Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

V8 Supercars

2012-10-04T05:52:07Z

TAbbott:

V8 Supercars is the premier touring car series in Australia and New Zealand. Currently the only manufacturers are Holden, with the Commodore and Ford, with the falcon Falcon. However next year Nissan and Mercedes will join them. Jamie Whincup is the current champion, and has explored other motorsport, however, he has not moved away from the success of his driving in the competition.

The presence of a car in the support series, (Nascar's Nationwide series for V8 Supercars)sponsored by a church gives Conservatives a car to go for, this car the "Jesus Motorsport" car is doing very well and winning many races with God's blessing and guidance.

The most prestigious race is the [[Bathurst 1000]], which is held each October at the Mount Panorama Circuit.

[[Category:Motor Racing]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2012-10-04T05:42:57Z

TAbbott: Punctuation, Rewriting, my normal edits.

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|275px|thumb|Homosexuality is rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

=== Conclusion of Biblical explanation ===

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]]. The Bible also shows that homosexuals should be killed in [[Leviticus]], so get out your shot guns Patriots!

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''. <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12546/MEDIA/family/index.htm CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>
[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|The [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene.<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> ]]

=== Causes of homosexuality and origins paradigms ===

In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of [[evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning [[homosexuality]]. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref>

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
* [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Andrew Schlafly

2012-10-04T05:39:53Z

TAbbott:

[[Image:ASchlafly.JPG|thumb|175px|right|Andrew Schlafly]]
'''Andrew Schlafly''' is a [[conservative]] lawyer and former [[engineer]]. Mr. Schlafly is also the founder of Conservapedia.

Andrew Schlafly is the fifth child of attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr. and noted political activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]. His great-grandfather, August Schlafly, was founder of the Union Trust and Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Ill., the First National Bank of Edwardsville, Ill., and other banks in Western states. <ref> [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DB1638F936A15752C1A962948260 Catherine Kosarek] Wedding news. November 25, 1984.
</ref>

He graduated from [[Princeton University]] with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. A magna cum laude graduate from [[Harvard University|Harvard Law School]], he was an editor of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]''. <ref> [http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/medical_attorne.php Medical Attorney Andrew Schlafly] Posted on March 23, 2005. </ref>

He teaches one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including one class in fall 2006 with 58 students in [[World_History_Lectures|World History]]. In spring 2007 he taught [[Economics_Lectures|Economics]].

Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History course. Andrew Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it.

Andrew Schlafly has taught homeschoolers online since the late 1990s, and in person since fall 2002. Several of Andrew Schlafly's prior course materials are available on [http://www.eagleforumu.org Eagle Forum University].

The Great Leader of Conservapedia continues to pilot the crusade against [[liberal claptrap]] and has convinced many to join the real non-[[RINO]] republican cause.

== External links ==
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|Andy Schlafly at Columbia University]]
*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html About CLEP] The College-Level Examination Program.
*[http://hbutler0.tripod.com/semmelweissocietytv/id52.html Andrew Schlafly], Esq.

{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category: Academics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlafly, Andrew}}

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2012-10-04T05:36:37Z

TAbbott:

[[Image:Gp_ppl_obama_mccain_flag-capitol.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Barack Obama and John McCain]]
[[Image:2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.png|right|300px|thumb|Election Results]]
The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' took place on Tuesday, November 4, 2008,<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> with Barack Obama being voted in as the next President of the United States. [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]], the [[Democratic Party]] nominee, with Senator [[Joe Biden]] of [[Delaware]] as his Vice Presidential running mate defeated Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]], the Republican candidate, and his Vice Presidential nominee, [[Alaska]] Governor [[Sarah Palin]].

==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.

===Young voters===

In 2004, 64% of voters aged 18-29 were registered to vote. This year 75% of voters in that age group are registered. This demographic usually favors Democrats.

== Fewer Uncommitted ==

Fewer people were undecided this election than in most previous elections. As of the beginning of October, 2008 approximately 6-8% of poll respondents were undecided, an amount that continued to decline as the election drew closer.

== Election Day ==
The turnout was about normal, except for higher than usual rates among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and voters under 30--all Obama groups. The turnout of evangelicals and whites was similar to 2004. There have been allegations of Democrats driving voters around to different voting stations, and as these are Obama groups, this would strengthen the voter turnout of this demographic. These allegations have been proven by FOX news in an investigative report.

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 3000 LV
| '''52'''
| 46

|-
|[http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm Zogby Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 1200 LV
| '''54'''
| 43
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Traditional]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2516 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Expanded]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2480 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

== McCain vs. Obama ==
McCain had the early edge, wrapping up the Republican nomination before Obama was known to be the choice of the Democrats, but this was one of the few advantages he has had. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised far more money than McCain, and the Democratic primary saw a surge of new voters coming out leading to a large increase in the rolls of Democrats. From the historical position of a generally equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the numbers have now tilted 41% Democrat to only 32% Republican. From the time that Obama was declared the nominee, opinion polling showed him with a modest advantage over McCain in terms of who the voters would choose to be their next President.

Obama's strategy was to tie McCain to George Bush, a very unpopular President, even though McCain was not a part of the Bush administration and often clashed with Bush during his time as senator. McCain, for his part, had to walk a fine line with accepting praise from the President to woo conservatives, while at the same time keeping enough distance so as to not alienate moderates. When possible, McCain went after Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

The trends heavily favored the Democrats, especially after their major gains in 2006. Overall, Democrat candidates have a +10% advantage over Republicans in a 'generic' election - the current unpopular President is a Republican, and the economy is treading water. Also, based on statistical percentages of articles on each candidate, Obama was being focused on by the press far more than McCain. When McCain chastised Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience and that he hadn't been to Iraq or Afghanistan in years, Obama's campaign set up for him to take a trip to both countries. While this is expected in politics, the decision of every major network to send a team of reporters to follow him was unprecedented. Obama spoke to 200,000 people in Berlin in a highly covered speech. McCain spoke to 50,000 in Buffalo shortly thereafter and barely got a whisper. Obama's numbers started to rise, but a good deal of the populace was noticing the disparity as 48% of those polled felt the press was trying to help Obama win.

Obama seemed pleased to coast on his advantages, but McCain realized he needed to shake things up. He scored by pushing offshore drilling for oil during a time when oil prices were climbing almost daily. Obama rejected the idea, but the poll numbers started to show a greater percentage of Americans warming to the concept<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/61_say_congress_should_vote_on_offshore_drilling_right_now Offshore Drilling poll]</ref> and McCain's numbers started to improve. Obama announced he would accept some measure of offshore drilling, and McCain's momentum was halted and his gains retreated by a couple of points. McCain started an ad campaign that acknowledged Obama's celebrity status, but asking what it meant. A few days later at the start of August he called out Obama for 'playing the race card' when Obama made a reference to McCain and Bush trying to scare people because he (Obama) doesn't look like other Presidents on dollar bills. The Democrats fired back, but quickly let the issue drop when poll numbers showed that most voters did consider Obama's statement to be racist.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/only_22_say_mccain_ad_racist_but_over_half_53_see_obama_dollar_bill_comment_that_way</ref>. The bounce for Obama after the Berlin speech shrank back to pre-trip levels. While Obama continued to enjoy a slight lead in the polls, McCain continued to keep the race close without either candidate breaking away.

