==Liberal Churches==

Christian churches often fall victim to liberals and societies liberal surroundings; media, print, Hollywood, money, idols, etc. The teaching of Christ cannot be changed to reflect the times. Yet many churches fall into the trap of being open to [[gay]] congregations and gay rights. They support political parties even though this is forbidden by tax-exempt laws. They even welcome abortion candidates to speak at their altars. Some Christian churches actually use hate speech in their sermons and they are given standing ovations for it. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_chickens_come_home_to_r.html], Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost, April 30, 2008</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|small}}
[[Category:Christian Movements]]

Liberal Christianity

2008-06-18T18:58:08Z

IlTrovatore: Removed opinionated, uncited, and grammatically unsound material

'''Liberal Christianity''' refers to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the ''witness'' of [[God]] rather than the ''word'' of God, to be [[hermeneutics|interpreted]] in its [[history|historical]] context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodism|Methodist]], [[Presbyterian]], and [[United Church of Christ]] churches.<ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8028_1.html ''What Liberal Protestants Believe''] Beliefnet. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to any political agenda or set of beliefs.

==Liberal Churches==

Christian churches often fall victim to liberals and societies liberal surroundings; media, print, Hollywood, money, idols, etc. The teaching of Christ cannot be changed to reflect the times. Yet many churches fall into the trap of being open to [[gay]] congregations and gay rights. They support political parties even though this is forbidden by tax-exempt laws. Also, Christians are to strive to be the best though many liberal churches support abortion. They even welcome abortion candidates to speak at their alters. Some Christian churches actually use hate speech in their sermons and they are given standing ovations for it. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_chickens_come_home_to_r.html], Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost, April 30, 2008</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|small}}
[[Category:Christian Movements]]

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-16T22:46:53Z

IlTrovatore:

Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-16T22:41:10Z

IlTrovatore:

Conservative style

2008-06-16T01:49:07Z

IlTrovatore:

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* Portrayal of an issue as if all viewpoints on the matter could clearly be classified in one of two ways (e.g. someone is either " pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion") 
* Demonizing all negative traits as "Liberal [insert word here]" 
* Generalizing [[liberals]] as one group with the same view 
* A belief that any and all problems can be solved with [[conservative]] values 
* Labeling any scientific study contrary to a conservative point as "biased liberal hogwash." 
* Blaming larger societal problems on specific minorities (read Homosexuals, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans etc.) 
* Appealing to "truth" or "accuracy" when accused of not providing a balanced depiction of an issue

Conservapedia:AFD Conservative Style

2008-06-16T01:24:04Z

IlTrovatore:

just as fair as all the Liberal [word] articles '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:02, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Ummm... but no content, generalizations, etc. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Note the similar generalizations on the liberal style page. Also, note the conversation on ASchlafly's talk page under "Colleges" where he agreed that the page could exist so long as it did not become a target for "liberal" vandalism (a point that I believe removes one of the entries on this page from the realm of "generalizations"). --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:If someone decides to write legitimate content, then by all means do, but as it stands right now the best thing to do would be to delete it. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Sounds like an apt description for most the site. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:08, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Not funny. The "article" appears to be only a mockery of Aschlafly, and a bad one at that. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

But if Aschlafly is to be believed, his style counts for that of all conservatives, no? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Mockeries have no place in an encyclopedia. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::You still think this an encyclopedia?! '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, not a "real" one, as it were, but it tries to, and I believe with help it will eventually become a family-friendly, good resource unlike [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

May I ask where lies the difference between this and the liberal style article? Out of 56 points on that page, only about 8 have any form of source or citation. I thought conservapedia was supposed to be fair and balanced? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No that's [[Fox News]], my Danish friend. --[[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I believe Andras is a Hungarian name. Ten bucks says you guessed incorrectly. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Kjeldsen is Danish. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and Kjeldsen is not Andras. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Conservative Style

2008-06-16T01:21:02Z

IlTrovatore:

Conservapedia:AFD Conservative Style

2008-06-16T01:11:34Z

IlTrovatore:

Conservapedia:AFD Conservative Style

2008-06-16T01:05:06Z

IlTrovatore:

Date of creation

2008-06-10T19:05:22Z

IlTrovatore: Removed phrase that was improperly cited (i.e. reference article did not discuss claims made)

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from [[Adam]] to [[Abraham]], listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the date of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of Shem to Adam.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref> He further concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==

If the [[logical fallacy]] of [[circular reasoning]] is allowed -- making a central (and implausible) assumption about the past to prove timing in the past -- then it is possible to claim an older creation as follows:

* assume that radiometric decay rates have remained constant and are unaffected by environmental changes.<ref>This assumption is known to be false. Tests of [[radiometric dating]] methods have often shown that they do not agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of [[radiometric dating]] methods not agreeing with each other.</ref>
* use [[radiometric dating]] to estimate an age for the crust of the [[Earth]].<ref>Mostly [[atheistic]] scientists arrive at an estimated age of the [[Earth]] of 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years using the above approach. See [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007. According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the [[universe]] began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe'']</ref>

==Old Earth Creationism==
[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] don't attempt to calculate a date of creation as they reject the biblical account being literal in favour of the age of the earth calculated by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists.

