Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Deism

2009-05-29T00:30:40Z

Pandeism: /* Modern Deism */ should be noted that many strains of Hinduism are in fact Pandeism.

'''Deism''' is the religious belief that God created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.<ref>American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition</ref>

In its typical modern form, deism is anti-[[Christian]], as it denies the divinity of [[Jesus Christ]], rejects the Bible (and all other texts) as God's scripture, and denies his signs and miracles to men. It lacks any coherent morality, and an excuse to claim to be religious while engaging in immoral liberal activity. Thus it is a favorite of [[liberals]] who do not want to be branded with atheism.

Deism is also only a short step away from [[atheism]], and deistic beliefs often create a slippery slope to atheism. This is a common tactic of atheist evangelists: first convince a Christian that God has left the world alone, and then deny the necessity of God. They are morally equivalent, given God's presumed inaction.

== Origins ==
The founder of the offshoot of that found a place in [[England]] during the [[Reformation]] and reached the colonies was [[Lord Herbert of Cherbury]]. <ref>http://www.theologicalstudies.org/what_is_deism.html</ref> He came up with 5 essentials of Deism which are "(1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next"<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm</ref>. This was a rather odd variant mixing in many Christian virtues without Jesus, and rather foreign to traditional Deism.

Dictionaries' definitions of '''deism''' include:
:The belief, based solely on reason, in a
and
:"a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe."<ref>Merriam-Webster online: [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deism deism]</ref>

The first definition refers to a conception of God sometimes called the ''[[deus otiosus]]''.

The [[Catholic Church]] would denounce Deism as a [[Heresy]] in the 1500s, for its rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the importance of the church, and eschewing the idea of Divine Intervention. While Lord Herbert would found the movement, by the 1800s his arguments were largely demolished by the philosopher Locke and his deconstruction of the concept of an 'Innate Truth'(Upon which much of Herbert's views on Deism were founded).

Matthew Tindal is generally credited with the modern incarnation of Deism and that practiced by the Founding Fathers who were Deists. "God designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know, believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of Reason."

Deism would enjoy a brief rise in the Western world through the 1800s, but by the early 20th century, it was on the decline. The Unitarian movement would absorb most of it's teachings and eventually produce the Unitarian Universalists. Deism today is a mixed bag without dogma or teachings beyond the idea that one should employ Reason to understand the universe. As a result, Deists who believe in Divine Intervention, Intelligent Design, and many other ideas that would have been alien to the earlier Deists are now around.

==Deism and the Founding Fathers==
While almost all of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, some it is believed were deists, at least according to some definitions of the term.

==Paine==

A famous deist in early American history was the Englishman [[Thomas Paine]], who espoused deism and popularized the term in his book [[The Age of Reason]]. It is believed this had an influence on deism in the colonies. [[Benjamin Franklin]] wrote in his autobiography about an earlier period in his life,
<blockquote>Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.</blockquote>

==Franklin==

Franklin later repudiated many of his earlier views and he believed in a God that "ought to be worshiped," and at the [[Constitutional Convention]] less than three years from his death [[Benjamin Franklin]] advocated public prayer. He praised [[Christianity]], but his letter to Ezra Stiles a month before his death was noncommittal as to the divinity of Jesus: <blockquote>"As to [[Jesus]] of [[Nazareth]], my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.. I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect Soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed."</blockquote>

==Jefferson==

Another [[Founding Father]] described as a deist was [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson personally struggled with the divinity of Christ and produced an edited version of the Gospels, later known as the [[Jefferson Bible]], which contained only the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and omitted third-person accounts of his life, particularly the accounts of the miracles.

Ten years from his death Jefferson stated that: <blockquote>"[The Jefferson Bible] show that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw."<ref>Jefferson, Letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1815</ref></blockquote>

The closer Jefferson approached his death, the more Christian he appeared. He read the Bible daily as the end grew near. His grandson described Jefferson as follows:<ref>Thomas Jefferson Randolph, undated letter to biographer Henry S. Randall, reprinted in Masfield et al., ''The Real Thomas Jefferson'', p. 321.</ref>

:He was regular in his attendance [at] church, taking his prayer book with him. He drew the plan of the Episcopal church in Charlottesville, was one of the largest contributors to its erection, and contributed regularly to the support of its minister. I paid, after his death, his subscription of $200 to the erection of the Presbyterian church in the same village. A gentleman of some distinction calling on him and expressing his disbelief in the truths of the Bible, his reply was, 'Then, sir, you have studied it to little purpose.'"

==Washington==

* "[[George Washington|Washington]] cannot be called a Deist — at least, not in a sense that excludes his being Christian. Although he did most often address God in the proper names a Deist might use — such as "Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be" and "Disposer of all human events" — the actions that Washington expected God to perform, as expressed both in his official public prayers (whether as general or as president) and in his private prayers as recorded, are the sorts of actions only the God of the Bible performs: interposing his actions in human events, forgiving sins, enlightening minds, bringing good harvests, intervening on behalf of one party in a struggle between good and evil (in this case, between liberty and the deprivation of liberty), etc." [http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200603140955.asp]

==Modern Deism==

Modernly, as noted above, Deism has both declined and fractured, with some of its original ideas being adopted as part of "[[new age]]" movements. Variations of Deism that have developed or been proposed include [[Pandeism]] (enunciated in the 1850s, and merging Deism with [[Pantheism]], the idea that God is equal to the Universe); [[Polydeism]] (merging Deism with [[polytheism]], proposing that multiple Gods created then abandoned the Universe); and [[Panendeism]] (merging Deism with the 1830s idea of [[Panentheism]], that the Universe was part of God, but was also transcended by God). None of these offshoots has garnered a significant following relative to organized religions, although it should be noted that many strains of [[Hinduism]] are in fact Pandeism.

==70 Years of Miracles Account==
There is a book by Richard H. Harvey, entitled "70 Years of Miracles." In it Harvey relates his experience in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920's.

According to Harvey, his professor Dr. Lee was a deist who for many years had spent time with each freshman class lecturing against prayer. After a couple of sessions discussing the power of natural laws and the lack of evidence that any god interferes with those laws, Lee would announce that he would drop a flask to the floor and challenged anyone to pray that the flask would remain whole.

Harvey then related that one year, a student finally found the courage to stand up and volunteer to pray. Lee dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage. The class cheered and Lee no longer delivered his annual lectures against prayer. [http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_urb_chalk.htm fair use]

----

'''Sources:'''<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Protagoras]]
*[[Greek Philosophy]]

== External links ==

*[http://thedcl.org/christia/s/stephwill/agodeieg/agodeieg.html An Account of the Growth of Deism in England] by William Stephens.
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=LanKhFle9BUC ''America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln''], Mark A. Noll, 3rd Ed.,Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0195151119, 9780195151114

[[Category:Types of Theism]]

Toxic abortion

2009-05-04T19:05:13Z

Pandeism:

'''Toxic abortion''' is a form of [[abortion]] that occurs when the mother is exposed to certain kinds of chemical [[pollutant]]s that kill her unborn baby. Millions of cases of toxic abortion are reported every year, but [[medical examiner]]s and other doctors in cahoots with the polluting industries simply write them off as miscarriages so they can avoid liability. In many cases the polluter, when found out, is able to get away with making minimal payouts of a few thousand dollars to the parents of the child the company has murdered, and yet the power of the political establishment protecting this practice is such that these murders go almost without notice, cheapening the value of all human life. Toxic abortion today is the greatest silent holocaust of the unborn in the history of man.

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category: Environment]]

Toxic abortion

2009-05-04T19:04:48Z

Pandeism:

Toxic abortion

2009-05-04T19:03:31Z

Pandeism: Toxic abortion today is the greatest silent holocaust of the unborn in the history of man.

Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov

2009-04-08T02:50:05Z

Pandeism: /* List of viewpoints */ there is another viewpoint

==List of viewpoints==
#the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.
#*The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one
#**the Old Testament considers it an abomination
#***The New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality.
#***''Jesus'' said nothing about homosexuality.
#We need to keep the [[Ten Commandments]], as they help live a Christ-like life
#*The Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.
#*What about Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
#Old Testament prohibitions can be ignored, because
##it says quite a few things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today.
##the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity
##only the New Testament really matters.
#marriage is a right
#homosexuals should have 'equal rights'
#same-sex "marriage" is simply a matter of giving [[equal rights]] to gays
#Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other
#*"very few want to marry each other" is a lie
#*''I'' want to marry another man.
#the immediate intent of same-sex "marriage" agitation is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"
#*There are many reasons for fighting for gay marriage. There are over 1,000 rights that married heterosexual couples have, all of which are denied to same-sex couples because they can't legally marry.
#Same-sex "marriage" adopts the form of [[marriage]] for the supposed purpose of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality.
#*You are all right in saying the institution of marriage is falling apart. But, instead of actually trying to look at the problem and say, "Hm, what can we do better?", you all would rather blame it on a minority population because that's what is easy. Divorce rates are up to 50% or higher nowadays. Why is this? Not because of gay marriage, you idiots. It's a complete lack of respect for the institution of marriage.
#Nothing from the Old Testament is nullified unless it is nullified explicitly in the New Testament
#The New Testament is hostile to homosexuality.
#*Oh really, where?
##The Bible is clear on this
#Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts.
#giving 'equal legal rights' to [[male couples]] has no effect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of [[holy matrimony]]
#*Exactly!

Well there is also the viewpoint that, even if gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, Christians are instructed to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and more importantly "render unto Caesar (i.e. the government) that which is Caesar's (i.e. the provision of government-made rights)" -- Jesus didn't say "go ahead and stone the bitch", he prevented the old law from being carried out, and then used his witness alone to persuade the sinner, saying "go forth and sin no more".... he didn't say that she hadn't sinned, but demonstrated that the Christian course of action is not to have the law prevent people from sinning -- if the government (i.e. Caesar) wants to let gays be "married" and give them tax breaks and hospital visitation and such, that doesn't involve the Church, which ought not be tainted by the corruption that is all politics, anyway.... the Christian course of action is to ''tell'' the sinners of their sin, and if they refuse to hear, ''trust'' God to deal with it.... trying to get the government to interfere one way or the other is the same as denying God.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-08T02:36:07Z

Pandeism: /* Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-29T21:51:17Z

Pandeism: /* The whole Muslim thing */ Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity?

{{Controversial}}

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Andy, until Ed Poor edited it very recently, the article said "Obama is a Muslim", without any qualification. At least some of the "compelling factual evidence" listed in the article is false, not compelling, and/or logically invalid, particularly the ones that I have been removing. Andy why do you keep calling my deletions "censorship" when I have repeatedly denied that they are and explained why they are not, and you've not justified how they are? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you've repeated your same claim again and again, yet I see no evidence of it. I don't think the entry ever said that "Obama is a Muslim" without qualification. If it did, then you could easily quote it. You haven't.

