Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T20:32:43Z

MichaelR: better wording?

'''Emotional gambling''' is investing one's emotions in the uncertain outcome of an insignificant event, such as a sports contest. It is similar to [[gambling]] except no money is at stake.

Strong ''emotional gambling'' by sports fans may lead to rioting and acts of vandalism, when the results of games or sports events are not what they hoped for.

Talk:George Obama

2008-09-03T20:19:08Z

MichaelR: /* Merge */

Funny how the African Obama has the name George and the American Obama has the name Barack. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:05, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

As a side note, Barack cares soo much for American families but does nothing to help his own family. Could not Barack spare $365 a year from his million dollar earnings to quadruple George's pay? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:11, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Is the GOP reading my posts? [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/25/texas-gop-hits-obama-for-story-on-lost-half-brother/ Texas GOP Hits Obama for Story on ‘Lost’ Half-Brother] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

That Times of UK article was so biased. George pictured with a clean shirt in bright surroundings. So maybe not $1 a month. Maybe he makes $1 per week. Could not Barack afford to double George's earnings? He is a millionaire that cares. Liberals around the globe Unite for Obama!-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:26, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, and multimillionaire John (how many homes do I have again?) McCain can't pass on anything more to the crippled ex-wife he dumped for a rich 25-year-old than the $100K given decades ago. She had to be helped out by Ed Meese, and by Ron & Nancy Reagan, who despised him for how he treated her. We can either focus on the issues in this election, or the personal lives of the candidates and what the latter reveals about their character. I'm fine with the latter, but it has to be even-handed. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:22, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:::"“Many people don’t know about my connection,” he continued, dipping a greasy hunk of goat in salt before popping it into his mouth." If he has an internet connection, he could download some grease-free goat recipes at "some web site" - and add his own favorites. Anyone who enjoys "a simple lunch of barbecued goat and fistfuls of thick maize porridge" is fine in my book!

== Merge ==

Lets create a section called "family" or something in the Obama article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:56, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Doesn't this fall under the category of gossip? Sort of like Bristol Palin or Mary Cheney? He's not running for office or anything. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]]
::You're right. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::So what's the deletion policy here? [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:19, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:George Obama

2008-09-03T20:13:19Z

MichaelR:

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-03T20:08:08Z

MichaelR: /* Education In Jakarta, Indonesia */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the <span> tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|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 Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T16:37:37Z

MichaelR: /* "meaningless" */

== Riots ==

I don't know the original poster's intentions, but I tend to agree with him. Supporters of sports teams often cause riots or vandalize cities. This is particularly true when the emotional stakes are very high. "Losing the gamble", that is, the supported team losing an important game, often leads to frustration, desperation, need for revenge by the supporters, and often wrong actions like rioting. If this is not the result of ''emotional gambling'', what is? --[[User:EPauper|EPauper]] 11:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

: Good point in that context. Perhaps you could explain it that way on the content page? I wouldn't include riots that result from a genuine sense of injustice, however, such race riots after the verdict in the beating of Rodney King.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I do distinctly remember reading about a riot that occured in New York City after the Yankees lost to the Red Sox, should I go find it and add a link? [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 11:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Riots, or at least vandalism, are actually common for ''winning'' teams fans as they go on celebratory sprees. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 11:25, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::::That is too related to ''emotional gambling''. "Winning the gamble" leads to an unjustified and dangerous euphory, that often leads to those over-the-top celebrations. Unfortunately, outside of the U.S. it is often frustration for a lost game that leads to acts of violence or hooliganism, both in Eastern or Southern Europe and South America. --[[User:EPauper|EPauper]] 11:38, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the sports analogy is superb, as the outcome is meaningless, thereby highlighting the role played by the [[emotional gambling]]. I'm less keen about the political example, because there the outcome is meaningful and some of the concern or reactions may have nothing to do with "gambling".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==liberal vs conservative==
I don't want to edit war on this but I'm not buying this statement:
:While conservatives tend to only become emotionally invested in their causes and candidates, liberals tend to emotionally gamble. For instance, liberals emotionally gamble on the success or failure of Barack Obama.

:Evidence of this emotional gambling is seen in the "win at all costs" attitude of the RNC protesters who attacked, among others, a bus full of cub scouts.