== See also ==
* [[Creation week]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Biblical creation account]]

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

Liberty

2008-06-09T20:31:28Z

IlTrovatore: I removed the quote from this page because it fails to provide context. It portrays an individual's view as an objective definition.

'''Liberty''' is the [[freedom]] of an individual. It is one of the "[[unalienable rights]]" listed in the [[Declaration of Independence]].

== See also ==

*[[Free enterprise]]
*[[Statue of Liberty]]
*[[Liberty Bell]]

[[Category:Political Science]]
[[Category:government]]

United States Department of the Interior

2008-06-06T23:14:02Z

IlTrovatore: New page: The Department of the Interior is a cabinet-level department of the Executive branch of the U.S. Federal Government. It is concerned with such matters as conservation of natural resources ...

The Department of the Interior is a cabinet-level department of the Executive branch of the U.S. Federal Government. It is concerned with such matters as conservation of natural resources and Indian removal. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov</ref>

Talk:List of American colleges

2008-06-06T00:14:18Z

IlTrovatore:

shouldnt each of these have their own articles?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:My suggestion is that additional information on each is added to this page, until or unless that would be a disproportionate amount of information (e.g. more than a paragraph or so), at which point a separate article is created for that college with only a summary left here along with a link to the larger article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Once again, wouldn't a category be a better choice for such lists? This way it is dynamicaly updated without having to go through and edit a page (that could some day be locked for whatever reason). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps. There can be value, though, in having lists with some basic summary information about each thing on the list, and a category list won't give you that. And there's no reason you can't have both. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The difficulty comes when the page has 100+ sections. The TOC (if it is displayed) would be a good length and then each section goes on for a paragraph or two... it gets unweidly if any substantial amount of information is to be added to the site. It is better to design for the scale that you hope the site would reach rather than having to spend significant sysop time going back and then making List of American colleges - Wisconsin, and List of American colleges - Minnesota, and List of American colleges - Illinois. Does the number of 20 colleges per state sound unreasonable to have at some point? Thats 1000 sections on the page. And if you break it up, it makes it difficult to find unless you know what state the college is in before hand. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::: That's a good point. Regardless, all I was doing was making a suggestion; I don't really care what happens. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't this article be renamed "List of American Conservative Christian Colleges"? After all, that is what it focuses on. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way, that was a serious question. I wasn't trying to be "trollish." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:List of American colleges

2008-06-05T23:59:53Z

IlTrovatore:

Bob Jones University

2008-06-05T19:44:21Z

IlTrovatore:

{{University
|name=Bob Jones University
|image=
|text=rgb(211,222,250)
|background=rgb(55,113,153)
|type=Private
|city= Greenville, South Carolina
|sports=
|colors=dark blue, light blue, whtie
|mascot=
|website=http://www.bju.edu/
}}
'''Bob Jones University''' is a [[conservative]], [[Christian]] liberal arts college in Greenville, [[South Carolina]].

Its Mission Statement is: Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts education, Bob Jones University exists to grow Christlike character that is Scripturally disciplined; others-serving; God-loving; Christ-proclaiming; and focused Above.

The Rev. Dr. [[Ian Paisley]], MP, leader of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]] and First Minister of the [[Northern Ireland]] Executive, holds an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University. [[Billy Graham]] also attended Bob Jones University, although he ended up graduating from Wheaton College in Illinois.

==Controversies==
Bob Jones University did not admit Black students until 1971[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1nwaBlns-5QC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=bob+jones+university+1975&source=web&ots=ieAi-x14wF&sig=zoLXjo5GaHzjyg-pex0IZQmOpmk&hl=en#PPA287,M1], in 1975 it fully accepted black students. In 2000 they lifted their five decade ban on inter-racial dating[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/].