:::: Your insistence on deleting facts from the entry, such as Obama's non-American pronunciation of "Pakistan", can properly be described as censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't we let each reader decide for himself how believable each source is? I'd hate to see a claim deleted simply because one party in a dispute doubts it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: As BRichtigen says below, the page refers to ''silly'' demands for apologies, which mine isn't. So I still expect an apology for calling me a liberal. (Incidentally, that point 55 is referenced to an article which doesn't mention apologies!)
::::::::::::::: Contrary to the way that BRichtigen read your comment, I think that "here" referred to ''on Conservapedia'', not ''in the U.S.''. But I'm not sure that I've even done that. I've said that I ''support'' gun control, and argued against many of the arguments put against gun control, but I don't think I've ever "advocated for" it. Neither did I "insist" that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But again, you are discussing ''me'' rather than the ''issue'', and worse, ''speculating'' about my beliefs, rather than being prepared to say, "Philip, I accept that you are a conservative". You seem to be implying that I'm a conservative who holds a few liberal beliefs, but you keep emphasising the speculated liberal beliefs and never acknowledge that I'm a conservative, which makes me wonder if you really do consider me a liberal.
::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Philip, you support gun control, and admit it. That is clearly a fundamental liberal belief, from which other liberal beliefs inevitably flow. You also repeatedly deleted a point in another entry based on your view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a view espoused by atheists. I don't think I ever called you a liberal but I am convinced you hold some liberal beliefs. I'm not going to lie and say otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: TK, you say that ''as a Christian'', he submits to Jesus, which is true, but your point was that as Christians we should "submit to authority ''on earthly matters''". Yet now you sidestep that by saying that Andy doesn't have to. Further, I (and others) would suggest that Andy sees Conservapedia as something that God has called him to do, in which case it is wrong to say that he "submits to no one" regarding Conservapedia.
::::::: To clarify my admittedly-ambiguous comments on my talk page, as editors (which hat I also wear), we need to try and ''determine'' truth, but we can't, as editors ''or administrators'', ''decide'' truth, in the sense of ''decreeing'' something to be so. As editors ''or administrators'', we can only attempt to ''determine'' the truth by the use of logic and evidence (as Andy agrees). But Andy is effectively here ''decreeing'' truth, because he's not been using logic and evidence to ''determine'' truth, but simply ''asserting'' that certain things are true. If you have evidence of me doing ''that'', then please present it.
::::::: My opinion is not a "liberal" one, and I'd thank you to not malign me that way.
::::::: Yes, I have been trading on my position as administrator to argue this point, because Andy is trading on ''his'' position as site owner to insert his POV into the article, contrary to the evidence ''and the views of other administrators''.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, currently residing in Canada for school (with plans to move back to the states and get a job after). First name is actually Paul, initials AC. This doesn't seem important though. In any case, here are the things that I'd like you to address.
:::: 1. Taqiyya, as stated in the article, says that a Muslim may deny their faith if it furthers the cause of Islam. Someone makes the claim that you are Muslim, and secretly furthering the cause of Islam in your spare time. Refute this.
:::: 2. The conversion rate statistic is a statistic fallacy. In many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death, which would at least partially explain the low statistic. The conversion rate from Islam, given that the person has come to a free country such as America, is much higher. Also, Kenya is about 80% Christian, and only 10% Muslim, so Obama's father would be very familiar with other faiths.
:::: 3. Have you ever read The Catcher In The Rye, or Man's Search for Meaning? Both are by Jewish authors, although there is much to be gained from them by a Christian reader, and many Christians have found a lot of meaning in them. This seems to go against your statement that Christians would not read them. Explain.
::::--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 15:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::Well, Ed, given that Jeffrey originally said per day, it was completely valid to dispute it. And regardless of this, a rate per year is not indicative of 1% of all Muslims solidly over time. It proves that less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ''per year'', but does not prove the original statement (Though I do apologise for my own incorrect maths).
::Furthermore, given the fact that if Obama converted, it would have been some years ago, probably when he was a fair bit younger. Given recent the recent trend towards a mass increase in population, contemporary figures are only indicative of so much.
::Finally, statistics for Turkey and the world are disanalogous to Obama's situation - the general Muslim population because many live in nations where apostasy is illegal, even a captial offence, and Turkey because it still has a Muslim majority - which America does not. Statistics about the conversion rate among Muslims (specifically, Muslims of East African or, given Obama's education, Indo-Chinese origin) ''in the US itself'' could prove far more enlightening.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 19:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Inaccuracy==
Muslim debate aside, I noticed the page starts by listing Obama as a Senator. He resigned that position recently, as he is obliged to do before assuming office in January. Should the article not say he is "president-elect"? Whatever about the disagreements on other aspects of Obama's life, surely this is something everyone can agree on? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 14:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you![[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The whole Muslim thing ==

http://malalatete.typepad.com/mal_a_la_tete/images/2008/03/14/obama_swearing_in.jpg

He was sworn in on the Holy Bible. Why would he switch up to the Qur'an as president? Can't we put this behind us? This is a moot point.

: Judging by your edit pattern, I think you're the one obsessed with this.

: Often presidents act differently post-election, and "change" quite a bit from from they were president wannabees. Notice how Obama hasn't gone to church since the election? See our news item about that from a few days ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::Usually, presidents act differently in order to increase their popularity. I don't see how swearing in on the Qur'an would do that. Conclusively presenting himself to be a muslim would only hurt him in his position. He might inspire some people by being so forward, but I suspect it would be outweighed by xenophobia... --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 22:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::So what? He hasn't gone to church. Where would he go to church? He's not a member of Trinity anymore. I don't see him going to a Mosque, either. Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.

::::Yeah. I really don't think he's a muslim. I think it's unlikely to the point of impossibility. But I was just saying that even if he was a muslim, there would be no point in swearing in on the Qur'an, especially since he is on a pedestal before the world. Wait. There's a contradiction there. People on this site make two arguments: some muslims are allowed to conceal their faith (which they say Obama might be doing), and Obama might swear in on the Qur'an. Those are completely contradictory, because if Obama swears in on the Qur'an (which he won't), the secret's out. Just thinking out loud, I guess. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 23:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::It's amusing that you say there are no facts to support the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is or ever has been a muslim. Clearly you haven't read the page-long list of facts here. It is unlikely that the liberal Obama fanatics will ever concede the possibility, but that does not absolve us of our duty to try and inform. If only one person has their eyes opened, than I think we've done well. But unfortunately for many, it's true what they say: There is no deception quite like self-deception.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)

*Exactly, Patriot. Encyclopedia's have a duty to ask questions, and help people make ''informed'' judgments, as A. Schlafly stated (somewhere) above. The fact that __% of people might not agree on where those questions lead, is immaterial. Knowledge, and the questions that cause people to dig deeper, look at things differently, should never be subjected to polls or straw votes! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
**Saying Obama is a Muslim made sense when he was like running for President and all and people wanted to keep him from getting the job.... but now that he's ''got'' the job, so saying Obama is a Muslim only hurts Christianity because it prevents Christians from using Obama as an example to convince Muslims worldwide to consider Christianity.... I mean, here's a guy with an Arab name but who claims to have ''chosen'' Christianity.... the Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Bob Barr

2008-08-23T18:19:49Z

Pandeism: more on Barr credentials

'''Bob Barr''' (1948 - Present), Christian conservative and strict constitutionalist, is the 2008 [[Libertarian Party]] candidate for [[President of the United States]]. As a former [[Representative]] of [[Georgia]]'s seventh House district, he gained a reputation as a staunch social conservative, outspoken on the war on drugs and gay marriage. Prior to his congressional service, Barr was appointed by [[Ronald Reagan]] to be one of Reagan's US Attorneys. Barr also served for a period in the [[Central Intelligence Agency]].

Barr is a Christian with strong support among evangelical voters. He strongly opposes abortion and campaigned his Presidential run largely in opposition to [[Roe v. Wade]], a controversial [[Supreme Court]] decision that made [[abortions]] legal in the United States. While a congressman, his most notable achievement was the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) which stated that only a man and a woman could be legally married. He wrote the bill which was signed into law by [[President Bill Clinton]] in 1996. During the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Bob Barr became nationally-recognized as a major proponent of impeachment.

As a Libertarian Party statesman, Barr consistently supports a weaker federal government and believes that many federal laws should be decided by the states. This is the case for defending marriage, which he decided should be done by the states rather than the federal government. He has also recently expressed reservations about the negative effects of the [[War On Drugs]] from a libertarian perspective. Consistent with this new position, he changed his stance on medicinal marijuana<ref>http://www.mpp.org/bob-barr-joins-mpp.html</ref> and later approved the purchase of a block of Blue Moonshine to aid an ailing family member. During his 2008 Presidential run, he campaigned on a platform of restricted central government, including the federal bureaucracy, regulation, and Nanny state policies.

Barr is well-known in his home state of Georgia, where he is acclaimed for his staunch defense of social issues. In his Presidential race, he lacked the national name recognition necessary for a major campaign, and has surfaced only rarely in the media. His campaign has been considered a political threat for Republican candidate [[John McCain]] in the 2008 election because Barr has strong credentials among Christian voters that may siphon off votes for McCain in important swing states.

Barr is a lifelong supporter of the [[Second Amendment]] and has been a member of the Board of Directors for the [[National Rifle Association]] since 1997. He fiercely opposes gun control and other measures that limit personal liberties, including the unwarranted wiretapping of American people for security purposes. Civil liberties are a major issue for him as a politician, and he has been outspoken against the [[Patriot Act]] and [[FISA]], two laws that restricted the rights of Americans to help fight terrorism.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobbarr2008.com/Official Website of Bob Barr 2008]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Barr, Bob}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]

John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign

2008-08-23T18:17:59Z

Pandeism: move

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb]] [[Arizona]] [[Senator]] [[John McCain]] formally announced his candidacy for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in Portsmouth, [[New Hampshire]] on April 25, 2007, although he had discussed running for months prior. If elected in 2008, McCain would become the oldest person elected President at 72 years old. He has dismissed concerns about his age and past health concerns ([[malignant melanoma]] in 2000), stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent." McCain would also become the first President of the United States to be born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) outside of the current 50 states. Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his US citizenship (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) was assured at birth both by jus sanguinis, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens, and jus soli, as the Canal Zone was at that time a United States possession. While his campaign's success was once considered unlikely, McCain won several early primaries and went on to win enough delegates to secure the nomination. McCain had gained national prominence during his surprisingly strong presidential campaign in 2000. However, he eventually lost the Republican primaries to now-President [[George W. Bush]].

==Campaign development==
Based on his longevity in the Senate and his previous race in 2000, McCain already had name recognition coming up to the 2008 election. He informally stated he would be a candidate for the [[2008 Presidential Election]] on the ''Late Show with [[David Letterman]]'' on February 28, 2007, and officially announced his candidacy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, two months later. A few weeks prior to making his announcement on ''Letterman'', he was beginning to trail behind former Mayor of [[New York City]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in the polls. McCain supported the 2007 proposal by President George W. Bush for a "surge", an increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in the [[Iraq War]], which thankfully for McCain was a success. He started a series of campaign events entitled the "No Surrender Tour." His campaign became far more prominent with his wins in the [[New Hampshire primary]] and on [[Super Tuesday]], and since [[Mitt Romney]] endorsed him was considered a virtual certainty to win the nomination. He finally reached the 1,191 delegates to win the nomination on the [[Super Tuesday II]] contests on March 4th.

==Missed votes in Senate==
In May 2007, it was reported that McCain had missed 42 consecutive votes (five straight weeks) in the Senate while he was conducting his presidential campaign. From March to May, McCain only attended three floor votes in the Senate. During the current Congress, Senator McCain has missed 62.6% of the votes. That is the highest percentage of missed votes in this Senate session, with Senator Tim Johnson, who had to undergo brain surgery, second missing 50.3%. Senator Obama is third with 43.7%. <ref>[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/ Senate members who missed votes]</ref> Only two Congressional members have missed more votes this session, Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA) and Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), who both passed away while in office.

==Fund raising issues==
McCain's fund raising results and campaign financials have been poor. After first-quarter 2007 fundraising totals were released in early April 2007, totals showed McCain's $13.6 million lagging behind rivals in the race. During the second quarter he did worse, raising $11.2 million. In early July 2007, the McCain campaign let go fifty to a hundred staffers and forced others to accept pay cuts or switch to no pay.

McCain has accepted nearly $70,000 for his presidential campaign from the top donors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and their family. The SBVT were condemned at the time by McCain when they ran ads questioning [[John Kerry|John Kerry's]] military service and his reception of the Purple Heart. The money raised is four times the amount McCain raised from those donors in the 14 years prior to launching his campaign.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-30-swiftboat_N.htm Price of Power: McCain accepts ex-Swift Boaters' Donations</ref>

In June 2008, McCain had his best fundraising month to date, bringing in $21 million in donations for his campaign. In the same month, though, Senator Barack Obama's campaign reported bringing in $52 million.

Senator McCain has announced that he will accept public financing for the general election. After his party's nominating convention, the Federal Elections Commission will provide him with a check for $85 million. His opponent, Senator Obama, has chosen to opt-out of the general election financing, the first major candidate to do so since the inception of federal funding. Obama's campaign has stated that they expect to bring in more than the $85 million provided by the FEC and therefore do not want to abide by the spending limits incurred by accepting federal funding. To balance out the expected fundraising advantage Senator Obama has, Senator McCain will be relying also on the Republican National Committee to help with the campaign through advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. The RNC has a distinct fundraising advantage over its Democratic counterpart, the Democratic National Committee. The lack of funds, though, will hurt down-ticket Republicans who will not be able to fall back on RNC fundraising, but instead will have to rely on their own efforts as well as that of the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee which have lagged compared to their Democratic counterparts, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

==Campaign Issues==
===Budget===
McCain has stated he plans to balance the budget by 2013, via spending cuts by ending earmarks and proposing a one-year pause in discretionary spending, in addition to tax cuts.<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm John McCain's Economic Proposals]</ref> Economic experts, though, are skeptical that the ideas proposed by Senator McCain will create a balanced budget. According to Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, "It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/us/politics/08budget.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Skepticism on McCain Plan to Balance Budget]</ref>

Senator McCain proposes to hold the increase in federal spending to 2%, while it has grown at an average of 6% over the past five years. In addition, he plans to slow the growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but has not given details of how he plans to do so.

As a comparison on earmarks, if President Bush were to end all earmarks in 2008, it would cut $17 billion out of a $2.9 trillion budget, a relatively minor amount.

In addition, McCain sees the ends of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as an opportunity to help reduce the deficit. "The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.” <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html McCain promises to balance budget]</ref>

===View on Tax rebate and Recession===
In January, McCain stated, "As far as putting additional money in taxpayers pocket, that's fine, because a lot of it is psychological. Because I agree the fundamentals of our economy is still strong."<ref>http://youtube.com/watch?v=6aHJT1Ol0iE&v3</ref> In April, he stated, "I’m very concerned about it, Neil. And obviously the way it’s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. This might give them a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money."<ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/mccain-a-lot-of-our-problems-today-are-psychological/ McCain: 'A lot of our problems today are psychological']</ref>

===Energy===
In a [[Paris Hilton]] video released on FunnyorDie.com, she states "We could do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get [[Detroit]] making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which would then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399821,00.html Congressman Gives a Plug to 'Paris Hilton Plan' in Energy Debate] Fox News, August 7, 2008</ref> In response, the McCain campaign said "In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama."

===Pennsylvania lawsuit===
In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the [[Pennsylvania]] GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Libertarian candidate [[Bob Barr]] from the ballot in Pennsylvania.<ref>[http://www.foxreno.com/politics/17258065/detail.html GOP Wants Barr Barred From Pa. Ballot: Candidate Claims McCain Camp Playing Dirty]</ref> Barr is more conservative than McCain on a wide variety of issues, including taxes, spending, environmental activism, energy, abortion, and gun control, and the lawsuit is the first concrete indication that McCain fears Barr. The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions. Barr denies the accusation and has called the lawsuit the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of [[George W. Bush]] tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "''I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''"<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04EEDA123AF937A25752C0A9669C8B63 McCain Urges Bush to Halt New York Ballot Challenge], Jodi Wilgoren, [[New York Times]], January 14, 2000</ref>

==Criticisms==
John McCain has been frequently criticized by conservatives for his position on [[Campaign finance reform]], [[Immigration]] and for not initially supporting the Bush tax cuts. Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]] (R-[[Pennsylvania]]) claimed that McCain is not only erratic in his positions, but does not serve the best interests of conservatives. He has also been criticized by the [[fiscal conservative]] political action committee (PAC) [[Club for Growth]]. Saying that, "While Senator McCain’s economic record contains a number of pro-growth positions, such as his support for school choice and free trade, and his steadfast opposition to wasteful government spending, his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom."

Focus on the Family chairman [[James Dobson]] criticized McCain's opposition to passing a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage but says he still may vote for him.

McCain discussed with the press that he is computer illiterate, a position that some have since criticized.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9wnMVZE_Q Youtube: John McCain Admits He Can't Use a A Computer]</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216062882-WQLoVeqid4IdgFtNqjqEXQ</ref>

According to close McCain advisers, the nominee has been seriously considering a pro-choice running mate, with [[Senator Joe Lieberman]] and former [[Pennsylvania]] governor and Secretary of [[Homeland Security]] [[Tom Ridge]] most often mentioned.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12646.html McCain weighs a Lieberman surprise]</ref> This has brought serious criticism from conservative voices such as [[Rush Limbaugh]], who stated: "He’s not going to help himself any additional way, he’s going to hurt himself by putting a liberal or a liberal Republican on this ticket, particularly pro-choice."<ref>[http://thepage.time.com/rush-limbaugh-on-prospect-of-pro-choice-veep-pick/ Rush Limbaugh on Prospect of Pro-Choice Veep Pick]</ref> In addition, [[Laura Ingraham]] weighed in during an on-air interview with Senator McCain, asking "How could you consider selecting someone who opposed the federal partial birth abortion ban and was one of the eleven original cosponsors of the radical freedom of choice act as your vice president given your pro-life stance?"<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/With_buzz_building_on_prochoice_veep_McCain_remains_coy_on_vp.html?showall With buzz building on pro-choice veep, McCain remains coy on VP]</ref>

==Notable Endorsements==
* Sen. [[Joe Lieberman|Joseph Lieberman]] (I-CT), Former [[Democratic]] Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000.
* [[Henry Kissinger]], former [[National Security Adviser]] and [[Secretary of State]] under Presidents [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Gerald Ford]].
* [[Charles R. Schwab]], famous investor and founder of the brokerage firm Charles Schwab Corporation
* [[Lawrence Eagleburger]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[George H. W. Bush]]
* [[Alexander Haig]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[Ronald Reagan]]
* [[George Schultz]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[Ronald Reagan]]
* [[John Thain]], CEO of the [[New York Stock Exchange]]
* [[James Woolsey]], former [[CIA|CIA Director]] under President [[Bill Clinton]]

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

==See also==
*[[John McCain]]
*[[2008 Presidential Election]]

==External links==
*[http://www.johnmccain.com/ John McCain for President]

[[Category: 2008 Presidential Candidates]]

John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign

2008-08-23T18:17:25Z

Pandeism: /* Criticisms */ ==Pennsylvania lawsuit==

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb]] [[Arizona]] [[Senator]] [[John McCain]] formally announced his candidacy for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in Portsmouth, [[New Hampshire]] on April 25, 2007, although he had discussed running for months prior. If elected in 2008, McCain would become the oldest person elected President at 72 years old. He has dismissed concerns about his age and past health concerns ([[malignant melanoma]] in 2000), stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent." McCain would also become the first President of the United States to be born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) outside of the current 50 states. Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his US citizenship (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) was assured at birth both by jus sanguinis, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens, and jus soli, as the Canal Zone was at that time a United States possession. While his campaign's success was once considered unlikely, McCain won several early primaries and went on to win enough delegates to secure the nomination. McCain had gained national prominence during his surprisingly strong presidential campaign in 2000. However, he eventually lost the Republican primaries to now-President [[George W. Bush]].

==Campaign development==
Based on his longevity in the Senate and his previous race in 2000, McCain already had name recognition coming up to the 2008 election. He informally stated he would be a candidate for the [[2008 Presidential Election]] on the ''Late Show with [[David Letterman]]'' on February 28, 2007, and officially announced his candidacy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, two months later. A few weeks prior to making his announcement on ''Letterman'', he was beginning to trail behind former Mayor of [[New York City]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in the polls. McCain supported the 2007 proposal by President George W. Bush for a "surge", an increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in the [[Iraq War]], which thankfully for McCain was a success. He started a series of campaign events entitled the "No Surrender Tour." His campaign became far more prominent with his wins in the [[New Hampshire primary]] and on [[Super Tuesday]], and since [[Mitt Romney]] endorsed him was considered a virtual certainty to win the nomination. He finally reached the 1,191 delegates to win the nomination on the [[Super Tuesday II]] contests on March 4th.

==Missed votes in Senate==
In May 2007, it was reported that McCain had missed 42 consecutive votes (five straight weeks) in the Senate while he was conducting his presidential campaign. From March to May, McCain only attended three floor votes in the Senate. During the current Congress, Senator McCain has missed 62.6% of the votes. That is the highest percentage of missed votes in this Senate session, with Senator Tim Johnson, who had to undergo brain surgery, second missing 50.3%. Senator Obama is third with 43.7%. <ref>[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/ Senate members who missed votes]</ref> Only two Congressional members have missed more votes this session, Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA) and Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), who both passed away while in office.

==Fund raising issues==
McCain's fund raising results and campaign financials have been poor. After first-quarter 2007 fundraising totals were released in early April 2007, totals showed McCain's $13.6 million lagging behind rivals in the race. During the second quarter he did worse, raising $11.2 million. In early July 2007, the McCain campaign let go fifty to a hundred staffers and forced others to accept pay cuts or switch to no pay.

McCain has accepted nearly $70,000 for his presidential campaign from the top donors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and their family. The SBVT were condemned at the time by McCain when they ran ads questioning [[John Kerry|John Kerry's]] military service and his reception of the Purple Heart. The money raised is four times the amount McCain raised from those donors in the 14 years prior to launching his campaign.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-30-swiftboat_N.htm Price of Power: McCain accepts ex-Swift Boaters' Donations</ref>

In June 2008, McCain had his best fundraising month to date, bringing in $21 million in donations for his campaign. In the same month, though, Senator Barack Obama's campaign reported bringing in $52 million.

Senator McCain has announced that he will accept public financing for the general election. After his party's nominating convention, the Federal Elections Commission will provide him with a check for $85 million. His opponent, Senator Obama, has chosen to opt-out of the general election financing, the first major candidate to do so since the inception of federal funding. Obama's campaign has stated that they expect to bring in more than the $85 million provided by the FEC and therefore do not want to abide by the spending limits incurred by accepting federal funding. To balance out the expected fundraising advantage Senator Obama has, Senator McCain will be relying also on the Republican National Committee to help with the campaign through advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. The RNC has a distinct fundraising advantage over its Democratic counterpart, the Democratic National Committee. The lack of funds, though, will hurt down-ticket Republicans who will not be able to fall back on RNC fundraising, but instead will have to rely on their own efforts as well as that of the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee which have lagged compared to their Democratic counterparts, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

==Campaign Issues==
===Budget===
McCain has stated he plans to balance the budget by 2013, via spending cuts by ending earmarks and proposing a one-year pause in discretionary spending, in addition to tax cuts.<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm John McCain's Economic Proposals]</ref> Economic experts, though, are skeptical that the ideas proposed by Senator McCain will create a balanced budget. According to Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, "It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/us/politics/08budget.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Skepticism on McCain Plan to Balance Budget]</ref>

Senator McCain proposes to hold the increase in federal spending to 2%, while it has grown at an average of 6% over the past five years. In addition, he plans to slow the growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but has not given details of how he plans to do so.

As a comparison on earmarks, if President Bush were to end all earmarks in 2008, it would cut $17 billion out of a $2.9 trillion budget, a relatively minor amount.

In addition, McCain sees the ends of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as an opportunity to help reduce the deficit. "The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.” <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html McCain promises to balance budget]</ref>

===View on Tax rebate and Recession===
In January, McCain stated, "As far as putting additional money in taxpayers pocket, that's fine, because a lot of it is psychological. Because I agree the fundamentals of our economy is still strong."<ref>http://youtube.com/watch?v=6aHJT1Ol0iE&v3</ref> In April, he stated, "I’m very concerned about it, Neil. And obviously the way it’s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. This might give them a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money."<ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/mccain-a-lot-of-our-problems-today-are-psychological/ McCain: 'A lot of our problems today are psychological']</ref>

===Energy===
In a [[Paris Hilton]] video released on FunnyorDie.com, she states "We could do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get [[Detroit]] making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which would then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399821,00.html Congressman Gives a Plug to 'Paris Hilton Plan' in Energy Debate] Fox News, August 7, 2008</ref> In response, the McCain campaign said "In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama."

==Criticisms==
John McCain has been frequently criticized by conservatives for his position on [[Campaign finance reform]], [[Immigration]] and for not initially supporting the Bush tax cuts. Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]] (R-[[Pennsylvania]]) claimed that McCain is not only erratic in his positions, but does not serve the best interests of conservatives. He has also been criticized by the [[fiscal conservative]] political action committee (PAC) [[Club for Growth]]. Saying that, "While Senator McCain’s economic record contains a number of pro-growth positions, such as his support for school choice and free trade, and his steadfast opposition to wasteful government spending, his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom."

Focus on the Family chairman [[James Dobson]] criticized McCain's opposition to passing a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage but says he still may vote for him.

McCain discussed with the press that he is computer illiterate, a position that some have since criticized.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9wnMVZE_Q Youtube: John McCain Admits He Can't Use a A Computer]</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216062882-WQLoVeqid4IdgFtNqjqEXQ</ref>

According to close McCain advisers, the nominee has been seriously considering a pro-choice running mate, with [[Senator Joe Lieberman]] and former [[Pennsylvania]] governor and Secretary of [[Homeland Security]] [[Tom Ridge]] most often mentioned.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12646.html McCain weighs a Lieberman surprise]</ref> This has brought serious criticism from conservative voices such as [[Rush Limbaugh]], who stated: "He’s not going to help himself any additional way, he’s going to hurt himself by putting a liberal or a liberal Republican on this ticket, particularly pro-choice."<ref>[http://thepage.time.com/rush-limbaugh-on-prospect-of-pro-choice-veep-pick/ Rush Limbaugh on Prospect of Pro-Choice Veep Pick]</ref> In addition, [[Laura Ingraham]] weighed in during an on-air interview with Senator McCain, asking "How could you consider selecting someone who opposed the federal partial birth abortion ban and was one of the eleven original cosponsors of the radical freedom of choice act as your vice president given your pro-life stance?"<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/With_buzz_building_on_prochoice_veep_McCain_remains_coy_on_vp.html?showall With buzz building on pro-choice veep, McCain remains coy on VP]</ref>

==Pennsylvania lawsuit==
In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the [[Pennsylvania]] GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Libertarian candidate [[Bob Barr]] from the ballot in Pennsylvania.<ref>[http://www.foxreno.com/politics/17258065/detail.html GOP Wants Barr Barred From Pa. Ballot: Candidate Claims McCain Camp Playing Dirty]</ref> Barr is more conservative than McCain on a wide variety of issues, including taxes, spending, environmental activism, energy, abortion, and gun control, and the lawsuit is the first concrete indication that McCain fears Barr. The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions. Barr denies the accusation and has called the lawsuit the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of [[George W. Bush]] tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "''I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''"<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04EEDA123AF937A25752C0A9669C8B63 McCain Urges Bush to Halt New York Ballot Challenge], Jodi Wilgoren, [[New York Times]], January 14, 2000</ref>

==Notable Endorsements==
* Sen. [[Joe Lieberman|Joseph Lieberman]] (I-CT), Former [[Democratic]] Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000.
* [[Henry Kissinger]], former [[National Security Adviser]] and [[Secretary of State]] under Presidents [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Gerald Ford]].
* [[Charles R. Schwab]], famous investor and founder of the brokerage firm Charles Schwab Corporation
* [[Lawrence Eagleburger]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[George H. W. Bush]]
* [[Alexander Haig]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[Ronald Reagan]]
* [[George Schultz]], former [[Secretary of State]] under President [[Ronald Reagan]]
* [[John Thain]], CEO of the [[New York Stock Exchange]]
* [[James Woolsey]], former [[CIA|CIA Director]] under President [[Bill Clinton]]

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

==See also==
*[[John McCain]]
*[[2008 Presidential Election]]

==External links==
*[http://www.johnmccain.com/ John McCain for President]

[[Category: 2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Talk:John McCain

2008-07-17T01:59:22Z

Pandeism: /* Czechoslovakia */ new section

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

Gospel of Judas

2008-07-10T19:19:09Z

Pandeism: Thematically, the Gospel of Judas has Jesus proclaim Judas to be first among his disciples, and has Jesus instruct Judas to "betray" Jesus to the Romans in order for Jesus to fulfill his destiny.

The '''Gospel of Judas''' is a [[Gnostic]] [[gospel]]. It was discovered in an antiquities market and published in October 2006 by the [[National Geographic]] Society. It is not a part of any canonical [[scripture]] and was written well into the third century AD well after the [[New Testament]] Gospels.

Like many Gnostic works, the Gospel of Judas claims to be a "secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with [[Judas Iscariot]]." The book is structurally different than the narrative accounts in the other gospels, as it is a series of dialogues or sayings of people. Thematically, the Gospel of Judas has Jesus proclaim Judas to be first among his disciples, and has Jesus instruct Judas to "betray" Jesus to the Romans in order for Jesus to fulfill his destiny of being crucified.

Most Gnostic teaching involved special "''Gnosis''" or a deep special knowledge that is not apparent to the unenlightened. This contrary to the core and very simple message of [[Jesus]] preached in the other gospels and New Testament that people need a faith in Jesus Christ alone.

[[Category:Gnostic Writings]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-07-03T17:18:36Z

Pandeism: /* Barr vs Obama/McCain */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barr vs Obama/McCain ==

Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the only candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?

:Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.

:Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?

:If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]".... at the end McCain says "the debate is over"; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no "solution" to use "cap and trade". [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here]. News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-07-03T17:18:14Z

Pandeism: /* Barr vs Obama/McCain */ sign

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barr vs Obama/McCain ==

Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the only candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?

:Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.

:Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?

:If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]".... at the end McCain says "the debate is over"; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no "solution" to use "cap and trade". 13:03, 3 July 2008 (EDT) [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here]. News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT

Global warming

2008-07-03T17:09:31Z

Pandeism: /* 2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change */

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global warming''' is an increase in average air temperature in the [[Earth]]'s atmosphere.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

In the modern period of global warming, a slight increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when organized records began to be kept. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship.

==Controversy==
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe [[anthropogenic global warming theory|the warming is due to humans]], while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref name="col">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref name="col" />

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory{{fact}} then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately {{temperature|6|11}} and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

*Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. <ref name="sun" />

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]]'s website <ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> he will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

Global warming

2008-07-03T17:09:17Z

Pandeism: /* John McCain on climate Change */ McCain in his own words; Barr is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global warming''' is an increase in average air temperature in the [[Earth]]'s atmosphere.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

In the modern period of global warming, a slight increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when organized records began to be kept. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship.

==Controversy==
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe [[anthropogenic global warming theory|the warming is due to humans]], while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref name="col">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref name="col" />

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory{{fact}} then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately {{temperature|6|11}} and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

*Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. <ref name="sun" />

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]]'s website <ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> he will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap-and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-07-03T17:03:37Z

Pandeism: /* Barr vs Obama/McCain */ link to a YouTube video of John McCain says "climate change is real" and endorses "cap and trade"

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barr vs Obama/McCain ==

Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the only candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?

:Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.

:Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?

:If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]".... at the end McCain says "the debate is over"; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no "solution" to use "cap and trade". 13:03, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here]. News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT

National Rifle Association

2008-06-19T22:56:14Z

Pandeism: /* Prominent Members */ *Bob Barr is a member of the Board of Directors since 1997; Charlton Heston was NRA President for several years

[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|National Rifle Association logo|thumb|250px]]
The '''National Rifle Association''' (or '''NRA''') is an advocacy group which promotes the right to bear arms as well as promoting interest in shooting sports. It runs training classes in gun use and safety, and publishes magazines of interest to gun owners. It is also dedicated to protecting Americans' [[Second Amendment]] rights.

The NRA was founded after the [[American Civil War]] by former Union soldiers seeking to improve the shooting skills of the population at large.

The NRA is non-partisan and has endorsed both [[Republican Party|Republicans]] and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]]. It most often endorses Republicans, as that party is more prone to fielding candidates receptive to Second Amendment rights.

In 2004 the NRA successfully opposed renewal of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994, which banned many features of certain semiautomatic rifles and certain types of removable magazines, against a campaign to make the ban permanent and expand it.<ref>http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=886</ref> The ban expired at midnight, September 13, 2004.{{fact}}

The NRA owns and operates the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia, which is free to the public.

==Prominent Members==
*[[Bob Barr]] (member of the Board of Directors since 1997)
*[[George H.W. Bush]] (resigned 1995)
*[[Dick Cheney]]
*[[Larry Craig]]
*[[John Dingell]]
*[[Charlton Heston]] (NRA President for several years)
*[[Michael Moore]]<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp</ref>
*[[Ted Nugent]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] (since August 2007)
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nra.org National Rifle Association]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]

National Rifle Association

2008-06-19T22:55:14Z

Pandeism: /* Prominent Members */ add Bob Barr, put in order

[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|National Rifle Association logo|thumb|250px]]
The '''National Rifle Association''' (or '''NRA''') is an advocacy group which promotes the right to bear arms as well as promoting interest in shooting sports. It runs training classes in gun use and safety, and publishes magazines of interest to gun owners. It is also dedicated to protecting Americans' [[Second Amendment]] rights.

The NRA was founded after the [[American Civil War]] by former Union soldiers seeking to improve the shooting skills of the population at large.

The NRA is non-partisan and has endorsed both [[Republican Party|Republicans]] and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]]. It most often endorses Republicans, as that party is more prone to fielding candidates receptive to Second Amendment rights.

In 2004 the NRA successfully opposed renewal of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994, which banned many features of certain semiautomatic rifles and certain types of removable magazines, against a campaign to make the ban permanent and expand it.<ref>http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=886</ref> The ban expired at midnight, September 13, 2004.{{fact}}

The NRA owns and operates the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia, which is free to the public.

==Prominent Members==
*[[Bob Barr]]
*[[George H.W. Bush]] (resigned 1995)
*[[Dick Cheney]]
*[[Larry Craig]]
*[[John Dingell]]
*[[Charlton Heston]]
*[[Michael Moore]]<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp</ref>
*[[Ted Nugent]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] (since August 2007)
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nra.org National Rifle Association]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]

Bob Barr

2008-06-19T22:54:03Z

Pandeism: Barr is strongly in favor of Second Amendment rights, and has been a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association since 1997.

'''Bob Barr''' is the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008]] [[Libertarian]] Candidate for President of the United States. He is formerly the Representative for Georgia's 7th district from 1995 to 2003.<ref>http://www.bobbarr2008.com/about/</ref>. As a Congressman, he had a reputation as a staunch conservative, and was one of the leaders of the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]. Prior to his Congressional career, he was appointed by [[Ronald Reagan]] to be a [[United States Attorney]], and before that he was employed by the [[CIA]] for several years. He is trained as lawyer and now runs a consulting firm.

Barr is a [[Christian]]. He is strongly opposed to [[abortion]] and believes that [[Roe v. Wade]] should be overturned as an improper imposition of federal power over the states. He opposes the [[income tax]], and supports replacing it with the [[Fair Tax]]. He opposes federal bureaucracy, regulation, and the [[Nanny state]]. He opposes [[gay marriage]], but has come to believe that this is a [[state's rights]] issue which should not be handled by the Federal government. Barr is strongly in favor of [[Second Amendment]] rights, and has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]] since 1997.

Barr authored the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) which President [[Bill Clinton]] signed into law in 1996. As the Libertarian candidate for President, he now rejects those parts of DOMA which add to the power of the federal government. "...the Defense of Marriage Act insofar as it provided the Federal Government with a club to club down the rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that." <ref>[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/27/2101], http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/27/2101, Former Rep. Bob Barr: DOMA “Clubs Down Rights of Law-Abiding Americans”
, May 27,2008</ref> Bob Barr has made known his opposition known to the [[Patriot Act]]. As a member of Congress, he voted in favor of the Patriot Act, but only after a sunset provision was inserted into the act. He is now dissatisfied with the way the Patriot Act has been interpreted and applied.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobbarr2008.com/Official Website of Bob Barr 2008]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Barr, Bob}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-06-19T22:52:01Z

Pandeism: /* Barr vs Obama/McCain */ new section

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-19T22:44:07Z

Pandeism: /* Libertarian party */ it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is expected to win the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 52% - McCain 39%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race] Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]].[http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-12T19:56:12Z

Pandeism: /* Opinion polling */ Another poll

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 47% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=da6ad0bf-c7bc-4c8f-b4a4-e08b57f448fc Survey USA])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote to Congree by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race] Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]].[http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-12T19:54:04Z

Pandeism: /* Opinion polling */ different poll

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 47% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=da6ad0bf-c7bc-4c8f-b4a4-e08b57f448fc Survey USA])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote to Congree by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote leading Nader by 2%.[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-12T19:53:13Z

Pandeism: /* Opinion polling */ in Georgia

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 47% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=da6ad0bf-c7bc-4c8f-b4a4-e08b57f448fc Survey USA])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote to Congree by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll in Georgia on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote leading Nader by 2%.[http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-12T19:52:05Z

Pandeism: /* Opinion polling */ Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November.

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 47% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=da6ad0bf-c7bc-4c8f-b4a4-e08b57f448fc Survey USA])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote to Congree by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote leading Nader by 2%.[http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-12T19:47:17Z

Pandeism: /* Libertarian party */ Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary.

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 45% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 45% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 47% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=da6ad0bf-c7bc-4c8f-b4a4-e08b57f448fc Survey USA])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 43% - McCain 42%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote to Congree by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
CNN's current "Poll of Polls", an average of four national polls (Gallup, CNN, CBS, and Cook Political Report) currently has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-43%. [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/]

Real Clear Politics, which uses the average of the above four national polls, in addition to Rasmussen, IBD, and USA Today, has [[Barack Obama]] leading [[John McCain]] 47%-42.7%. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]

In addition, Real Clear Politics uses the average of Rasmussen, CBS News, Pew Research and Newsweek to track favorable/unfavorable ratings for the two candidates. [[John McCain|McCain]] currently has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 47%-41%, a +6 spread.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] currently has a rating of 51.5%-37.8%, a +13.7 spread. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

Bob Barr

2008-06-12T19:30:29Z

Pandeism: he has not proposed to repeal DOMA, just those parts of DOMA which add to the power of the federal government

'''Bob Barr''' is the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008]] [[Libertarian]] Candidate for President of the United States. He is formerly the Representative for Georgia's 7th district from 1995 to 2003.<ref>http://www.bobbarr2008.com/about/</ref>. As a Congressman, he had a reputation as a staunch conservative, and was one of the leaders of the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]. Prior to his Congressional career, he was appointed by [[Ronald Reagan]] to be a [[United States Attorney]], and before that he was employed by the [[CIA]] for several years. He is trained as lawyer and now runs a consulting firm.

Barr is a [[Christian]]. He is strongly opposed to [[abortion]] and believes that [[Roe v. Wade]] should be overturned as an improper imposition of federal power over the states. He opposes the [[income tax]], and supports replacing it with the [[Fair Tax]]. He opposes federal bureaucracy, regulation, and the [[Nanny state]]. He opposes [[gay marriage]], but has come to believe that this is a [[state's rights]] issue which should not be handled by the Federal government.

Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga) authored the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) which President [[Bill Clinton]] signed into law in 1996. As the Libertarian candidate for President, he now rejects those parts of DOMA which add to the power of the federal government. "...the Defense of Marriage Act insofar as it provided the Federal Government with a club to club down the rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that." <ref>[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/27/2101], http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/27/2101, Former Rep. Bob Barr: DOMA “Clubs Down Rights of Law-Abiding Americans”
, May 27,2008</ref> Bob Barr has made known his opposition known to the [[Patriot Act]]. As a member of Congress, he voted in favor of the Patriot Act, but only after a sunset provision was inserted into the act. He is now dissatisfied with the way the Patriot Act has been interpreted and applied.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobbarr2008.com/Official Website of Bob Barr 2008]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Barr, Bob}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-06-11T01:11:06Z

Pandeism: /* Third parties and Independents */ Libertarian strategy

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] has won the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Libertarian strategy==
Bob Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the Congress, and the Congress would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

==Third parties and Independents==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

Former Representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html</ref> The Green Party will nominate its candidate for president at its convention in July 2008.<ref>http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/index.shtml</ref>

The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yukka Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] was so concentrated on Florida, he chose to ignore all of the other primaries before that. John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], said "God damn America!" in the pulpit. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

Bob Barr

2008-06-11T01:01:45Z

Pandeism:

Bob Barr

2008-06-11T01:01:13Z

Pandeism: more bio

Bob Barr

2008-06-07T16:26:37Z

Pandeism: positions

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2008-03-15T02:39:43Z

Pandeism: /* BAAAAAD! */ "What you do to the least of these, you do unto me".... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to "the least of those" they came across....

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the dumbest thing i have ever read.

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly
:*Mr. Schlafly, if you are not familiar, the crusades were not uniformly good. The fourth crusade was not an attempt to recapture the holy land, but instead was a profitable and disgraceful act in which Pope Innocent III ordered the peasants to Constantinople. The out-of-control Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling and stealing all they could lay hands on- nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. For further reading please see: Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Question for above statement- How did the Crusades expose Western Europe to science and technology? From what I remember, the Rennaisance really started to kick in around the late 1300's and early 1400's, the same time that Greek-Orthodox scientists, scholars, and artists were fleeing the Turkish onslought. Nobodies ever heard of El Greco? Born as Greek-Orthodox in Crete and famous Rennaisance painter who introduced new styles? Imagine who he inspired and taught, and spread rennaisance tradition, all thanks to the Turkish onslought and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -> Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under "Bad". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I"m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves. like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. "live and let live" seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that "dont care/believe about religion/god" does not equal "im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag" and leave me out of the quarrel.