In mid-August, both candidates came together at the invitation of Pastor [[Rick Warren]] where each was asked a series of the same questions dealing both with political and personal views. While not a debate, it was the first televised forum where both candidates had a chance to express themselves and their positions. Obama hoped to appeal to Christian conservatives by expressing a religious side while McCain hoped to solidify the conservative base by sharing his own conservative and religious credentials. The difference in style between the two was evident as Obama spent more time explaining and expounding on his positions while McCain was more straight-forward and received more laughs with his candid speaking style. The polling numbers continued as they had been.

There was a bounce at the start of the Democratic convention, but not what was expected as McCain suddenly drew even in the race. The friction between Hillary Clinton and Obama as well as the perceived slight of Hillary when Biden was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate hurt Obama at a time when his approval was expected to climb. McCain then made a mistake by airing an ad of Hillary Clinton that 'supported' him. Clinton was set to speak at the convention and it was no secret that there was bad blood between her and Obama and it was widely believed that her support for Obama would be lukewarm at best. Instead, apparently galvanized by McCain's hubris before her speech, she came out strongly for Obama and rallied those who supported her. Obama's pre-convention edge returned. Obama followed it up with a very strong speech the next day in a huge stadium with fireworks and a Greek temple. [[Dick Morris]], a former Bill Clinton political strategist who gave advice to the Republicans in 2008, felt that Obama had done such a good job reaching out to the groups that he needed that he would pull ahead by double-digits. In order to suppress the bounce from the convention, McCain announced his Vice Presidential candidate the next day, a woman, Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]. The bounce for Obama was muted at first, but increased in the following days to surpass pre-convention levels, especially as Sarah Palin came under heavy attack in the media.

The edge continued as the Republican convention began. Losing a day to the hurricane, their shortened convention came out strong as well, emphasizing John McCain as a patriot and a maverick for change who is tested and will do what is right for the country regardless of political affiliation. It was notable for the secondary role that the sitting President played, talking only briefly and barely being mentioned after that. The convention tied McCain to [[Ronald Reagan]], a popular Republican President who was able to gain the support of a good number of conservative Democrats, an ability that McCain would badly need to emulate. While the convention had very high ratings starting with Palin's well received speech, it was unclear what the impact would be in the polls. Indeed Obama continued to lead directly afterward, but that soon changed with a turn of about 8 points and a slim lead for McCain. The Republican convention had actually more than balanced out the powerful Democratic convention.

While Obama had stated that his campaign would avoid negative advertising, as it became clear that the bounce from the convention was continuing to last and he might lose the election, his campaign turned more forcefully to negative advertising. In ads aired since the Republican convention through mid September, McCain's ads were about Obama 56% of the time, but Obama's ads were about his opponents 77% of the time.<ref>http://news.aol.com/article/campaign-ads-not-getting-much-air-time/142625</ref> Obama also received a large boost from the press which vigorously attacked McCain, but even more so Palin. Obama appeared on ''[[O'Reilly Factor|The O'Reilly Factor]]'' and was treated with civility and respect, even if not with agreement. McCain and his wife appeared on ''The View'' and were treated to openly antagonistic attacks. The constant negative barrage and reporting slowly moved the numbers back to even.

As the negative articles on Palin continued to intensify, some of which just quoted celebrities who had never met her calling her "whacko" or a "hater of women", her first major interview with Gibson was a turning point. Gibson asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine, but wouldn't define it for her even as she asked questions for clarifications. When she then answered with her understanding, Gibson rebuked her by implying that she misunderstood the doctrine. In truth, since the term is only a press invention, it has taken on different meanings at different times and the definition that Palin gave matched one that Gibson himself had used years earlier. Nevertheless, it was a moment and was jumped on by the press. Those who saw the interview voted heavily that they were now less likely to vote for Palin. The attack on her had muted her effectiveness, even if it was unjustified.

Stemming the tide of the McCain campaign's lead became a strong swing for Obama with a series of events that went to the Democratic nominee's favor. The polls began to tack to Obama's favor with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and a subsequent 500-point drop in the Dow Jones Index. Then, President Bush sounded a major alarm on the economy and proposed a huge 700 billion dollar rescue plan for the mortgage industry, which sent shock waves through the American populace and swept them with even more fear on the economic picture. Bush called both Presidential nominees to meet with him and Congress. It gave Obama a boost in legitimacy, his previous Achilles' heel. While he had a weak record in accomplishments and showing leadership, the chance to be propelled to a position of prominence handed it to him on a silver platter. Moreover, the plan was more problematic among Republicans than it was among Democrats, giving Obama another boost merely by supporting it while putting McCain on more shaky ground. Both candidates supported it once again blurring McCain's advantage in experience if both men were seen as interchangeable in their reaction.

McCain chose to suspend his campaign until a deal on the rescue package was reached, a mistake. The Democrats could add pork to the plan and make it even more unpalatable to the Republicans, and they did. As the first debate loomed and no deal had been reached, McCain was in a quandary. He chose to attend the debate under the view that the plan was well under way to being passed. After the debate the plan was actually defeated and wouldn't be adopted, with more changes, until the following week.

McCain's debate with Obama went well and he was viewed as having done better than expected. Unfortunately for him, Obama was also viewed as doing better than expected and was seen as looking Presidential, further cementing his standing and locking in a lead in the polls that had become rather substantial. The Vice Presidential debate was the most watched in history and Palin was given high marks for her performance, but unfortunately for the Republican ticket, Biden was also on his game that night and also came across well. There were no changes in the polling numbers and the number of undecided voters began to quickly dwindle. The second and third debates caused little change as well.

With Obama spending 110 million dollars on TV advertising in October alone, including 30 minute specials on each of the major networks, McCain was hard pressed to make up the necessary ground to win the election after being outspent by 3 to 1 for TV adds over that time period. He couldn't count on regular TV to help put in a good word for him either, as late night political jokes are running at a pace of 7 jokes against McCain/Palin for every 1 joke against Obama/Biden and a study of news stories on McCain and Obama since the end of the conventions found that 57% of news stories about McCain were negative while only 29% were for Obama.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/</ref> A later study by the independent Pew Research Center found that the discrepancy had grown even worse. McCain had 57% of the articles about him negative while only 14% were positive, while Obama had more positive articles than negative. The only network to achieve a balance, 40% negative for both, was [[Fox News]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445846,00.html</ref>

== General Strategy ==

McCain's team emphasized to convince the electorate of the long-term leadership and experience that John McCain has shown in two decades of government service while emphasizing the relative untested nature of Barack Obama.

Obama's team stressed that Obama is the candidate of fresh ideas while downplaying his relative inexperience compared to the more seasoned McCain. When possible, McCain is lumped together with George Bush, an unpopular President.

===Republican Strategy===
With more limited funding than his Democratic rival, McCain had favored open town hall meetings to attract the greatest number of people. He is focusing his advertising on swing states. He also asked for open debates with Obama of the Lincoln-Douglas variety where candidates can talk directly to each other, but this was not accepted by the Democratic camp which prefers the current structured format.

McCain will highlight his record of leadership, his service to his country and stress that as President he can be counted on to keep America safe from outside threats. McCain's strongest supporters are the elderly - the group that most wants stability.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee was a departure from what was expected and helped to show that he would go down paths that the Republican party had not done in the past. McCain has touted Palin's record of standing up to the Alaska Republican party when she resigned from an Ethics Commission in protest over a lack of ethics of fellow commissioners, as well as when she ran against, and beat, then-incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in the Republican primary in 2006. McCain will continue to tout her as a "maverick" to complement his own maverick image that he is trying to emphasize. Last, by choosing a female running mate, McCain hoped to pick up the votes of female voters disaffected with the perceived slight of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Prior to the start of the Democratic convention, 30% of Hillary's supporters had still not backed Obama and there was a good deal of bad blood between the two.

With the unfolding of the campaign season and watching the Democratic strategy and how it was playing out in the press and polls, the McCain campaign decided not to cede the moniker of change to Obama, but rather to take it upon themselves by emphasizing that McCain has a track record of change - while Obama does not. The McCain campaign feels it needs to have the voters ask who can be trusted more to get the job done, and if that occurs, then they have the advantage.

With the selection of Palin, and the energy it has brought to the conservative base, McCain has taken to larger rallies, as opposed to town hall meetings and press conferences. By mid-September, he had gone four weeks without a town hall, and three weeks without a press conference, instead sticking to larger engagements, appearing alongside his vice presidential nominee, with larger crowds than he had experienced earlier in his campaign.

===Democratic Strategy===
Democrats are confident that the low popularity of President Bush and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which John McCain supports, puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008. They have been cautious in the Iraq arena realizing that 'The Surge' worked and they were on the wrong end of that issue. Focus is being put on a timeline for troops coming home, a position that most of the American population favors.

Democrats believe it is their race to lose, but also realize they had a good chance to win the last two Presidential elections and came up short each time. General wisdom also states that a poor economy favors Obama, so they will emphasize the dire times in this area. As in past elections, differences between those who have obtained a high income level and those who have not will be emphasized. In fact, the Democratic strategy in many ways mirrors that of their strategy in 1992 when the Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately caused economic disruption, knowing full well that the public would blame sitting president [[George H.W. Bush]], and thereby allowing [[Bill Clinton]] to win that year's presidential race.

Favored by the young, Democrats will try hard to encourage and get out the young vote, a task that has proven more difficult than expected in the last two election cycles. To their advantage, Obama made his vice presidential pick via text message to cell phone numbers registered on the site. The announcement went to 3 million cell phones, a useful database for "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts, when voters may not be home or reachable on their [[landline]].

As an extension of the DNC's strategy in the 2006 elections, led by [[Howard Dean]], Barack Obama has been working towards a "50-state strategy." The campaign is working to place campaign offices throughout the country with a focus on voter registration. The increase in the rolls of Democratic voters from the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama played out well for the Democrats and puts pressure on Senator McCain even in typically red states, and more specifically, "Lean Republican" states, to use the Cook Political Report's term. In addition, with a fundraising advantage, Obama is airing ads in those tight states forcing McCain to make decisions about whether to use funds to match ads and campaign efforts in those states or rely on historical results that those states will support him and focus funds in traditional toss-up states instead.

==Fundraising==

Barack Obama had a significant edge over Hillary Clinton in the fundraising department during their contest for the Democratic nomination, but both actually set records for raising money and both raised far more money than John McCain. McCain didn’t have to spend as much since he locked up the Republican nomination much earlier than Obama locked up the Democratic. Both Obama and McCain said they would accept government funds--which would also cap how much the candidates could raise on their own--but Obama, who could presumably raise more through his own sources, changed his mind and later declined. Much of McCain’s war chest will come from the Republican Party in general, which has more money to spend than their Democratic counterparts. McCain’s campaign raised $47 million in August, a very sizable figure for him so far and a personal record, but not as strong as Obama’s best months. In the same time period, Obama set a record with $66 million. Obama, still having an edge in fundraising that has continued throughout his run for the Presidency, saw $10 million collected the day after Sarah Palin’s strongly received convention speech, a new one day record.<ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/after-palin-speech-obama-has-record-10-million-day/ After Palin speech, Obama has record $10 million day]</ref> The Palin announcement has been good for John McCain's fundraising as well.

Obama set a new record of $150 million raised in September and over $600 million overall.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-raises-record-breaking-m/</ref> Obama's camp does not release information on who contributes to the campaign.

==Conventions==

===Democratic National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Democratic National Convention]]''

The 2008 Democratic National Convention was held in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]], from August 25 to August 27 at Pepsi Center. There, Senator Obama and his running mate were selected to be the party nominee's. Barack Obama will accepted the party's nomination in front of a crowd of more than 75,000 in a free, open event held at INVESCO Field at Mile High, in a platform resemblant to a Greek temple. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] is the Permanent Chair of the Convention.

The convention had a rocky start as friction between supporters of Obama and the Clintons was not resolved. Instead of Obama getting a bump in the polls, his support actually declined. The Democrats also seemed to be at odds on finding a unifying strategy for how hard to attack John McCain and how to present it. As Democratic pundit James Carville said in an interview on [[CNN]], "If this party has a message, it's done a <heck> of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp</ref>

A bleak convention was turned around by the Clintons. Infighting between Obama and Hillary continued through the day of her speech, but a comprise was reached, and, beyond expectations, she gave a rousing speech for Obama - possibly as an angry response to McCain's latest ad that showed her 'supporting' him. Bill Clinton the next night also praised Obama, something that he failed to effectively do in 2000 for Al Gore when he centered on his accomplishments and gave little more than lip service to Gore with statements amounting to 'and Al Gore was there too'. The convention, possibly remembering that, gave him the topic he was to speak on instead of choosing his own. Clinton was angered, but it worked. He came through. By the time Obama spoke on the last night, the theme that was missing at first was clear, and Obama mixed a message of attacking McCain with the need for change and even outlining some expensive programs that would appeal to the target populace who has been lukewarm to him. From a political point of view, the convention did what it was supposed to.

===Republican National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Republican National Convention]]''

The 2008 Republican National Convention was held in [[Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]] from September 1 ([[Labor Day]]) until September 4. The presumptive nominee was Senator McCain. The location has political significance in that [[Minnesota]] will likely be a close state during the general election, as will its neighboring states [[Wisconsin]] and [[Iowa]].

The convention schedule had to be altered due to the upcoming landfall of [[Hurricane Gustav]]. The first day almost entirely focused on raising money for Hurricane relief. This led to a shortened three day convention instead of four and there was some shuffling of who was speaking on which day to accommodate the suddenly shortened time span. In a surprise, George W. Bush was only delivered an eight minute speech by satellite. In another surprise Sarah Palin's speech was watched by as many people as saw Obama give his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic convention, as over 40 million people tuned in.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548482/</ref> She was considered the highlight of the convention, even surpassing John McCain's speech the next day, and was noted for doing an exceptional job. Recognizing the strong asset that they have in her, the Republicans made reference to her many times on the last day of the convention. McCain, not known for being comfortable reading prepared speeches in a convention hall, delivered a solid speech. While Obama continued to enjoy a lead in the polls, it changed quickly thereafter to a slight McCain-Palin edge. The Republican convention more than canceled out a very powerful Democratic convention.

====Leftist violence====
[[File:SDS at the RNC.jpg|left|thumb|290px|Poster circulated by [[community organizer]]s. Other posters depicted rock throwers with the caption, "Shut Down the RNC!," dead elephants, and derogatory and demeaning comments about gay Republicans. [http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=4893988286&view=all] ]]

[[Progressives for Obama]] shares a huge membership overlap with the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), a group of former [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) members and sympathisers. MDS re-founded SDS in 2006 for a new generation of college students and functions as a support group for SDS's 130 college chapters. Independent researcher Trevor Louden refers to MDS as "the brains behind the SDS brawn." The reconstituted SDS was very prominent in the violence at the Republican National Convention at St Paul.<ref>[http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-file-30-former-terrorists-bill.html Obama File 30: Former Terrorists [[Bill Ayers]] and [[Bernardine Dohrn]] Involved in Key Pro-Obama Organisation,] Trevor Louden, New Zeal blog, September 21, 2008.</ref> The founder of [[ACORN]], Wade Rathke, denouncd<ref>[http://chieforganizer.org/2009/01/31/common-ground-infiltrator/ Common Ground Infiltrator,] Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog, January 31, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2010.</ref> an FBI informer who foiled a [[terrorist]] plot to kill delegates at the Republican Convention.<ref>[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/13/acorn-founder-wade-rathke-want ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Wanted Terrorist Attack on Republican Convention to Succeed,] Matthew Vadum, American Spectator, 9.13.09 </ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidates==

===Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate===
On August 23rd, Senator Barack Obama announced, via text message to 3 million cell phone numbers of his supporters, his nomination of Joseph Biden to Vice President. Biden's selection was considered to be a prudent move by Obama, filling a hole in his own foreign policy experience that McCain could exploit. With the implosion of [[John Edwards]], Biden was widely expected to be the choice. In order to help build up suspense, Biden said he was not chosen when he spoke to the press the day before, only to be shown as the Vice Presidential candidate the next day. A long-term senator and Washington insider with over two decades of service in the Senate, his earlier plagarism scandal was deemed to be less of a negative than the positive that his strong experience credentials could bring to the race.

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumb|left|100px|Joseph Biden]]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

===Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate===
[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|thumb|left|100px|thumb]]
*Governor [[Sarah Palin]] of [[Alaska]] was announced as John McCain's choice early on Friday, August 29th, the day after the Democratic convention ended. A surprise choice not even considered by the press to be on McCain's short list, her selection caught the political world off guard. It had been expected that [[Mitt Romney]] would earn the honor, but McCain had other ideas. At first denigrated by the people in the Obama campaign, Obama's own statement was one of cautious neutrality to feel out what impact her selection would have on the race.
 
 
 
 
 

In an interesting twist, the selection of the Vice Presidential candidates changed the dynamics of the race. By Obama picking Biden, he helped to fill the hole that McCain had been attacking dealing with a lack of foreign policy experience. McCain's strongest point, experience, would lose some of its luster. But the selection of Biden, and the passing over of Hillary Clinton, left another opening. By aligning himself with someone who has been a Democratic stalwart, Obama's claim to change became less pronounced. McCain seized upon that to select a Vice President that no one expected, and a woman, and steal some of the Democratic thunder. Her lack of foreign policy experience would cut into the experience angle that had been in play earlier, but her own maverick streak in becoming governor by ousting another Republican, combined with John McCain's maverick choice in selecting her led to a new emphasis on McCain's own maverick past. Palin arguably had more "executive" / managerial experience than either McCain, Biden or, notably, Obama. Suddenly he saw an opportunity to steal the moniker of change that Obama had been wearing, and he went for it. Such a change in position occurring from the Vice Presidential selection is rare in Presidential politics.

==Debates==
===Presidential Debates===
''Main Article: [[2008 Presidential Debates]]''

There have been three [[Presidential Debates|presidential debates]] for the 2008 election season. The first debate on September 26th discussed "Foreign Policy & National Security" and also dealt at length with the economic crisis. The result was a statistical draw where both candidates did better than expected in the eyes of the public. The longer term impact worked out well for Obama who already had a lead going in, and benefited from solidifying that position.

The second debate on October 7th, followed a town hall-style. The questions came from audience members and the Internet, as chosen by the moderator. Again the result was a statistical draw as far as who was considered to be the winner. But with time running out for McCain, he needed something to make the people move his way, and that required a clear breakthrough that never happened

The final debate was held on October 15th concerned "Domestic and Economic Policy." Both candidates were again viewed as having done well, which was a tactical defeat for McCain as the poll numbers showed only small changes.

===Vice Presidential Debate===
There was one vice presidential debate held on October 2nd. Palin did much better than expected, but Biden was also in top form. No clear winner emerged and the poll numbers remained largely unchanged, a strategic win for the Democratic ticket that only had to maintain their lead to win the election. The number of people who watched the debate was an alltime record for a Vice Presidential debate, and was viewed by more people than any of the three Presidential debates.

==Third parties and Independents==

As usual there were a number of third party candidates, but none made much of an impact. Briefly the Libertarian [[Bob Barr]] had enough strength to become a spoiler for McCain. He faded quickly. See [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 -- Third Party Candidates]].

==Primaries==

For expanded primary information see [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Primaries]]

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 saw a major shift in the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

John McCain had to get his footing at first, but was pretty much assured the Republican nomination after [[Super Tuesday]]. Barack Obama had a much tougher road, but rode out a string of victories in February to eventually outlast Clinton and take the nomination. During that time he had raised more money than any other candidate in history giving him a huge boost, a trend that would continue into the general election.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign]]
*[[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]

==Further reading==
* Abramowitz, Allen I. and Larry J. Sabato. ''The 2008 Elections'' (2008), state by state statistical analysis
* Balz, Dan, and Haynes Johnson. ''The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election'' (2009), by leading reporters with inside information
* Nelson, Michael. ''The Elections of 2008'' (2009), factual summary [http://www.amazon.com/Elections-2008-Year/dp/0872895696/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801779&sr=1-4 except and text search]
* Todd, Chuck, and Sheldon Gawiser. ''How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election'' (2009) analysis of exit polls for each state [http://www.amazon.com/How-Barack-Obama-State-State/dp/030747366X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801899&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:2008, United States presidential election,}}

[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2008]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2012-10-04T05:35:10Z

TAbbott: /* Election Day */

[[Image:Gp_ppl_obama_mccain_flag-capitol.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Barack Obama and John McCain]]
[[Image:2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.png|right|300px|thumb|Election Results]]
The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' took place on Tuesday, November 4, 2008,<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> with Barack Obama being voted in as the next President of the United States. [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]], the [[Democratic Party]] nominee, with Senator [[Joe Biden]] of [[Delaware]] as his Vice Presidential running mate defeated Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]], the Republican candidate, and his Vice Presidential nominee, [[Alaska]] Governor [[Sarah Palin]].

==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.

===Young voters===

In 2004, 64% of voters aged 18-29 were registered to vote. This year 75% of voters in that age group are registered. This demographic usually favors Democrats.

== Fewer Uncommitted ==

Fewer people were undecided this election than in most previous elections. As of the beginning of October, 2008 approximately 6-8% of poll respondents were undecided, an amount that continued to decline as the election drew closer.

== Election Day ==
The turnout was about normal, except for higher than usual rates among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and voters under 30--all Obama groups. The turnout of evangelicals and whites was similar to 2004. There have been allegations of Democrats driving voters around to different voting stations, and as these are Obama groups, this would strengthen the voter turnout of this demographic.

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 3000 LV
| '''52'''
| 46

|-
|[http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm Zogby Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 1200 LV
| '''54'''
| 43
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Traditional]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2516 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Expanded]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2480 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

== McCain vs. Obama ==
McCain had the early edge, wrapping up the Republican nomination before Obama was known to be the choice of the Democrats, but this was one of the few advantages he has had. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised far more money than McCain, and the Democratic primary saw a surge of new voters coming out leading to a large increase in the rolls of Democrats. From the historical position of a generally equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the numbers have now tilted 41% Democrat to only 32% Republican. From the time that Obama was declared the nominee, opinion polling showed him with a modest advantage over McCain in terms of who the voters would choose to be their next President.

Obama's strategy was to tie McCain to George Bush, a very unpopular President, even though McCain was not a part of the Bush administration and often clashed with Bush during his time as senator. McCain, for his part, had to walk a fine line with accepting praise from the President to woo conservatives, while at the same time keeping enough distance so as to not alienate moderates. When possible, McCain went after Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

The trends heavily favored the Democrats, especially after their major gains in 2006. Overall, Democrat candidates have a +10% advantage over Republicans in a 'generic' election - the current unpopular President is a Republican, and the economy is treading water. Also, based on statistical percentages of articles on each candidate, Obama was being focused on by the press far more than McCain. When McCain chastised Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience and that he hadn't been to Iraq or Afghanistan in years, Obama's campaign set up for him to take a trip to both countries. While this is expected in politics, the decision of every major network to send a team of reporters to follow him was unprecedented. Obama spoke to 200,000 people in Berlin in a highly covered speech. McCain spoke to 50,000 in Buffalo shortly thereafter and barely got a whisper. Obama's numbers started to rise, but a good deal of the populace was noticing the disparity as 48% of those polled felt the press was trying to help Obama win.

Obama seemed pleased to coast on his advantages, but McCain realized he needed to shake things up. He scored by pushing offshore drilling for oil during a time when oil prices were climbing almost daily. Obama rejected the idea, but the poll numbers started to show a greater percentage of Americans warming to the concept<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/61_say_congress_should_vote_on_offshore_drilling_right_now Offshore Drilling poll]</ref> and McCain's numbers started to improve. Obama announced he would accept some measure of offshore drilling, and McCain's momentum was halted and his gains retreated by a couple of points. McCain started an ad campaign that acknowledged Obama's celebrity status, but asking what it meant. A few days later at the start of August he called out Obama for 'playing the race card' when Obama made a reference to McCain and Bush trying to scare people because he (Obama) doesn't look like other Presidents on dollar bills. The Democrats fired back, but quickly let the issue drop when poll numbers showed that most voters did consider Obama's statement to be racist.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/only_22_say_mccain_ad_racist_but_over_half_53_see_obama_dollar_bill_comment_that_way</ref>. The bounce for Obama after the Berlin speech shrank back to pre-trip levels. While Obama continued to enjoy a slight lead in the polls, McCain continued to keep the race close without either candidate breaking away.

In mid-August, both candidates came together at the invitation of Pastor [[Rick Warren]] where each was asked a series of the same questions dealing both with political and personal views. While not a debate, it was the first televised forum where both candidates had a chance to express themselves and their positions. Obama hoped to appeal to Christian conservatives by expressing a religious side while McCain hoped to solidify the conservative base by sharing his own conservative and religious credentials. The difference in style between the two was evident as Obama spent more time explaining and expounding on his positions while McCain was more straight-forward and received more laughs with his candid speaking style. The polling numbers continued as they had been.

There was a bounce at the start of the Democratic convention, but not what was expected as McCain suddenly drew even in the race. The friction between Hillary Clinton and Obama as well as the perceived slight of Hillary when Biden was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate hurt Obama at a time when his approval was expected to climb. McCain then made a mistake by airing an ad of Hillary Clinton that 'supported' him. Clinton was set to speak at the convention and it was no secret that there was bad blood between her and Obama and it was widely believed that her support for Obama would be lukewarm at best. Instead, apparently galvanized by McCain's hubris before her speech, she came out strongly for Obama and rallied those who supported her. Obama's pre-convention edge returned. Obama followed it up with a very strong speech the next day in a huge stadium with fireworks and a Greek temple. [[Dick Morris]], a former Bill Clinton political strategist who gave advice to the Republicans in 2008, felt that Obama had done such a good job reaching out to the groups that he needed that he would pull ahead by double-digits. In order to suppress the bounce from the convention, McCain announced his Vice Presidential candidate the next day, a woman, Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]. The bounce for Obama was muted at first, but increased in the following days to surpass pre-convention levels, especially as Sarah Palin came under heavy attack in the media.

The edge continued as the Republican convention began. Losing a day to the hurricane, their shortened convention came out strong as well, emphasizing John McCain as a patriot and a maverick for change who is tested and will do what is right for the country regardless of political affiliation. It was notable for the secondary role that the sitting President played, talking only briefly and barely being mentioned after that. The convention tied McCain to [[Ronald Reagan]], a popular Republican President who was able to gain the support of a good number of conservative Democrats, an ability that McCain would badly need to emulate. While the convention had very high ratings starting with Palin's well received speech, it was unclear what the impact would be in the polls. Indeed Obama continued to lead directly afterward, but that soon changed with a turn of about 8 points and a slim lead for McCain. The Republican convention had actually more than balanced out the powerful Democratic convention.

While Obama had stated that his campaign would avoid negative advertising, as it became clear that the bounce from the convention was continuing to last and he might lose the election, his campaign turned more forcefully to negative advertising. In ads aired since the Republican convention through mid September, McCain's ads were about Obama 56% of the time, but Obama's ads were about his opponents 77% of the time.<ref>http://news.aol.com/article/campaign-ads-not-getting-much-air-time/142625</ref> Obama also received a large boost from the press which vigorously attacked McCain, but even more so Palin. Obama appeared on ''[[O'Reilly Factor|The O'Reilly Factor]]'' and was treated with civility and respect, even if not with agreement. McCain and his wife appeared on ''The View'' and were treated to openly antagonistic attacks. The constant negative barrage and reporting slowly moved the numbers back to even.

As the negative articles on Palin continued to intensify, some of which just quoted celebrities who had never met her calling her "whacko" or a "hater of women", her first major interview with Gibson was a turning point. Gibson asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine, but wouldn't define it for her even as she asked questions for clarifications. When she then answered with her understanding, Gibson rebuked her by implying that she misunderstood the doctrine. In truth, since the term is only a press invention, it has taken on different meanings at different times and the definition that Palin gave matched one that Gibson himself had used years earlier. Nevertheless, it was a moment and was jumped on by the press. Those who saw the interview voted heavily that they were now less likely to vote for Palin. The attack on her had muted her effectiveness, even if it was unjustified.

Stemming the tide of the McCain campaign's lead became a strong swing for Obama with a series of events that went to the Democratic nominee's favor. The polls began to tack to Obama's favor with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and a subsequent 500-point drop in the Dow Jones Index. Then, President Bush sounded a major alarm on the economy and proposed a huge 700 billion dollar rescue plan for the mortgage industry, which sent shock waves through the American populace and swept them with even more fear on the economic picture. Bush called both Presidential nominees to meet with him and Congress. It gave Obama a boost in legitimacy, his previous Achilles' heel. While he had a weak record in accomplishments and showing leadership, the chance to be propelled to a position of prominence handed it to him on a silver platter. Moreover, the plan was more problematic among Republicans than it was among Democrats, giving Obama another boost merely by supporting it while putting McCain on more shaky ground. Both candidates supported it once again blurring McCain's advantage in experience if both men were seen as interchangeable in their reaction.

McCain chose to suspend his campaign until a deal on the rescue package was reached, a mistake. The Democrats could add pork to the plan and make it even more unpalatable to the Republicans, and they did. As the first debate loomed and no deal had been reached, McCain was in a quandary. He chose to attend the debate under the view that the plan was well under way to being passed. After the debate the plan was actually defeated and wouldn't be adopted, with more changes, until the following week.

McCain's debate with Obama went well and he was viewed as having done better than expected. Unfortunately for him, Obama was also viewed as doing better than expected and was seen as looking Presidential, further cementing his standing and locking in a lead in the polls that had become rather substantial. The Vice Presidential debate was the most watched in history and Palin was given high marks for her performance, but unfortunately for the Republican ticket, Biden was also on his game that night and also came across well. There were no changes in the polling numbers and the number of undecided voters began to quickly dwindle. The second and third debates caused little change as well.

With Obama spending 110 million dollars on TV advertising in October alone, including 30 minute specials on each of the major networks, McCain was hard pressed to make up the necessary ground to win the election after being outspent by 3 to 1 for TV adds over that time period. He couldn't count on regular TV to help put in a good word for him either, as late night political jokes are running at a pace of 7 jokes against McCain/Palin for every 1 joke against Obama/Biden and a study of news stories on McCain and Obama since the end of the conventions found that 57% of news stories about McCain were negative while only 29% were for Obama.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/</ref> A later study by the independent Pew Research Center found that the discrepancy had grown even worse. McCain had 57% of the articles about him negative while only 14% were positive, while Obama had more positive articles than negative. The only network to achieve a balance, 40% negative for both, was [[Fox News]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445846,00.html</ref>

== General Strategy ==

McCain's team emphasized to convince the electorate of the long-term leadership and experience that John McCain has shown in two decades of government service while emphasizing the relative untested nature of Barack Obama.

Obama's team stressed that Obama is the candidate of fresh ideas while downplaying his relative inexperience compared to the more seasoned McCain. When possible, McCain is lumped together with George Bush, an unpopular President.

===Republican Strategy===
With more limited funding than his Democratic rival, McCain had favored open town hall meetings to attract the greatest number of people. He is focusing his advertising on swing states. He also asked for open debates with Obama of the Lincoln-Douglas variety where candidates can talk directly to each other, but this was not accepted by the Democratic camp which prefers the current structured format.

McCain will highlight his record of leadership, his service to his country and stress that as President he can be counted on to keep America safe from outside threats. McCain's strongest supporters are the elderly - the group that most wants stability.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee was a departure from what was expected and helped to show that he would go down paths that the Republican party had not done in the past. McCain has touted Palin's record of standing up to the Alaska Republican party when she resigned from an Ethics Commission in protest over a lack of ethics of fellow commissioners, as well as when she ran against, and beat, then-incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in the Republican primary in 2006. McCain will continue to tout her as a "maverick" to complement his own maverick image that he is trying to emphasize. Last, by choosing a female running mate, McCain hoped to pick up the votes of female voters disaffected with the perceived slight of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Prior to the start of the Democratic convention, 30% of Hillary's supporters had still not backed Obama and there was a good deal of bad blood between the two.

With the unfolding of the campaign season and watching the Democratic strategy and how it was playing out in the press and polls, the McCain campaign decided not to cede the moniker of change to Obama, but rather to take it upon themselves by emphasizing that McCain has a track record of change - while Obama does not. The McCain campaign feels it needs to have the voters ask who can be trusted more to get the job done, and if that occurs, then they have the advantage.

With the selection of Palin, and the energy it has brought to the conservative base, McCain has taken to larger rallies, as opposed to town hall meetings and press conferences. By mid-September, he had gone four weeks without a town hall, and three weeks without a press conference, instead sticking to larger engagements, appearing alongside his vice presidential nominee, with larger crowds than he had experienced earlier in his campaign.

===Democratic Strategy===
Democrats are confident that the low popularity of President Bush and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which John McCain supports, puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008. They have been cautious in the Iraq arena realizing that 'The Surge' worked and they were on the wrong end of that issue. Focus is being put on a timeline for troops coming home, a position that most of the American population favors.

Democrats believe it is their race to lose, but also realize they had a good chance to win the last two Presidential elections and came up short each time. General wisdom also states that a poor economy favors Obama, so they will emphasize the dire times in this area. As in past elections, differences between those who have obtained a high income level and those who have not will be emphasized. In fact, the Democratic strategy in many ways mirrors that of their strategy in 1992 when the Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately caused economic disruption, knowing full well that the public would blame sitting president [[George H.W. Bush]], and thereby allowing [[Bill Clinton]] to win that year's presidential race.

Favored by the young, Democrats will try hard to encourage and get out the young vote, a task that has proven more difficult than expected in the last two election cycles. To their advantage, Obama made his vice presidential pick via text message to cell phone numbers registered on the site. The announcement went to 3 million cell phones, a useful database for "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts, when voters may not be home or reachable on their [[landline]].

As an extension of the DNC's strategy in the 2006 elections, led by [[Howard Dean]], Barack Obama has been working towards a "50-state strategy." The campaign is working to place campaign offices throughout the country with a focus on voter registration. The increase in the rolls of Democratic voters from the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama played out well for the Democrats and puts pressure on Senator McCain even in typically red states, and more specifically, "Lean Republican" states, to use the Cook Political Report's term. In addition, with a fundraising advantage, Obama is airing ads in those tight states forcing McCain to make decisions about whether to use funds to match ads and campaign efforts in those states or rely on historical results that those states will support him and focus funds in traditional toss-up states instead.

==Fundraising==

Barack Obama had a significant edge over Hillary Clinton in the fundraising department during their contest for the Democratic nomination, but both actually set records for raising money and both raised far more money than John McCain. McCain didn’t have to spend as much since he locked up the Republican nomination much earlier than Obama locked up the Democratic. Both Obama and McCain said they would accept government funds--which would also cap how much the candidates could raise on their own--but Obama, who could presumably raise more through his own sources, changed his mind and later declined. Much of McCain’s war chest will come from the Republican Party in general, which has more money to spend than their Democratic counterparts. McCain’s campaign raised $47 million in August, a very sizable figure for him so far and a personal record, but not as strong as Obama’s best months. In the same time period, Obama set a record with $66 million. Obama, still having an edge in fundraising that has continued throughout his run for the Presidency, saw $10 million collected the day after Sarah Palin’s strongly received convention speech, a new one day record.<ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/after-palin-speech-obama-has-record-10-million-day/ After Palin speech, Obama has record $10 million day]</ref> The Palin announcement has been good for John McCain's fundraising as well.

Obama set a new record of $150 million raised in September and over $600 million overall.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-raises-record-breaking-m/</ref> Obama's camp does not release information on who contributes to the campaign.

==Conventions==

===Democratic National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Democratic National Convention]]''

The 2008 Democratic National Convention was held in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]], from August 25 to August 27 at Pepsi Center. There, Senator Obama and his running mate were selected to be the party nominee's. Barack Obama will accepted the party's nomination in front of a crowd of more than 75,000 in a free, open event held at INVESCO Field at Mile High, in a platform resemblant to a Greek temple. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] is the Permanent Chair of the Convention.

The convention had a rocky start as friction between supporters of Obama and the Clintons was not resolved. Instead of Obama getting a bump in the polls, his support actually declined. The Democrats also seemed to be at odds on finding a unifying strategy for how hard to attack John McCain and how to present it. As Democratic pundit James Carville said in an interview on [[CNN]], "If this party has a message, it's done a <heck> of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp</ref>

A bleak convention was turned around by the Clintons. Infighting between Obama and Hillary continued through the day of her speech, but a comprise was reached, and, beyond expectations, she gave a rousing speech for Obama - possibly as an angry response to McCain's latest ad that showed her 'supporting' him. Bill Clinton the next night also praised Obama, something that he failed to effectively do in 2000 for Al Gore when he centered on his accomplishments and gave little more than lip service to Gore with statements amounting to 'and Al Gore was there too'. The convention, possibly remembering that, gave him the topic he was to speak on instead of choosing his own. Clinton was angered, but it worked. He came through. By the time Obama spoke on the last night, the theme that was missing at first was clear, and Obama mixed a message of attacking McCain with the need for change and even outlining some expensive programs that would appeal to the target populace who has been lukewarm to him. From a political point of view, the convention did what it was supposed to.

===Republican National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Republican National Convention]]''

The 2008 Republican National Convention was held in [[Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]] from September 1 ([[Labor Day]]) until September 4. The presumptive nominee was Senator McCain. The location has political significance in that [[Minnesota]] will likely be a close state during the general election, as will its neighboring states [[Wisconsin]] and [[Iowa]].

The convention schedule had to be altered due to the upcoming landfall of [[Hurricane Gustav]]. The first day almost entirely focused on raising money for Hurricane relief. This led to a shortened three day convention instead of four and there was some shuffling of who was speaking on which day to accommodate the suddenly shortened time span. In a surprise, George W. Bush was only delivered an eight minute speech by satellite. In another surprise Sarah Palin's speech was watched by as many people as saw Obama give his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic convention, as over 40 million people tuned in.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548482/</ref> She was considered the highlight of the convention, even surpassing John McCain's speech the next day, and was noted for doing an exceptional job. Recognizing the strong asset that they have in her, the Republicans made reference to her many times on the last day of the convention. McCain, not known for being comfortable reading prepared speeches in a convention hall, delivered a solid speech. While Obama continued to enjoy a lead in the polls, it changed quickly thereafter to a slight McCain-Palin edge. The Republican convention more than canceled out a very powerful Democratic convention.

====Leftist violence====
[[File:SDS at the RNC.jpg|left|thumb|290px|Poster circulated by [[community organizer]]s. Other posters depicted rock throwers with the caption, "Shut Down the RNC!," dead elephants, and derogatory and demeaning comments about gay Republicans. [http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=4893988286&view=all] ]]

[[Progressives for Obama]] shares a huge membership overlap with the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), a group of former [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) members and sympathisers. MDS re-founded SDS in 2006 for a new generation of college students and functions as a support group for SDS's 130 college chapters. Independent researcher Trevor Louden refers to MDS as "the brains behind the SDS brawn." The reconstituted SDS was very prominent in the violence at the Republican National Convention at St Paul.<ref>[http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-file-30-former-terrorists-bill.html Obama File 30: Former Terrorists [[Bill Ayers]] and [[Bernardine Dohrn]] Involved in Key Pro-Obama Organisation,] Trevor Louden, New Zeal blog, September 21, 2008.</ref> The founder of [[ACORN]], Wade Rathke, denouncd<ref>[http://chieforganizer.org/2009/01/31/common-ground-infiltrator/ Common Ground Infiltrator,] Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog, January 31, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2010.</ref> an FBI informer who foiled a [[terrorist]] plot to kill delegates at the Republican Convention.<ref>[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/13/acorn-founder-wade-rathke-want ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Wanted Terrorist Attack on Republican Convention to Succeed,] Matthew Vadum, American Spectator, 9.13.09 </ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidates==

===Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate===
On August 23rd, Senator Barack Obama announced, via text message to 3 million cell phone numbers of his supporters, his nomination of Joseph Biden to Vice President. Biden's selection was considered to be a prudent move by Obama, filling a hole in his own foreign policy experience that McCain could exploit. With the implosion of [[John Edwards]], Biden was widely expected to be the choice. In order to help build up suspense, Biden said he was not chosen when he spoke to the press the day before, only to be shown as the Vice Presidential candidate the next day. A long-term senator and Washington insider with over two decades of service in the Senate, his earlier plagarism scandal was deemed to be less of a negative than the positive that his strong experience credentials could bring to the race.

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumb|left|100px|Joseph Biden]]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

===Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate===
[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|thumb|left|100px|thumb]]
*Governor [[Sarah Palin]] of [[Alaska]] was announced as John McCain's choice early on Friday, August 29th, the day after the Democratic convention ended. A surprise choice not even considered by the press to be on McCain's short list, her selection caught the political world off guard. It had been expected that [[Mitt Romney]] would earn the honor, but McCain had other ideas. At first denigrated by the people in the Obama campaign, Obama's own statement was one of cautious neutrality to feel out what impact her selection would have on the race.
 
 
 
 
 

In an interesting twist, the selection of the Vice Presidential candidates changed the dynamics of the race. By Obama picking Biden, he helped to fill the hole that McCain had been attacking dealing with a lack of foreign policy experience. McCain's strongest point, experience, would lose some of its luster. But the selection of Biden, and the passing over of Hillary Clinton, left another opening. By aligning himself with someone who has been a Democratic stalwart, Obama's claim to change became less pronounced. McCain seized upon that to select a Vice President that no one expected, and a woman, and steal some of the Democratic thunder. Her lack of foreign policy experience would cut into the experience angle that had been in play earlier, but her own maverick streak in becoming governor by ousting another Republican, combined with John McCain's maverick choice in selecting her led to a new emphasis on McCain's own maverick past. Palin arguably had more "executive" / managerial experience than either McCain, Biden or, notably, Obama. Suddenly he saw an opportunity to steal the moniker of change that Obama had been wearing, and he went for it. Such a change in position occurring from the Vice Presidential selection is rare in Presidential politics.

==Debates==
===Presidential Debates===
''Main Article: [[2008 Presidential Debates]]''

There have been three [[Presidential Debates|presidential debates]] for the 2008 election season. The first debate on September 26th discussed "Foreign Policy & National Security" and also dealt at length with the economic crisis. The result was a statistical draw where both candidates did better than expected in the eyes of the public. The longer term impact worked out well for Obama who already had a lead going in, and benefited from solidifying that position.

The second debate on October 7th, followed a town hall-style. The questions came from audience members and the Internet, as chosen by the moderator. Again the result was a statistical draw as far as who was considered to be the winner. But with time running out for McCain, he needed something to make the people move his way, and that required a clear breakthrough that never happened

The final debate was held on October 15th concerned "Domestic and Economic Policy." Both candidates were again viewed as having done well, which was a tactical defeat for McCain as the poll numbers showed only small changes.

===Vice Presidential Debate===
There was one vice presidential debate held on October 2nd. Palin did much better than expected, but Biden was also in top form. No clear winner emerged and the poll numbers remained largely unchanged, a strategic win for the Democratic ticket that only had to maintain their lead to win the election. The number of people who watched the debate was an alltime record for a Vice Presidential debate, and was viewed by more people than any of the three Presidential debates.

==Third parties and Independents==

As usual there were a number of third party candidates, but none made much of an impact. Briefly the Libertarian [[Bob Barr]] had enough strength to become a spoiler for McCain. He faded quickly. See [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 -- Third Party Candidates]].

==Primaries==

For expanded primary information see [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Primaries]]

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 saw a major shift in the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

John McCain had to get his footing at first, but was pretty much assured the Republican nomination after [[Super Tuesday]]. Barack Obama had a much tougher road, but rode out a string of victories in February to eventually outlast Clinton and take the nomination. During that time he had raised more money than any other candidate in history giving him a huge boost, a trend that would continue into the general election.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign]]
*[[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]

==Further reading==
* Abramowitz, Allen I. and Larry J. Sabato. ''The 2008 Elections'' (2008), state by state statistical analysis
* Balz, Dan, and Haynes Johnson. ''The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election'' (2009), by leading reporters with inside information
* Nelson, Michael. ''The Elections of 2008'' (2009), factual summary [http://www.amazon.com/Elections-2008-Year/dp/0872895696/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801779&sr=1-4 except and text search]
* Todd, Chuck, and Sheldon Gawiser. ''How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election'' (2009) analysis of exit polls for each state [http://www.amazon.com/How-Barack-Obama-State-State/dp/030747366X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801899&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:2008, United States presidential election,}}

[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2008]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Formula One

2012-10-03T07:28:40Z

TAbbott: Mosley section was untruthful. If anyone has any qualms, talk on the talk page.