==Accreditation==

Bob Jones, Sr., the founder of BJU, was fearful of obtaining academic accreditation for the school. Over the years, as pressure mounted on the institution to give its students the benefits of accredited degrees, the university moved towards membership in the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. Accreditation was not obtained until 2005.<ref>http://www.bju.edu/accreditation.html</ref>

== External Links ==

*[http://www.bju.edu Official Website]
*[http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/rhall.html Residence Hall Life]
*[http://www.bju.edu/accreditation.html Accreditation Press Release]

{{Nb_US_universities}}

Bob Jones University

2008-06-05T19:43:30Z

IlTrovatore:

Microbe

2008-05-31T23:03:05Z

IlTrovatore: New page: In biology, a microbe (or microorganism) is an organism that is too small to be seen with the naked human eye. Microbes were discovered in 1675 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek and sparked interes...

In biology, a microbe (or microorganism) is an organism that is too small to be seen with the naked human eye. Microbes were discovered in 1675 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek and sparked interest in the field that would come to be known as microbiology.<ref>www.microbes.info</ref>

Liberal values

2008-05-31T22:59:42Z

IlTrovatore: New page: In political science, liberalism refers to the belief that significant changes in the status quo are a desirable course of action. Liberal values are therefore those that reexamine social ...

In political science, liberalism refers to the belief that significant changes in the status quo are a desirable course of action. Liberal values are therefore those that reexamine social or political conventions and their implications. The term applies differently to different cultures or time periods based on the status quo.<ref>plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism</ref> For example, a liberal value in contemporary America might be ensuring a fair distribution of wealth, but in the time of Christ could be proposing that people ought to worship differently from the style of the Romans.

Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?

2008-05-31T22:52:18Z

IlTrovatore:

What makes one supernatural explanation of something more valid than another? I feel this is a central problem of religion- we tend to accept the beliefs that are prevalent in our own culture despite there being numerous non-natural explanations for the same things. {{unsigned|Paddyduffy}}
: You're missing a question: How do we first decide whether to go for a natural or supernatural explanation?
: Answer to both questions: See which explanation is more consistent with the evidence. The implicit assumption that this cannot be done with a supernatural explanation is false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Ok, let's assume that we are choosing between two supernatural explanations, having decided to go that path. Are you saying that evidence can be used to prove a supernatural explanation, and therefore, to disprove others?
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]

One day, we will realize that these are really the same things. Imagine that science eventually becomes so advanced that we are able to conclusively show that an event has no natural cause, and that supernatural intervention must have occurred. If we assume that supernatural intervention comes from a sentient God, then this would be tantamount to proof of the existence of God, which would in turn invalidate the need for faith. Conclusion? Either God exists as an entity separate from nature, in which case His existence is provable, or God is part of nature in a way in which we do not yet comprehend. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 15:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer my question. I have two possible supernatural explanations presented to me, and I think what Mr. Rayment is saying is that evidence can be used to show one is more favourable than the other. What I'm really getting at is how are supernatural explanations weighted? Is it equally valid to say something like 'Walking under ladders is bad luck' and 'God created the earth in seven days', and if not, why? If it is equally valid to say both, are all things equally true? : [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]

The principle of Occam's Razor advises us to accept the simplest explanation of an event as true. The definition of "simplest," however, must be determined on a case-to-case basis based on the circumstances involved. For example, someone could claim that creationism explains the origins of the Earth better than the Big Bang theory, as it involves an intelligent God creating all living beings and eliminates the need to explain how these life forms could have emerged otherwise. Obviously, on this site, that is the viewpoint that will be accepted with open arms. But is it really simpler? Because we do not know for sure what happened, creationists can claim that the scientific evidence is being interpreted incorrectly, or that scientists are making leaps of faith when they assume that carbon dating is a reliable method. But Occam's Razor cautions that assuming that carbon dating is unreliable because the rate of radioactive decay may have changed over time is unwise; it is a rejection of evidence without any sound reason. I don't wish for this to become a debate over the merits of YEC arguments, but I was simply using that as an example.

All things are not equally true, but I also maintain that people often create false dichotomies. They assume that supernaturalism and naturalism are mutually exclusive, when it is highly possible that they are actually the same thing. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ok, but what makes one religion true and another false? They sure can't all be true, and in terms of evidence, it's pretty much all anecdotal. Why are you (let's say) a Christian and not a Scientologist? [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]