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals. AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge. Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher. Not all animals are scavangers. As Moses said, "ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Actually, they were the [[Moors]]. I agree with you, but it does your argument a disservice. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why does this topic even exist? Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on. Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected. Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I get it. When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says "convert or die," you're supposed to convert. Duh. Why didn't I think of that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land. There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time. Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long. [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today. Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm..... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right. War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators "Lord", and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves? Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully. Bowing to a king and calling senators "Lord"? How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators "Senator"? I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.
by 1718

-The greed of the few outweighs the needs of the many ~ Anonymous

:"What you do to the least of these, you do unto me".... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to "the least of those" they came across.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Can Europeans say they "discovered" an inhabited area?

2008-03-15T02:28:52Z

Pandeism: Yeah well in that sense, when I go to Brazil next month I will be able to say that I've discovered Brazil....

{{debate}}

==YES==

Although it doesn't seem to make sense to speak of ''discovering'' something which has already been seen by people (like an inhabited island), Europeans took the perspective that what they didn't know about was shrouded in mystery. It was ''unknown'' to them.

Hence, whenever they found out about a new territory, they described in terms of "[[discovery]]". What was covered or shrouded was no longer hidden to them.

Some people may think that this is disrespecting the inhabitants of islands such as [[Hawaii]], but the Europeans who discovered Hawaii rather pointedly reported that the found the land inhabited. Only a moron would think that the Europeans considered themselves the first people to set foot on that land! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:59, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah well in that sense, when I go to Brazil next month I will be able to say that I've discovered Brazil.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:28, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==NO==
Of course not. Europeans do not own the world. --[[User:Iamchristian|Iamchristian]] 00:25, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ridiculous. I'm sure the native Americans discovered the Americas long before Christopher Columbus. And even disregarding them, there was also the vikings. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2008-03-15T02:27:44Z

Pandeism: /* Yes: */ I think Conservapedia is already succeeding

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accomodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:I agree with [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]]; however, having started as a Wikipedia reader, then editing Wikipedia as a minor hobby, then getting frustrated and coming here, unfortunately I find myself just adding stubby material myself. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 17:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

:::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

:::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::All of that is indeed the difference between WP, and CP. However, CP is targetting something other than "expansive knowledge" about things like Pop Culture, and such. For instance, never expect to see an article on "Insane Clown Possé" on this site... it just would not fit the requirement to stay and always remain family-friendly. This naturally limits the topics that could be covered by CP, but not a real concern, as CP isn't about covering them. CP, as I see it, is not really intended to supply ''deep'' knowledge, but rather simply surface knowledge, unless the issue is, for instance, about something of great importance to conservative teachers, or students. They will expound upon the information, and create more detail about the topics that conservatives support, rather than anything and just about everything that the anarchic mob at Wikipedia covers. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::What of the items that I mentioned looking up, with the possible exeption of Deep Purple, would be inappropriate topics for CP? I am not arguing the number of topics covered by CP, I am talking about the depth of information. So far, in bouncing around CP for a while, I have come across few articles that had more depth than I would have known on my own. Some, perhaps, in areas that I am less aware of, but even in those, the amount of information isn't enough to be satisfying. If I actually want to know something abouta subject, and am going to look it up, I am rarely going to be happy with one or two paragraphs. You talk of "surface knowledge", if that is the case, then who, outside of elementary or junior high age people are going to use it for information? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::You seem to already have answered your own question. Conservapedia is oriented for young learners. I will however address each topic you intended to mention: ''differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union'' (Rugby is not widely played in the United States) ''rules of Australian Rules Football'' (It covering Australia, not American issues); ''how to create a proxy.pac file'' (this is very deep and technical computer science, it is really not important to many who use CP as a resource); ''background on the Roman general Belisarius'' (Roman history is a distinguished study due to Latin having been a sign of distinction. These articles however do not expand themselves, people need contribue) ''and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus'' (Sweden is not America); discography of Deep Purple (I have no idea who this is, but it is obviously pop culture); ''horror films of Universal and Hammer studios'' ("horror" you do understand that many Christians object to Halloween by its promotion of horror) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Perhaps Conservapedia needs to make its goal of remaining juvenile and isolationist more clear, so people can stop expecting it to be otherwise. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

<undent>I have some ideas to help it succeed. The management may contact me if they want to find out more. However, we do have a great number of problems, including:
#Conservatives have families and are probably able to edit less than the libtards at wikipedia.
#Libtards at other wikis disrupting progress here
#Paranoia on vandalism or subtle vandalism driving good meaning editors away.
Anyway, just some of the problems, all surmountable if desired. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 23:36, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Don't you think that the liberal tendency toward substance abuse and promiscuous sex detract from their ability to spend time on Wikipedia? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 15:49, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a [[YEC]]. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think Conservapedia is already succeeding.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidently ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree. Even for those conservatives who have a deep respect for the Bible and religious tradition, not all will have a personal knowledge of Christianity. But then that shouldn't exactly cause a conflict. I'm not Catholic, but I have helped to organize and put Catholic information into Conservapedia -- and I was pleased to do so. Perhaps you should concentrate on beginning to make useful entries yourself. As it stands now, you are coming across as someone arguing what a conservative is and trying to put a wedge when you yourself only know conservatism by looking at it from a distance as a foreign entity. True? If not, start contributing -- Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::I have no problem putting Catholic information into sites like conservapedia, wikipedia, or anywhere else. However, if the site claims to be a 'neutral to the facts' encyclopedia, like this one does, then such information should be put in as exactly what it is - what Catholics believe to be true, in much a similar way as what Protestants believe should be put in as what Protestants believe to be true, what Muslims believe should be put in as what Muslims believe to be true, what Sikhs believe should be put in as what Sikhs believe to be true, etc, etc, etc. Here, Christian beliefs are being put in as fact, due to it being told in the Bible as fact, and any attempt to correct this is deleted or reverted. Well, sorry, that shows this site is NOT a conservative encyclopedia - it is a fundamentalist Christian one. I would have no problem with this if this site claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian site, but, in fact, it does not - it does not state ANYWHERE that this is the case, and you only actually realise it is when you dig into the histories of some of the pages or look at a few of the talk pages. As such, this site deceives anyone who so much as stumbles across it. As for contributing, well, I feel I could contribute quite a bit. Unfortunately, the pages where I could contribute effectively appear to be locked. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::If you choose to fixate on the few articles that are blocked, then you are probably correct that this site is not for you. You may find in going beyond that starting standard that most of CP does not specifically discuss religion and there is ample room for contribution. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?

2008-03-15T02:27:07Z

Pandeism: /* Other */ Why not a mix?

{{debate}}

==We are saved by [[faith]] alone==

==We are saved by works alone==

==Other==
Why not a mix? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are there any conservatives left in the Republican Party?

2008-03-15T02:25:55Z

Pandeism: The Republican Party has swung '''''very''''' liberal.... big spending, even tax increases (although subtle and targetted)

'''Are there any conservatives left in the republican party?'''

*I think a good litmus test for a conservative is whether or not they subscribe to [[Global Warming|global warming]] theories. Global warming is a liberal scheme to have government involvement in everything. Control energy usage, enslave the masses. Now that [[Fred Thompson]] has bowed out, I don't think we have any viable conservative candidates left in the Republican party. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 23:28, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::That's fallacious. Whether somebody personally believes the science behind global warming or not does not necessarily affect their political opinions per se, or even how they approach the issue of environmentalism. That being said, I'd say one of the most conservative Congressmen is Jeff Flake (R,AZ). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::LOL. "Science behind global warming." Hehehehehe. That's a great liberal parody. You're funny. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 01:35, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I mean the science behind the theory, or whatever it is. You know what I mean. I'm not a liberal parodist. I find that really insulting. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::There is a ton of "science behind global warming", and even Richard Lindzon agrees with that statement. (StephenW you aren't a "conservative parodist" are you? Nobody likes to be called names.) It's rather ignorant to say otherwise. At any rate, politicians are not scientists, so Dan's right -- it doesn't matter if they actually know what's going on, that's the scientist's job. It matters what they will do or not do about it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:30, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:The Republican Party has swung '''''very''''' liberal.... big spending, even tax increases (although subtle and targetted).... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-03-15T02:23:53Z

Pandeism: /* YES! */ YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!!

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:AntiSemitism

2008-03-15T02:22:22Z

Pandeism: Antisemitism is just another form of hatred of God

{{debate}}

The central belief in Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind. Thus the path to Heaven and God is through Christ alone. Given that God sent His only begotten Son to save humanity, the event leading to Christ's crucifixion and death were anticipated. Many Christians still believe that the Jews killed Christ, using Romans (or others) to do the deed [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027;&version=9;]. If the Jews were indeed responsible for killing Christ (I understand that this is NOT true), were they not doing God's bidding? After all, was not Christ's human sacrifice to save humanity from our sins? Why is that even after 2000 years, there is still simmering and often overt anti-semitism? And why is it that the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims forget their common ancestry? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

:I've heard the same said about Judas-- that he made the ultimate sacrifice-- his own eternal soul in order to fulfill Jesus's plans. Or something like that. Also, I'm not sure if it's policy here, but it'd be helpful if you signed your posts with four tildes. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: (Oops, yes, I should have signed my name - policy OR not ...I noticed that someone edited MY post (look above) by adding the reference to biblegateway - but he/she DID NOT sign his/her name - It is one thing not to sign your name to your own post, quite another (worse IMHO) to edit someone's and not take credit/blame - so whoever posted that reference to biblegate, 'fess up) [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 7:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
:::Sorry! Thought this was an article page. Didn't realise it was folks comments. I thought the [[Conservapedia_talk:AntiSemitism|Discussion]] page was for that. I'm confused.
:::"If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;" (Job 10:15)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 08:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::And your point is? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

:How do we reconcile these two passages?
::''No man hath seen God at any time ''(John 1:18) [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&verse=11&version=9&context=verse]

::''the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.'' (Exodus 33:11) [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&verse=11&version=9&context=verse] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Remember that the Living God is a Trinity. It is probable that Moses spoke to another member of the Trinity and not to God the Father, whom no one has ever seen.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::''we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; '''comparing spiritual things with spiritual'''. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned....16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.'' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=2&version=9&context=chapter]

:::::IOW, ''no '''nartural''' man hath seen God at any time''. Moses had the mind of Christ. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:35, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

First we must define what a "Jew" is. An ethnicity, religion, or cultural group. Also, Semites aren't all Jews. A Semite is anyone who speaks a Semitic language. Semitic languages include: Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, Maltese, Akkadian, and Tingrinya.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

I have always felt such disgust when I hear the naive and ignorant spout "Jews killed my Christ!" Not only disgust at their blatant anti-Jewish sentiments, but at the most basic level I am disgusted by their complete ignorance. Saying "Jews killed Jesus" is rednered meaningless when one takesd into account the fact that Jesus was a Jew, living in Jewish lands, subject to Jewish law of the time (when it was convenient for Rome that is...). Some ignoramuses scream "The Jews killed Jesus!" to incite "righteous" indignation and scorn towards Jews when truth in fact stating "Jews killed Jesus" is no more poignant and special than saying "the British killed Oliver Cromwell." To put it simply, it is one big "DUH!" [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:37, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Listen! I'm prbably the only jew on this site right now. Since the majority of you have brought up the the whole jews killed Jesus, I have to bring up the fact that the only people living in eretz yisrael at the time were jews and romans. So please talk about something besides the bible, like the holocaust, for instance!-- [[user_talk:Irish16]]

*Perhaps [[user:Fox|Fox]] (among others) will disagree with you! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:30, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Antisemitism is just another form of hatred of God.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Abortion and Artificial Consciousness

2008-03-15T02:21:19Z

Pandeism: God could give a robot a soul!!