First of all, since the definition of Emotional gambling according to this article is investing one's emotions in an uncertain outcome, by stating that conservatives are emotionally invested in McCain and his causes, they are by definition emotionally gambling, the same way as liberals are. They're doing exactly the same thing. I guess the reference to the protesters is supposed to show that liberals are ''more'' emotionally invested, but that doesn't seem too convincing either. If you're arguing that liberals are more emotionally invested, you're only arguing the matter of degree, not that one side gambles and the other doesn't. Next, the "win at all costs" is hardly an accurate description, as even if they do support Obama (which is arguable, if they are ''true'' anarchists they support no candidate, if they the lunatic fringe of the left, they'll likely support a fringe candidate) their actions are clearly doing nothing to help him win. Finally, a few dozen radicals cannot be said to represent the millions of Obama supporters in the country. If they are, what about the guys who allegedly planned to kill Obama in Denver? ''That'' is certainly "win at all costs". Oh, also, was the cub scout story ever confirmed? All I saw was the report of one person on a blog. I'm certainly not saying it didn't happen, but has anyone else conformed it? There should have been hundred of witnesses. People can and do make things up at times, as we've all seen. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 12:14, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== "meaningless" ==

I think the real point should be that the level of gambling corresponds to the level of meaninglessness. The outcome does not have to be completely meaningless for there to be [[emotional gambling]]. Rather, the [[emotional gambling]] exaggerates the amount of meaning in the outcome, which may be zero (a sporting event) or not enough to justify the emotion (some political outcomes).

How to express that in a definition is a challenge!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:That seems to make sense, and I agree it is not simple to express. In any case a Presidential election, which can change the course of history, seems far to consequential to be an example of emotional gambling by that definition. Should that be removed from the article? [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 12:37, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T16:17:41Z

MichaelR: change def slightly. this seems to be what Andy Schlafly is implying on the talk page. revert if I'm wrong.

'''Emotional gambling''' is investing one's emotions in the uncertain outcome of an overall meaningless event, such as a sports contest. It is similar to [[gambling]] except no money is at stake.

Strong ''emotional gambling'' by sports fans may lead to rioting and acts of vandalism, when the results of games or sports events are not what they hoped for.

While [[conservative]]s tend to only become emotionally invested in their causes and candidates, [[liberal]]s tend to emotionally gamble. For instance, liberals emotionally gamble on the success or failure of [[Barack Obama]].

Evidence of this emotional gambling is seen in the "win at all costs" attitude of the RNC protesters who attacked, among others, a bus full of cub scouts.

Talk:Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T16:14:32Z

MichaelR: /* Riots */

Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T15:44:47Z

MichaelR: undo. youre going to need to explain the difference better than that. both sides invest emotions in the outcome. either side will be happy if they win, sad/angry/disappointed if they lose. same thing.

'''Emotional gambling''' is investing one's emotions in the uncertain outcome of an event, such as a sports contest. It is similar to [[gambling]] except no money is at stake.

Strong ''emotional gambling'' by sports fans may lead to rioting and acts of vandalism, when the results of games or sports events are not what they hoped for.

Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T15:34:54Z

MichaelR: undo edit. how is emotional investment for one group any different than for the other in an uncertain outcome like this?

Talk:Emotional gambling

2008-09-03T15:25:11Z

MichaelR: /* Riots */

Species

2008-09-02T19:51:07Z

MichaelR: /* See also */

A '''species''' is a group of living beings or organisms having sufficient genetic similarity to be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.<ref>A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. [http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/species.html Holgrem Lab], Northwestern University, Illinois </ref>

For example, a [[tiger]] and a [[clam]] are different species, because they cannot mate. A [[German Shepherd]] and a [[Beagle]] can mate, because they are different breeds within one species.

However, the definition of "species" has changed over time and is sometimes problematic.
For example, there are cases where two species are not capable of interbreeding, but each is capable of interbreeding with a third species.<ref name="spark">[http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section1.html Speciation] (SparkNotes)</ref>
Additionally, a "species" is sometimes defined in such a way that groups of creatures that do not ''naturally'' interbreed (perhaps because of geological isolation) are classified as separate species despite the fact that they ''can'' interbreed.<ref name="spark"/>
Furthermore, many extinct species known only from fossils have been given species names, despite the impossibility of determining their capability of interbreeding.

==The origin of species==

[[Linnaeus]] originally intended "species" to refer to the biblical creation "[[baramin|kinds]]", but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds.
Nevertheless, many Christians and many evolutionists believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible.
However, creationary scientists accept that speciation has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists.

In 2008, a team of researchers lead by Richard Lenski captured the most dramatic example of species adaptation in a Laboratory setting. After over 33,000 generations a strain of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate. This event was particularly significant as the inability to metabolize citrate was one of the defining characteristics of E. Coli.<ref>https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html</ref>

[[Charles Darwin]] wrote ''The Origin of Species'' {{years ago | 1859}} years ago, hoping to account for the diversity of plant and animal life with an entirely [[naturalistic]] explanation (see [[Theory of evolution]]).

