Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Eminem

2011-05-26T17:24:44Z

KeithLowe: /* Personal Life */

'''Eminem''' is the stage name of popular rapper '''Marshall Bruce Mathers III'''. Born October 17, 1972 (age {{age|1972|10|17}}), Mathers grew up in Warren, [[Michigan]]. He is an award-winning [[musician]] with eleven [[Grammy Award]]s in addition to a singular [[Academy Award]].

He is known for his [[rap]] music, and specifically its frequent use of [[profanity]], drug references, and sexual content. His lyrics are criticized by [[conservatives]], [[liberals]], and [[feminists]] as violent, [[homophobia|homophobic]], and [[misogyny|misogynistic]].

==Personal Life==
Mathers' personal life is well known because of his public persona and a frequent topic in his music, most notably his relationship with Kimberly Anne Scott. The couple met while both were in high school, and began a troubled relationship in 1989. The two married 1999, but divorced in 2001<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/eminem.htm About.com marriage profile]</ref>. As Eminem, Mathers recorded several violent songs, including ''Kim'', and'' '97 Bonnie & Clyde'', both songs deal with murdering Kim in violent fashion<ref>Mathers' has stated that his music was a form of artistic release and was not to be taken literally</ref>. The two reconciled and remarried in 2006, but filed for divorce again less than three months later.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6195977.stm BBC News, Eminem divorces for second time]</ref> Mathers also has shared custody of his biological daughter, Hailie Jade Scott and of his niece, Alaina, daughter of Kim Scott's twin sister, whom he adopted. Mathers has also spoken about his addictions to multiple drugs. He is clean and sober today.

==Albums==
* 1999: The Slim Shady LP
* 2000: The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2002: The Eminem Show
* 2002: 8 Mile Soundtrack
* 2004: Encore
* 2005: Curtain Call: The Hits
* 2006: Eminem Presents the Re-Up
* 2009: Relapse
* 2010: Recovery

==Films==
* 2000: Da Hip Hop Witch (Cameo-Performance)
* 2001: The Wash (Chris)
* 2002: [[8 Mile]] (Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith)
* 2008: Have Gun — Will Travel (Paladin)

==Awards==
===Academy Awards===
* 2003 - Best Original song, "Lose Yourself" from [[8 Mile]]

===Golden Globe Nomination===
* 2003 - Best Original Song in a Motion Picture, "Lose Yourself" from [[8 Mile]]

===Grammy Awards===
* 2000 - Best rap solo performance for "My Name Is" from The Slim Shady LP
* 2000 - Best rap album for The Slim Shady LP
* 2001 - Best rap solo performance for "The Real Slim Shady" from The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2001 - Best rap performance by a duo or group (with [[Dr. Dre]]) for "Forgot About Dre" from Dr Dre 2001
* 2001 - Best rap album for The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2003 - Best short form music video, for "Without Me" from The Eminem Show
* 2003 - Best rap album for The Eminem Show
* 2004 - Best male rap solo performance for "Lose Yourself" from the 8 Mile O.S.T.
* 2004 - Best rap song for "Lose Yourself" from the 8 Mile O.S.T.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Rappers]]
[[Category:Actors]]

University of Pennsylvania

2011-05-26T17:23:11Z

KeithLowe:

{{University
|name= University of Pennsylvania
|image=
|text= #990000
|background=#011F5B
|type=Private
|city=[[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]]
|sports=baseball, basketball, fencing, football, football - sprint, golf, lacrosse, rowing (heavy), rowing (light), soccer, squash, swimming, tennis, track, wrestling, Penn Relays, field hockey, softball, volleyball<ref>http://www.pennathletics.com/</ref>
|colors=Red and Blue
|mascot=Quakers
|website=http://www.upenn.edu/
}}
Founded by [[Benjamin Franklin]] in 1751, the '''University of Pennsylvania''' is located in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]]. It one of only two colleges in the [[Ivy League]] that was not founded for the express purpose of training ministers.

It has strong graduate programs in business and medicine, and a tradition of emphasizing practical knowledge. Its motto is "Leges Sine Moribus Vanae," which means "Laws Without Morals are Useless." Its business school, the Wharton School, is widely recognized as one of the best in the country.