Here's an interesting analogy I thought of the other day…

Suppose that I'm constructing an artificial conciousness. Halfway through the project, I decide that it's not worth the effort, and discontinue it, destroying the code and other necessary components. Would this be moral? Consider that this is almost ''exactly like'' the destruction of an undifferentiated, or only slightly differentiated, zygote, before the brain has developed and the mind come into existence.

I still haven't decided my position on the matter, and would be interested in others' assessments. Also bear in mind that I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm interested in the issue without pushing any POV.

: It isn't the same at all. Computers do not have souls. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:: An artificial consciousness could be thought of as a human brain in a robot. In my opinion, such a being would indeed have a soul. I doubt that organic composition is a prerequisite for a theological presence. If you debate that, imagine that I'm constructing a fully-functional human out of living cells. Would it be immoral to stop? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It would be immoral to ''start'' constructing a human in that way. Where do you get your idea that robots have souls? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 00:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Star Trek? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:56, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::God could give a robot a soul!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::Your link doesn't work. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:27, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Hmm, that's odd. I thought that WP had a separate article on it… what's your opinion on the subject, Bohdan? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate2:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2008-03-15T02:19:46Z

Pandeism: /* No */ yes

==No==

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism, and want them answered honestly, see the articles on this website [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/]

'''No'''

As a scientist, I can categorically state that the ''Theory of Macroevolution'' is not true. This is because '''there is no such theory'''. The Creationist division of evolutionary processes into ''micro'' and ''macro'' is false and disingenuous. What Creationists refer to as ''microevolution'' is merely the short-term expression of the exact process that results in speciation (which is the correct name for what Creationists term ''macroevolution'').

The fact that evolution has occured, has been happening for several billion years, and is still going on as you read this is irrefutable, except by fraud, forgery and lies. The honest scientific literature is full of examples. The driving forces behind evolution have also been clearly identified (external environment, internal environment, competition for resources, sexual preferences etc). The majority of the mechanisms involved have been identified. All that remains under debate are the precise details. Not whether evolution happened, not how long it takes to happen, and not why it happens - just the exact details of ''how'' it happened.

----

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

:You need to actually cite some of this information, not just claim that there is some. The evidence is remarkably consistent with evolution, in fact, in a way known as evidential convergence. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

'''No'''
: 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
:::'''Counter:'''

:::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

:::: '''Counter''' This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Additional Counter''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Why_there_are_no_transitional_fossils Why the are no transitional fossils].

: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
:: Darwin was just speculating, and said so, and it hardly matters whether he was right or not anyway. As it happens though, he wasn't all that far off regardless: whales and dolphins are indeed descendants of land mammals (their closest living genetic relative is the hippo). All dolphins and whales form embryonically, just like other mammals, in such a way that "leg buds" appear on the embryo. However, in their case, these legs are later reabsorbed again. However, this process is not always perfect: some whales have even been discovered with atavisms of hind legs, legs attached, amazingly, to the remnants of their vestigial pelvis. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
::And what evidence would that be?

: 4. All mutations are harmful.
::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Benjamin please use statistics meaningfully. For your 25% to have significance you would need to compare it to the premature death rate of people without this mutation. You would also have to carefully define premature and look at the populations that have the mutation (if they are a population succeptible to malaria then they probably have poor living conditions). Also can you site a source for the 25%? -- [[User:Chris F|Chris F]]

'''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful. It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait. The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce. Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute. The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society. Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage. In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*This is not '''exactly''' a counter to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)

: The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
:Nonsense. There is only one precise measure of information, and that is Shannon information. By that metric, virtually any change at all to an organism is an increase in genetic information. If that's not what you meant by information, however, then there are other ways to frame the question, and countless observed cases for every one. In fact, if say you accept microevolution then I'm sorry to say that you by definition accept that genetic information can increase. Anytime a gene pool is skewed via natural selection to alter the frequency of alleles in some adaptive way, the gene pool is clearly _gaining_ information about the particular environment it is in!

'''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)
:'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
::'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrassing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)
::::::The injection of energy into a system increases enthalpy, not entropy, Aschlafly. DNA, proteins, and other highly-ordered macromolecules stay together not because of intelligent intervention, but because of enthalpic contributions that offset the entropic cost. Also, you state that "Entropy predicts degradation... in the absence of intelligent intervention", just after you comment that everything is degrading. Wouldn't that imply, then, the absence of intelligent intervention?
::'''Counter:'''"All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time." This is just false. We know living things become more complex and organized over time, because we can see it happening, e.g. a seed growing into a tree.
::'''Counter:'''As water loses energy, it becomes ever-more ordered, and scattering is reduced. It's called ''ice''.

: 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

:::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.
:::::*Please explain why "beauty" cannot exist without humans? Does a tree cease to be beautiful if it is not seen by human eyes? What a ridiculous concept!

:::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

:::::I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote
::::::"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.
:::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.
::'''Counter''' You don't know that it's impossible. No one knows what the simplest life form is, but pretending that abiogenesis concerns the simplest MODERN life (i.e. a modern cell) is nonsense: that's not what's being suggested at all. Besides, talking about stacking chemical reactions that observably naturally occur is not "springing from nothing."[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 23:49, 20 February 2007 (EST)

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>
:So wait, you are citing as your most recent survey of the fossil evidence something written in the '''1800s'''??? It's also more than a little dishonest to quote someone introducing a problem and then pretend that they didn't, as Darwin did, go on to answer the objection at great length. Finally, there are also no such things as "missing links" in a biological sense: this is a misconception. We will never have a fossil of every single species, let alone individual, that ever lived. And we don't need to. The fossils we do have are already more than enough to map out the overall picture and general relations of species, and all these fossils are consistent with the very specific pattern of geologic and geographic distribution that common descent demands of them. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

:: ''''Counter''' The above claims are simply false. We have hundreds of major transitional fossils(which is what I presume you mean by "missing link") between a variety of different groups. Examples include Australopithecus as transitional between humans ape like ancestors and humans, hasiophis terrasanctus (sp?) a transitional snake with hind limbs and many others. Name almost any major grouping and we will have transitional fossils between the various groups. For some groups we have very detailed transitional sequences. For example, between fish and tetrapods is a particularly good example, and the transitions between land mammals and whales have become well developed over the last 20 years. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: 9. The "Anthro-Simianic Paradox" -- If great apes evolved into humans, why are there still great apes? The inherent inconsistency in the pro-Darwinistical position can be verified scientifically, using the foam dinosaurs that grow larger in water. Place a package of tiny foam dinosaurs (representing apes) into a sink (representing evolution). All the dinosaurs will grow to giant proportions (representing humans) and no tiny foam dinosaurs will be left. Clearly, scientists must examine alternate hypotheses for the evolution of giant foam dinosaurs (human beings).

:: I'm presuming this is a parody. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

==Yes==
Here is the logic of my assertion:
# It is within God's power to make anything happen that is logically possible....
# It is not logically impossible for a system to exist in which the laws of physics permit macroevolution to occur....
# It is within God's power to create a system in which the laws of physics permit macroevolution to occur....
# Microevolution does occur....
# It is not logically impossible for microevolution, carried out over a long enough time, to effect the changes that approximate macroevolution....
# It is within God's power to create a system in which microevolution, carried out over a long enough time will effect the changes that approximate macroevolution....
# If God exists, then macroevolution must be possible because it is within the power of God to make it so....
# If God does not exist, then macroevolution must be possible because it is definitely needed to explain out existence in the absence of God....
# Therefore, if God either exists or does not exist, the theory of macroevolution must be true....
Bless Yourself, for Thou Art God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

[[category:debate]]

Frederick Copleston

2008-03-15T02:07:40Z

Pandeism: This dude is the rock bomb!

'''Frederick Copleston, S.J.''' (April 10, 1907 - February 3, 1994) was a [[Jesuit]] scholar who wrote the highly respected 9 volume ''History of Philosophy''. Born and raised in [[England]] as an [[Anglican]], Copleston converted to [[Catholicism]] shortly after he turned 18 years of age.

In 1930, Copleston became a Jesuit and was ordained a Jesuit priest while at Heythrop College in 1937. After a brief stay in Europe, Fr. Copleston returned just prior to the outbreak of war to teach the history of [[philosophy]] at [[Heytrhop]].

It was while at Heythrop that Fr. Copleston began work on his massive ''History of Philosophy'', intended as a textbook for Jesuit students and only completed in 1975. Along the way, he also wrote works on [[Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]], and St. [[Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]], but it is for his ''History'' that Copleston is mostly remembered and esteemed, not only among Catholic students and scholars, but students adhering to other religions as well as secular students of philosophy.

==''History of Philosophy''==

Copleston's ''magnum opus'' is his ''History of Philosophy'' (actually a history of ''western'' philosophy mainly) in 9 volumes, published between 1946 and 1975. Written in order to supply Catholic ecclesiastical seminary students with a complete history of philosophy "somewhat more detailed and of wider scope" than the text books then in usage, this work has become the gold standard of histories of philosophy.

Written unashamedly from the Thomist (the reference is to St. Thomas Aquinas) point of view, Copletston remarks in the Preface to Volume I: "To mention a 'point of view' at all, when treating of the history of philosophy, may occasion a certain lifting of the eyebrows; but no true historian can write without some point of view, some standpoint, if for no other reason than he must have a principle of selection, guiding his intelligent choice and arrangement of fact."