==Ring Species==
This is a phenomenon which occurs when a contiguous lineage ancestors co-exist at the same time. Unlike most species whose direct ancestral species are now extinct, the ancestral species of a ring species still survive. The existence of ring species make it more difficult to define what a species is. For example, A can breed with B can breed with C can breed with D... however D cannot breed with A. The most prominent example of a ring species is the Larus Gull which resides in the north Atlantic. Neighboring species interbreed counter-clockwise around the arctic, however this ability to interbreed terminates near Britain with the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull.<ref>Harrison, Peter (1988): Seabirds (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm, London ISBN 0-7470-1410-8</ref>

==Note==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Biological classification]]
*[[Baraminology]]

[[category:biology]]

Species

2008-09-02T19:50:56Z

MichaelR:

Peekskill Riots

2008-09-02T18:26:00Z

MichaelR: New page: The '''Peekskill Riots''' were a series of anti-communist riots fought near the town of Peekskill, New York in 1949. They were instigated by a concert by black singer Paul Robeson ...

The '''Peekskill Riots''' were a series of anti-[[communist]] riots fought near the town of Peekskill, New York in 1949. They were instigated by a concert by black singer [[Paul Robeson]] a communist. Before the concert could get underway, those in attendance were attacked by a mob. The concert was rescheduled, and expanded to include other [[leftist]] singers such as [[Pete Seeger]]. While the rescheduled concert was without incident, the departure was not. As people departed, anti-communist agitators formed a gauntlet and assaulted the vehicles, throwing rocks and attacking cars. Many were injured, and much damage was done to vehicles. The police, who were present, did not interfere. Later, when 300 of the assaulted parties attempted to lodge complaint to the governor, Thomas Dewey, he refused to meet with them, blaming them for the violence.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Myths of American History

2008-09-02T15:56:57Z

MichaelR: /* The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later. - Clueless. */

== Triangular Trade? ==

Manufactured goods from Europe to Africa. Slaves from Africa to the Americas. Sugar, timber and cotton to Europe from the Americas. A gross oversimplifiction, perhaps, but how is this not "triangular trade?" Moreover, how would the author of this little point-form "essay" describe the Atlantic system in place of the "triangular trade" model - and what sort of "conservative insight" is being offered with this contribution? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:38, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later. - Clueless. ==

Whoever wrote this is clueless as to what historians do - and one of the things that they do is look at the past, analyze events and then come up with typologies and taxonomies and categorizations and even just plain old names and titles for those events. Even if no-one in the 17th and 18th centuries used the term "triangular trade," that doesn't mean such a thing did not exist - nobody called the Middle Ages "the Middle Ages" until much later, but we can still point to a certain time and call it so. An overwhelming amount of documentary evidence exists to justify thinking about the Atlantic system this way - after all, do you think the Africans just gave away a valuable economic resource such as slave labor? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

: You ignore the main point: no actual, specific triangular trade route has ever been found. This term was a creative suggestion by a historian over 100 years later, one that apparently captured your imagination. Africa was too poor at the time to engage in any meaningful purchase of goods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::And you ignore basic economic history. Africa was by no means poor - it was rich in the resource that drove the Atlantic system - the labor of enslaved human beings. How else would the colonies have been able to grow the cotton and sugar? And you're evading the most important part of the argument towards the existence of "triangular" trade system - the fact that something had to be traded for that slave labor - often guns, but also other types of manufactured goods. Maybe you should read "Capitalism and Slavery" by Williams, or the introduction to "The Black Jacobins" by CLR James- or if you find those too difficult, the article on the slave trade in the Encyclopedia Britannica. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:29, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::: You still ignore the main point, which I've now repeated several times, and I'm not going to waste my time further on this discussion until you address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::This is me addressing your main point: - the fact that the label was created years later is irrelevant to your argument, such as it is. Historians often create labels for things years, decades and centuries after they happen. In all likelihood, nobody called the Barbarian invasions "the Barbarian invasions" (historians now use the term "migrations," anyways...) as they were happening. And I have addressed your other "main point" - that Africa was too poor to participate in a "triangular" mode of trade - above. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

What exactly do you mean by "trade route"? Isn't the "route" the ocean? [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 11:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Thomas Jefferson ==
Um, since when has Thomas Jefferson not written the Declaration of Independence? Do we have a citation or some proof otherwise? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 11:34, 2 September 2008 (EDT)