People have a natural impulse to "fill in the gaps," and various religious systems do this in different ways. People simply choose to believe one over another because they are drawn to it for their own individual reason. You're right in saying that we really don't know. It becomes scary when people become so utterly convinced that they have a monopoly on the truth that they shut out all discussion on the nature of belief. That seems to happen a lot on this site. It gives me the worst feeling when I see somebody put something in their profile like "I am a Christian. All other religious systems are false." This is about faith, people, and the whole point of faith is that you don't really know. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:02, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"''Are you saying that evidence can be used to prove a supernatural explanation, and therefore, to disprove others?''": I guess that it depends on the particular explanation. But Christianity, for example, makes specific claims about real events. That God created the world "very good", but that we rejected God and things got worse, and that there was a global flood, among others. If a supernatural explanation says ''nothing'' about things in the real world, well.... well it's hardly an "explanation", is it? So we can look to see if the evidence fits the explanation. For example, a global flood is going to (a) leave a lot of disturbance of the Earth's surface, including lots of sediments, and (b) kill and bury a lot of creatures. So we look at the evidence, and find that something like 70% of the Earth's land surface is ''sedimentary'' rock, and a lot of that contains lots of buried creatures (fossils). So, at first glance, the evidence fits the explanation. Of course there is a lot more to it than that, but the point is that a ''supernatural'' explanation of the ''natural'' world is probably going to say things about the natural world that can be checked out. If it just said "God created everything" and left it at that, then there isn't really anything to check, but the Bible says much more than that.

"''...which would in turn invalidate the need for faith.''": Not at all. See further discussion below.

"''But Occam's Razor cautions that assuming that carbon dating is unreliable because the rate of radioactive decay may have changed over time is unwise; it is a rejection of evidence without any sound reason.''": That assumes that there ''is no'' sound reason.

"''They assume that supernaturalism and naturalism are mutually exclusive, when it is highly possible that they are actually the same thing''": This is like saying that black and white are the same thing. Supernatural, ''by definition'', is that which is beyond the natural.

"''...in terms of evidence, it's pretty much all anecdotal.''": It is? So what about all the historical and scientific evidence?

"''It becomes scary when people become so utterly convinced that they have a monopoly on the truth that they shut out all discussion on the nature of belief. That seems to happen a lot on this site.''": What is scary is the evolutionists who are "so utterly convinced that they have a monopoly on the truth that they shut out all discussion" on the issue. That [[suppression of alternatives to evolution|happens a lot in society]], including the media and the education system.

"''This is about faith, people, and the whole point of faith is that you don't really know.''": It is? References please. That is how atheists describe "faith", but that is not the biblical view of faith, which is "trust based on evidence"[http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]. That is, we believe the Bible to be true and that God exists because of ''evidence'' (not necessarily scientific "proof"). We don't have evidence of ''every'' claim, but we have evidence of plenty, and therefore have ''faith'' that the rest is true. And "the rest" might refer to future events. So when you have a friend tell you that he will call around tomorrow, there is no way to prove that he is stating the truth (it hasn't happened yet, so there is no possible way of obtaining evidence). But you do have ''evidence'' that he's always kept his word in the past, so you therefore have ''faith'' that he will this time also.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The education system teaches the theory of evolution as precisely that: a theory. While YEC's might like to claim that their views are being discriminated against in science classes, this is not the case. Yes, it is true that nobody really knows how the Earth was created, and therefore, all viewpoints on the matter ought to be heard out. But creationism, even when cloaked with the phrase "creation science," does not follow the scientific method. As much as YEC's would also like to further claim that evolutionists "fit the facts" to their assumptions, the theory of evolution was developed by analyzing the evidence and then coming to a possible conclusion. Creationism was held as a belief before people knew anything about modern science, and therefore is unscientific (although not necessarily untrue) in that it will perpetually claim that science only appears to indicate otherwise. Why would God deceive humanity by laying a false record of natural history?

As for naturalism and supernaturalism being the same, it is a matter of perspective. Before humans knew what caused the Aurora Borealis, they assumed it was some sort of supernatural phenomenon caused by spirits or gods. Eventually, however, it turned out that there was a natural explanation. As science advances, we find that more and more can be explained in this manner. If we were eventually able to prove that there are things that are unprovable, this would be tantamount to a proof of the existence of the supernatural. This proof would mean that God could be taken to exist on the basis of reason, not faith. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 15:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:"''The education system teaches the theory of evolution as precisely that: a theory.''": Meaning ''what''? In science, a "theory" is an explanation of something. It does not mean that it is in any way tentative (except insofar as every scientific idea is). So yes, they teach it as a ''scientific theory'', but they also teach it as ''fact'', partly by saying that it's true, and partly by not mentioning any alternative.
:"''While YEC's might like to claim that their views are being discriminated against in science classes, this is not the case.''": And yet you admit—and attempt to justify—that only one view (and not the creationary one) is being taught!
:"''But creationism, even when cloaked with the phrase "creation science," does not follow the scientific method.''": A substance-free assertion, that, and wrong.
:"''...the theory of evolution was developed by analyzing the evidence and then coming to a possible conclusion''": According to evolutionists Gould and Ruse, it was done with the ''intention'' of removing God as an explanation.
:"''Creationism was held as a belief before people knew anything about modern science, and therefore is unscientific...''": That's' a non-sequitur. That it was held as a belief first does not mean that it can't be investigated in a scientific manner.
:"''...it will perpetually claim that science only appears to indicate otherwise''": Given that it ''doesn't'' claim that, that assertion is wrong.
:"''Why would God deceive humanity by laying a false record of natural history?''": That's a loaded question, because it (falsely) presumes that the record of natural history shows an evolutionary view.
: The fact (assuming it's true; I hadn't heard that one before) that some people incorrectly attributed an event to a supernatural cause does not mean that the natural and the supernatural are the same thing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The example of the Aurora Borealis was intended to show that we ascribe supernatural descriptions to things without knowing for sure that there is no natural explanation. Granted, something cannot be simultaneously both natural and supernatural, but what I meant to argue was that, while we might believe at one time that something is supernatural because nothing natural could cause such a phenomenon, we might later find that there really is no logical gap, and that the explanation is natural after all.