== See also ==

*[[Ernesto Cordero]]

==References==

<References/>

{{Nb_US_universities|Pennsylvania‎}}

Barbara Bush

2011-05-26T17:19:09Z

KeithLowe:

[[Image:Barbara Bush.jpg|left]]
'''Barbara Bush''' (born June 8, 1925) is the wife of President [[George H. W. Bush]]. Born Barbara Pierce, she grew up in Rye, [[New York]]. She became engaged in 1943 and married in January 1945.<ref>Bush 1999, 16, 37, 57.</ref> She is mother to current President [[George W. Bush]], former [[Florida]] [[Governor]] [[Jeb Bush]], Neil Bush, Marvin Bush, Dorothy Bush, and Pauline Bush, who died at the age of four from [[leukemia]]. George W. Bush's daughter Barbara Pierce Bush is named for her grandmother.

<blockquote>
''Rarely has a First Lady been greeted by the American people and the press with the approbation and warmth accorded to Barbara Pierce Bush. Perhaps this is prompted by the image she calls "everybody's grandmother." People are comfortable with her white hair, her warm, relaxed manner, and her keen wit. With characteristic directness, she says people like her because they know "I'm fair and I like children and I adore my husband."'' <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/bb41.html Barbara Pierce Bush biography] The White House</ref>
</blockquote>

Barbara Bush lives with her husband in [[Houston]], [[Texas]].

==Notes==
<references/>

==References==
*Bush, George. ''All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings.'' New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, Barbara}}
[[category:First Ladies]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-26T17:09:08Z

KeithLowe: /* The rankings */ new section

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== The rankings ==

Simple question...how can candidates who are not currently running or have issued Sherman statements (Ex.: Jeb Bush) be ranked above candidates who actually '''are''' running? [[User:KeithLowe|KeithLowe]] 13:09, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-26T17:06:56Z

KeithLowe: /* The Simpsons? */

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't find any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I think it definitely has conservative elements. The Simpson family sticks together through thick and thin and always supports each other in the end. I point to an episode where son Bart is caught shoplifting; mother Marge is understandably distraught at his behavior, but by the end of the episode Bart learns his lesson and Marge forgives him. Conservative values. [[User:KeithLowe|KeithLowe]] 13:06, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== Family Ties ==

Not sure it's conservative...the main character, Alex Keaton, played by Michael J. Fox, was born in Africa during a Peace Corps engagement and it's never made clear that he is a naturalized citizen. Also, as a desperate ratings ploy, the 4th episode of the show revolved around Alex Keaton engaging in pre-marital sex and suffering no negative consequences. The middle daughter, Mallory, is shown to be extremely materialistic but it is not portrayed very negatively. The parents, despite what the description says, are successful and live in a nice-sized house despite their liberal tendencies. I think this show should be put in the "maybe" category. [[User:KeithLowe|KeithLowe]] 12:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-26T16:58:34Z

KeithLowe: /* Family Ties */

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== Family Ties ==

Not sure it's conservative...the main character, Alex Keaton, played by Michael J. Fox, was born in Africa during a Peace Corps engagement and it's never made clear that he is a naturalized citizen. Also, as a desperate ratings ploy, the 4th episode of the show revolved around Alex Keaton engaging in pre-marital sex and suffering no negative consequences. The middle daughter, Mallory, is shown to be extremely materialistic but it is not portrayed very negatively. The parents, despite what the description says, are successful and live in a nice-sized house despite their liberal tendencies. I think this show should be put in the "maybe" category. [[User:KeithLowe|KeithLowe]] 12:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-26T16:58:14Z

KeithLowe: /* Family Ties */ new section

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== Family Ties ==

Not sure it's conservative...the main character, Alex Keaton, played by Michael J. Fox, was born in Africa and it's never made clear that he is a naturalized citizen. Also, as a desperate ratings ploy, the 4th episode of the show revolved around Alex Keaton engaging in pre-marital sex and suffering no negative consequences. The middle daughter, Mallory, is shown to be extremely materialistic but it is not portrayed very negatively. The parents, despite what the description says, are successful and live in a nice-sized house despite their liberal tendencies. I think this show should be put in the "maybe" category. [[User:KeithLowe|KeithLowe]] 12:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT)