Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

United States presidential election, 2012

2010-06-14T16:39:32Z

Johnfranklin: Added source to article for A Republican candidate is expected to be elected

The '''2012 United States Presidential Election''' when America is scheduled to pick a new president will take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. It will occur at the same time as elections to all seats in the [[House of Representatives]] and to one-third of seats in the [[Senate]]. Incumbent Democratic president [[Barack Obama]] is presumed to be seeking re-election in this election, although [[liberal]] President Lyndon Johnson did voluntarily decline to run for reelection after his poor showing the New Hampshire primary in 1968. A Republican candidate is expected to be elected.<ref>http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/16/rel4a.pdf Page 5 Question 6. Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or not? </ref>

As yet, no Republicans or Democratic challengers have declared their candidacy. The current GOP front-runners, however, are former governors [[Sarah Palin]], [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Mike Huckabee]], Governors [[Bobby Jindal]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]], and former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]]. With Obama's declining popularity among independents, liberals, and moderates, [[Hillary Clinton]]'s public approval ratings have gained.<ref>Peter Roff, [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html A Hillary Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?], ''USNews and World Report'', January 27, 2010. </ref>

Beginning in January 2011, candidates will signal publicly their intentions to run. Mitt Romney, for example, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 3, 2007, in order to seek election as president in 2008. His early commitment is credited for his ability to far out-raise the other candidates, and to earn endorsements from conservatives such as [[Rick Santorum]] and [[Marsha Blackburn]]. Of course, intentions to run are communicated privately much earlier than the public filings, so many will be lining up support and potential endorsements throughout 2010 for the 2012 presidential election.

The key early primaries are Iowa (caucuses), New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina.

== Four Segments of the Republican Party ==

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-business, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block either other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Republican Candidates for 2012 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, prodigious fundraiser
|Once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]]; his costly [[health care]] plan included mandatory insurance and became the model for ObamaCare; won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008
|Occasionally on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising<ref name="April 2010 Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref>
|Takes not-so-conservative positions today, such as promoting a [[Con Con]]
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A rising young star in Florida, a key swing state; an electrifying speaker
|Will face liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]
|On Fox in connection with Senate bid
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]
|needs to win the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat first
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Jim Demint]]
|strong support by social conservatives, libertarians<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref>, Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|a Southern conservative who will need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, [[pro-life]], popular
|Doubts whether she is a [[movement conservative]]; resigned early as governor; could be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity<ref name="April 2010 Fundraising"/>
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who is popular in a Democratic region and with the [[Tea Party movement]]
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/>
|On Fox as she's in the news
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office
|Effective critic of Obama
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|More conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and popular in pivotal [[Florida]]; criticized Palin as a rival candidate might<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref>
|Could be tagged with negatives via George, and may not attract Tea Party support; why not wait and defeat Hillary in 2016 or 2020?
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama
|Lacks essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible
|Supported bigger government, released man who then killed officers
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in blue states
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Rust Belt Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration
|Unknown nationally
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|}

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Kennedy and Reid can't stop her now, and she would be 71 if she waited until 2016; highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref>
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose as [[Martha Coakley]] did
|Disfavored on MSNBC
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|He's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives biased support from the media
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-13T15:43:05Z

Johnfranklin: /* Engineering */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]
:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-11T17:55:21Z

Johnfranklin: /* Eyesight */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-11T15:41:12Z

Johnfranklin: /* Eyesight */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-11T03:08:13Z

Johnfranklin: /* Eyesight */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-11T02:39:07Z

Johnfranklin: /* Eyesight */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-10T23:42:04Z

Johnfranklin:

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-23T02:19:38Z

Johnfranklin:

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-23T02:17:47Z

Johnfranklin:

Worst College Majors

2010-05-23T02:08:10Z

Johnfranklin: better sourced woman studies with two articles. one related to gender studies itself and the other related to the vagueness of a career in woman studies itself.

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies<ref>http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000225.html</ref><ref>http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-is-gender-studies-dominated-by-one-gender-1.289830</ref>
# Film
# General Religious studies program at a [[liberal]] college<ref>Religious majors at liberal colleges are often [[atheistic]] or anti-[[Christian]] in curriculum. Ministers, however, have a low 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]] for example[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal],</ref>
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy
# Dance
# Interior Decorating
# Art History
# Comic Book Art
# Parapsychology
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# Gambling -- euphemistically called "Gaming"

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
#[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180]</ref>

== Sources ==

* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Worst College Majors

2010-05-23T01:48:42Z

Johnfranklin: Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek but it does have a course called Philosophy and Star Trek moved to course section.

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref>
# Film
# General Religious studies program at a [[liberal]] college<ref>Religious majors at liberal colleges are often [[atheistic]] or anti-[[Christian]] in curriculum. Ministers, however, have a low 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]] for example[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal],</ref>
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy
# Dance
# Interior Decorating
# Art History
# Comic Book Art
# Parapsychology
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# Gambling -- euphemistically called "Gaming"

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
#[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180]</ref>

== Sources ==

* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-22T16:05:03Z

Johnfranklin:

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-22T15:34:51Z

Johnfranklin:

Worst College Majors

2010-05-22T15:06:01Z

Johnfranklin:

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref>
# Film
# General Religious studies program at a [[liberal]] college (often [[atheistic]] or anti-[[Christian]] in curriculum; more practical pastoral educational program is better as pastors currently have a 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]] for example[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal])
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy
# Dance
# Interior Decorating
# Art History
# Comic Book Art
# Parapsychology
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# Gambling -- euphemistically called "Gaming"

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
#[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180</ref>

== Sources ==

* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Worst College Majors

2010-05-22T15:01:50Z

Johnfranklin:

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref>
# Film
# General Religious studies program at a [[liberal]] college (often [[atheistic]] or anti-[[Christian]] in curriculum; more practical pastoral educational program is better as pastors currently have a 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]] for example[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal])
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy
# Dance
# Interior Decorating
# Art History
# Comic Book Art
# Parapsychology
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# Gambling -- euphemistically called "Gaming"

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
#[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180

== Sources ==

* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-22T01:31:44Z

Johnfranklin:

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-21T19:15:48Z

Johnfranklin:

Worst College Majors

2010-05-21T03:59:26Z

Johnfranklin: removing women studies since it is mentioned in the talk page and not being well sourced, also referenced articles do not seem to make a mention of atheism and instead just mention religion as a whole

Worst College Majors

2010-05-21T03:55:19Z