The work has gained critical acclaim not from Catholic and religious readers but also from secular critics for its scholarly and objective presentation of the views of all the important philosophers and philosophical viewpoints throughout history. Here follows a summary of the contents:

* '''Volume I''' Greece and Rome (Pre-Socratic philosophy, the Socratic period, [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], post-Aristotelian philosophy)
* '''Volume II''' Medieval Philosophy (Patristic period, [[Augustine]], [[John Scotus Eriugena]] (Duns Scotus), [[Anselm]], [[Bonaventure]], Aquinas, )
* '''Volume III''' Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy ([[Ockham]], speculative mystics, revival of Platonism, Scholasticism of the Renaissance)
* '''Volume IV''' Modern Philosophy ([[Descartes]], [[Spinoza]], [[Liebniz]])
* '''Volume V''' Modern Philosophy: the British Philosophers ([[Hobbes]], [[Locke]], [[Berkeley]], [[Hume]])
* '''Volume VI''' Modern Philosophy ([[French Enlightenment]] to [[Kant]])
* '''Volume VII''' Modern Philosophy (Post-Kantian idealists, [[Fichte]], [[Hegel]], [[Schopenhauer]], [[Marx]], [[Kierkegaard]], [[Nietzsche]])
* '''Volume VIII''' Modern Philosophy ([[Empiricism]], [[Idealism]], and [[Pragmatism]] in [[Britain]] and [[America]])
* '''Volume IX''' Modern Philosophy (From the [[French Revolution]] to [[Sartre]], [[Camus]], and [[Levi-Strauss]])

==Selected writings of Frederick Copleston==

* ''Nietzsche'' (1942)
* ''Schopenhauer'' (1946)
* ''History of Philosophy'' (1946-1975)
* ''Aquinas'' (1955)
* ''A History of Medieval Philosophy'' (1972)
* ''Religion and Philosophy'' (1974)
* ''Philosophers and Philosophies'' (1976)
* ''On the History of Philosophy'' (1979)
* ''Philosophers and Culture'' (1980)
* ''Religion and the One'' (1982)
* ''Philosophy in Russia'' (1986)

==Web links==

* [http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm Trasncript of the 1948 BBC debate with Bertrand Russell]

[[Category:Philosophers|Copleston, Frederick]]

User:Pandeism

2008-02-14T10:17:06Z

Pandeism: links

Greetings!!

The [[Pandeism]] [[Fish]] swims again!!

A misinformed soul asked me whether Pandeism was not "belief in many (false) gods".... I will joyfully correct this misconception.... Pandeism, as is well documented to the arduous student of theology, is the belief in '''''one''''' God, the God that is the Creator and the ''sum principia'' of the Universe.... the concept is traceable to [[Xenophanes]] of Colophon, [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus, and the Milesian philosophers, [[Thales]] and [[Anaximander]], among others.... it may well have been the concept Jesus was communicating -- I refer you to Matthew 25:31-46:
:When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'''.
:Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me'''. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

==Bio==

I like my anonymity so I won't reveal particularly personal details, but I am a Libertarian with an advanced degree in Religious Studies.... I'll work on related stuff....

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-02-12T20:36:53Z

Pandeism: /* Presidential Campaign */ never said anything about "embracing", he said he'd meet with them.... that's not bad enough?

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. Although African-Americans make up approximately 12% of the population, Obama is the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience,<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> he is the favorite of the leftist fundraiser "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

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

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

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

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

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

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

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> Joining Obama in voting against HR 2206 were senators Coburn and Enzi, whose voting rank is among the most conservative in the Senate.

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

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

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

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

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama attended a Muslim school but independent news organizations have verified it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]] in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

== Books ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Sources==

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

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-01-29T02:14:58Z

Pandeism: /* Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey */ They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... ~~~~

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

Talk:Light

2007-11-18T04:07:16Z

Pandeism: Are the stars really there?

It seems absolutely crazy that the only References on this article are to articles on the Answers in Genesis website?!!! [[User:50something|50something]]

== Cosmic Rays? ==

Is it proper to list cosmic rays in the EM spectrum? See [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html#spectrum].--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, that was sloppy of me, I meant microwave radiation specifically.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Duplicate Material ==

The material found in the section " Young Earth Creationist View Regarding Starlight" is in [[Starlight problem]] which is a much more appropriate place for it. If there is need to reference it here, wouldn't a simple link to it be better? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Quick question, if "God created the light already in transit," does that mean the stars aren't really there at all, just the light that appears to be coming from them? The far away stars, I mean. Also, if the light really is originating and coming from the stars, isn't this the best proof of day-age creationism, that the time it took for the light from those distant stars to reach the earth was the time that the first "day" took? Mention this? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:07, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Hyperion

2007-11-18T04:01:55Z

Pandeism: links

'''Hyperion''' was the [[Titan]]-god of [[heaven]]ly [[light]] and the ordering of the days and months in ancient [[Greek mythology]]. By his wife and sister [[Theia]] he was the father of the of [[Eos]] (the Dawn), [[Helios]] (the Sun) and [[Selene]] (the Moon). With three of his brothers ([[Coeus]], [[Crius]] and [[Iapetus]]) Hyperion conspired with [[Cronus]] to depose their father [[Uranus (mythology)|Uranus]]. Uranus (the Sky) would descend each night to lie upon [[Gaia]] (the Earth), each standing at a corner of the cosmos they held Uranus firm whle Cronus emasculated him with a sickle.

{{Nb mythology greece}}

Debate:Define torture

2007-11-13T04:58:54Z

Pandeism: /* A More Specific Definition */ combination

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind, leave alone the terrorists so they can kill the innocent. Was there recruitment prior to 9/11?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing alot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't believe any US Soldier has been convicted of murder of an inmate at Abu Griab. There has been an instance in Afganistan. No such thing as torture in Abu Griab, unless you are an American hater and site the black hood, naked pyramid and barkin dog as torture. What they did was wrong and hurt the credibility of our troops.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Depends on your definition of torture. All free countries put some people in jail, which some people would consider torture.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Putting underwear on someone's head while making them stand nude, taking their picture, and/or putting them in a stress position for several hours and not allowing to sleep for long periods of time can definitely be a part of torture. People who trivialize what happened at Abu Ghraib by concentrating on the "underwear on the head" thing as if that were all that happened keep leaving out those bits. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It cannot be definetly defined as torture. Could be described as a means of gathering intelligence.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In college, I knew some people who wear underwear on their head on purpose.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

So if captured US soldiers were piled up naked you'd say their treatment would be acceptable?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Sounds like a frat party.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am not excusing their actions MadMiddleMan. I am also not claiming it was torture.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Tell me, jpatt -- was sticking underwear on someone's head all that happened at Abu Ghraib? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This just hit the wires, torture now described as unscented soap, under inflated soccer balls and a noisy fan.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Cite please, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Note, folks, that Jpatt hasn't answered my question about whether or not sticking underwear on someone's head is all that happened at Abu Ghraib. JPatt doesn't answer because Jpatt knows that going into detail about what actually happened there reveals the moral bankruptcy behind Jpatt's attempts to trivialize torture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He's just being a [[moral relativity|moral relativist]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other ==
I am for the following:

<pre>
waterboarding
sleep deprevation
light or darkness deprevation
reduction in food and water
solitary confinement no visitors
hot and cold environments
deception(making them believe something is happening when its REALLY not)
deprive them of clothes
make them sleep on a cement floor
hoods and handcuffs are good
no reading material of any kind

UNTIL the first nuke/bio weapon goes off on american soil...then the gloves come off...
</pre>

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:56, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So you're an admirer of the manner in which the inmates of Soviet gulags were treated. Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

yeah right...i noticed you forgot to mention that in the gulags they were beaten, raped, killed
given electric shock and had body parts cutoff, burned, medically experimented on and were forced
to do hard labor. one might note 50 million died in gulags VS what 2-3 in US custody? nothing like i described aboved. typical liberal response of more fantasy than fact.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Wally, Solzhenitsyn's famous chapter on torture in the gulags doesn't really describe much maiming, burning, medical experiements, etc. What he describes are all those things you think WE should be doing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe this debate to be inflated far beyond the proportions it should be. The Ammendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment was not protecting against bad food and sleep depravation. If it was, college would be unconstitutional. The laws were passed to protect United States citizens from being maimed and mutilated in ways reminisce of the medieval inquistions. In England in colonial times you could be inprisoned for multiple years with horrible conditions on a cold stone floor with no medical treatment and minimal food for not paying taxes. Tortures such as ripping out teeth / nails, beating, blinding, boiling, bone breaking, branding and burning, castration, choking, cutting, disfigurement, dislocation, drowning, flagellation, whipping and beating, flaying, roasting, genital mutilation, limb/finger removal, starvation, and tongue removal, and quatering were used. Horrible devices like the catherine wheel, the rack, the iron maiden, thumbscrews, the heretic's fork, and many, many more were used to implement terror among political prisoners, heretics, and anyone who so much as stepped out of line. Christ himself was nailed to a tree and left to die because he spoke out against Rome. We are not treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, we are treating them to a resort hotel. I respect human life and dignity, but obviously anyone who would blow themselves up to kill as many "infidels" as possible doesn't. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:CRD]] 10:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you figure soviet dissident Solzhenitysn was just a big ol' crybaby? And nobody who "respects human life and dignity" would mistake places like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a "resort hotel." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

People! Ann Coulter has already given us guidelines. It's not torture if:

* The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
* Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
* You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
* Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
* It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
* It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.
citation: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=62

==A More Specific Definition==
I propose that the reasonable definition of torture be ''"any situation in which a prisoner or captive has reason to fear for their life."'' Discuss. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:30, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:How about "any imposition of physical or psychological pain that would cause a reasonable person to falsely admit to crimes, just so they can make it stop".... for anyone who says sleep deprivation, starvation, and waterboarding are not torture, here's a test--let me try them on you for a few days, and see if I can't get you to "admit" to a crime.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::Hmm, good point Pandeism. Although I would suggest that sleep deprivation does not qualify as torture unless there is reason to believe the prisoner's life is in danger, e.g. heart palpitations or seizures. While I could easily be described as a filthy commie liberal, I'm aware that detainment centres are not supposed to be a particularly pleasant experience. Of course, an equally important issue is the need to improve implementation of habeas corpus and provide clear grounds for detainment in the first place. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::What people are overlooking though is that it is the ''combination'' of techniques.... let me put it this way, the prisoners who are being waterboarded are not getting eight hours of sleep on a downy mattress, they are ''also'' being deprived of sleep and nutrition, and it is the combination of activities that has the cumulative effect of being torture.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:58, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Define torture

2007-11-12T17:44:03Z

Pandeism: /* A More Specific Definition */ How about "any imposition of physical or psychological pain that would cause a reasonable person to falsely admit to crimes, just so they can make it stop"....

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2007-11-12T17:34:38Z

Pandeism: Isn't Intelligent Design the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture....

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? Isn't Intelligent Design was the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture (in a [[Deism|Deistic]] sort of way.... At least, what was explained to me was that Intelligent Design only needs to be used to explain irreducably complex processes, and uses evolution to fill in the rest.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)