"Creationism was held as a belief before people knew anything about modern science, and therefore is unscientific..." That is pure quote-mining. You analyzed this statement without the qualifying clause that followed.

I will reiterate that the THEORY of evolution is not taught as truth, but as a theory. I was never told in a classroom that evolution is the truth, only that it is the most widely-accepted theory to explain the origin of species. As for the personal beliefs of evolutionists, these may vary. Evolution does not necessarily negate God; such alternative views include theistic evolution. The existence of the “alternative” to which you refer is not taught because it is not testable. You may argue the same of evolution, but if this is the case, why practice science at all?

"But creationism, even when cloaked with the phrase "creation science," does not follow the scientific method." Why is this a substance-free assertion?

“And yet you admit—and attempt to justify—that only one view (and not the creationary one) is being taught!” This does not amount to discrimination against creationists. Creationism is taught as a possible explanation in classes that deal with religion, but not in science classes.

"...it will perpetually claim that science only appears to indicate otherwise" Do you therefore argue that creationism is falsifiable? If so, what criteria would you see as necessary for this to occur?

“That's a loaded question, because it (falsely) presumes that the record of natural history shows an evolutionary view.” No, it presumes that the record of natural history indicates an Earth that is much older than 6,000 years. To claim otherwise requires a denial of fundamental scientific epistemology. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I did not intend for this to turn into a debate about Creationism, I merely wanted to highlight what I see as tenuousness in the criteria of deciding between supernatural explanations of events, or if I may make an extension of this idea, religions themselves. Upon what grounds may a Christian say that Islam is false, yet Christianity is true? Or that a cult such as Scientology is explicitly false?
[[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]

There are no grounds to make such claims. These are matters of personal belief, not objective knowledge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:45, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd imagine the vast majority of users of this site would disagree with you there. A follower of a religion believes what he does because he thinks it true. I assert that he does this based on false premises.
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]

I understand that most of the people on this site would disagree with me, but I understand the difference between faith and empirical knowledge. Faith does not provide "truth" in the way that most of the users here would claim it does, but that does not render it invalid or wrong. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:52, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?

2008-05-29T20:45:39Z

IlTrovatore:

Talk:Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-05-28T00:29:57Z

IlTrovatore:

I'm sorry to see that my criticism of the notion that fully accepting creationism is the logical end of a conflict between creationism and evolution was removed as a "trollish comment." My apologies for attempting to participate in this dialogue. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:55, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
: Your reference to the "last step" was a reference to my use of the term, in which I was clearly referring to ''rejecting'' evolution. So you were not simply disagreeing, but twisting my use of the term 180 degrees. The "last step" was the last in a series of steps from A to B, but you turned the "last step" into an about face. Further, in doing so, you were begging the question by presuming that not always taking the Bible literally was the correct thing to do, and at the same time misrepresenting the problem as one of taking the Bible literally, which is not what creationists do.
: Despite all that, it was a borderline case as to whether or not I deleted the post. Please feel free to restate your point in a different manner.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"...and at the same time misrepresenting the problem as one of taking the Bible literally, which is not what creationists do." Can you clarify that?

Also, why was "borderline" dismissed as "trollish"? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Euphemism

2008-05-27T23:39:57Z

IlTrovatore:

A '''euphemism''' is the use of one word to replace another to respect the sensibilities of the listener. Example euphemisms for [[death]] include '''kick the bucket''' and '''pass over'''. "Creation science" is a euphemism for "creationism" used when addressing certain audiences.

[[category:linguistics]]