'''Formula One''', also known as '''Formula 1''' or '''F1''' and officially as the '''FIA Formula One World Championship''' is the highest class of [[single-seater]] [[auto racing]] sanctioned by the [[Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile]] (FIA). Formula One is often considered the pinnacle of [[automobile]] [[racing]]. It is the highest class of car racing with speeds topping 320 kph. The Formula One World Championship is held every year on racing tracks on every continent except [[Africa]]. The Championship is given not only to the winning driver after all 20 races but also to the winner car manufacturer. The current Driver's World Champion is [[German]] [[Christian]] racer Sebastien Vettel, while the Constructor's Champions are the [[Austrian]] team Red Bull Racing, who are, like most of the F1 teams based close to the British circuit Silverstone. Due to the requirement of the drivers to be fit and focused, many of the drivers are devout [[Christians]].

=='''Constructors'''==

The teams for the 2012 season are;

*'''[[Red Bull]] Racing''', which bought the [[Jaguar]] team in 2005, who in turn bought out the [[Stewart]] team. The team's current drivers are Mark Webber ([[Australia]]) and Sebastien Vettel (Germany). The team uses Renault engines, and, like Toro Rosso, are sponsored by Red Bull.

*'''[[Vodafone]] [[McLaren]] [[Mercedes]]''' was founded in 1966. They are the third most successful team in the sport's history, having won the constructors' title 8 times. The team was formed by the [[New Zealand]]er Bruce Mclaren. The current drivers are [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservative Sports Star]] [[Lewis Hamilton]] and [[Jenson Button]]. [[Lewis Hamilton]] will leave McLaren at the end of the 2012 Formula One season and go to the Mercedes team for three seasons. He will be replaced by the Mexican Sauber driver Sergio Perez.

*'''Scuderia [[Ferrari]] [[Marlboro]]''', who first competed in the second-ever Formula One race at [[Monaco]] in 1950, are the most famous and most successful team in the history of Formula One, and present constructors' champions. They have won the constructors' championship 16 times, maostly because of the dominance of [[Michael Schumacher]], who holds the most championship wins in the sport's history. The team uses [[Ferrari]] engines and are sponsored by the [[Marlboro]] [[tobacco]] company. The current drivers are Fernando Alonso and Filipe Massa

*'''[[Mercedes]] F1 Team''', which replaced the [[Honda]] team in 2009 and then became the [[Petronas Mercedes AMG Racing]] in 2010. The are run by Norbet Hoog and have [[Nico Rosberg]] and seven time Formula One drivers champion, [[Micheal Schumacher]] driving for them. From 2013 the [[Lewis Hamilton]] will replace [[Michael Schumacher]], who has neither found a seat for 2013 or announced he is retiring again.

*'''[[Lotus]] F1''' Originally named [[Toleman]] and then became Benetton. Under the leadership of Flavio Briatore, Benetton bought out [[Renault]] and became Lucky 7 Renault F1. However, a tobacco sponsorship ban forced the team to change its name under new sponsorship from ING to ING Renault F1. Fernando Alonso won two championships with the team. Flavio Briatore, along with Pat Symmonds and Nelson Piquet Jr. were convicted of race fixing, which led to them being banned from the sport for for 5 years. The team was then bought out by GenII Capital and recieved sponsorship from Lotus. It later was involved in a legal battle with Caterham (who previously held the rights to the Lotus brand) over who had right to use the name. The current drivers are [[Kimi Raikonen]] and [[Romain Grosjean]].

*'''[[Force India]] F1 Team''', who replaced the [[Spyker]] team in 2008, scored their first points at the 2009 Belgian Grand Prix. The team's present drivers are Nico Hulkenburg and Paul Di Resta. The team uses Mercedes engines and are sponsored by Indian airline [[Kingfisher]] and Indian Finance giant Sahara.

*'''Scuderia [[Red Bull|Toro Rosso]]''', who replaced the [[Minardi]] team in 2006, are a "farm" team for Red Bull Racing, but managed to beat their parent team in 2008. The team's drivers are 2012 debutante, Jean-Eric Vergne ([[France]]) and Daniel Ricciardo ([[Australia]]) who was in the [[HRT]] for 10 races last year. The drivers replaced [[Sebastion Buemi]] and [[Jaime Alguesari]]. The team uses Ferrari engines and are sponsored by beverage company [[Red Bull]].

*'''[[Williams]]''', founded in 1977, are the second most successful team in F1's history, having won the constructors' title 9 times. However, they have not won the title since 1997. The team is heavily reliant on the money from PVDSA, the state oil company of socialist [[Venezuela]]. The team's present drivers are Pastor Maldonado (Venezuela) and Bruno Senna (Brazil). The team uses [[Renualt]] engines and are sponsored by various other Venezuelan state owned companies

*'''Air Asia Caterham Team''' Originally Malaysia F1 team and owned by [[businessman]] Tony Fernandes, who also owns leading English football club [[QPR]]. The team's name was changed to LotusF1 before threir first season in 2010, but Renault, who were sponsored by Lotus challenged this in cours but lost. Meanwhile, Tony Fernandes bought out the [[car]] [[manufacturer]] [[Caterham]] and promptly renamed his team Caterham. The [[Malaysia]]n government, who owns [[Proton]], which in turn owns [[Lotus Cars]] were also rumoured to have let [[Fernandes]] buy Air Malaysia in return for him dropping the legal action against [[Lotus]]. The drivers are [[Vitaly Petrov]] ([[Russia]]), who brings a large amount of state-owned [[Russian]] sponsors and the [[Finland|Finn]] [[Heikki Kovalinen]].

*'''HRT''' Is a Spanish F1 team. They lack funds to build competitive car and rely heavily on sponsors brought by the race drivers and the third drivers. The ircurrent drivers are [[Pedro De La Rosa]] and [[Narain Karthakain]].

*'''[[Marussia F1]]''' A Russian team owned by car manufacturer [[Marussia]], Charles Pic and Timo Glock currently race for them. WThey were originally [[Manor F1]] and then became [[Virgin|Virgin F1]].

== Drivers ==

The drivers fight for the world drivers' championship, it is currently being led by Fernando Alonso.

== 2012 Season Schedule and Results ==

===Grands Prix===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:80%"
! Round
! Grand Prix
! Date
! Pole position
! Fastest lap
! Winning driver
! Winning constructor
|-
! 1
| Australian Grand Prix
| 18 March
| Lewis Hamilton
| Jenson Button
| Jenson Button
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 2
| Malaysian Grand Prix
| 25 March
| Lewis Hamilton
| Kimi Räikkönen
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari
|-
! 3
| Chinese Grand Prix
| 15 April
| Nico Rosberg
| Kamui Kobayashi
| Nico Rosberg
| Mercedes-Benz
|-
! 4
| Bahrain Grand Prix
| 22 April
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 5
| Spanish Grand Prix
| 13 May
| Pastor Maldonado
| Romain Grosjean
| Pastor Maldonado
| Williams F1
|-
! 6
| Monaco Grand Prix
| 27 May
| Mark Webber
| Sergio Pérez
| Mark Webber
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 7
| Canadian Grand Prix
| 10 June
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 8
| European Grand Prix
| 24 June
| Sebastian Vettel
| Nico Rosberg
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari
|-
! 9
| British Grand Prix
| 8 July
| Fernando Alonso
| Kimi Räikkönen
| Mark Webber
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 10
| German Grand Prix
| 22 July
| Fernando Alonso
| Michael Schumacher
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari
|-
! 11
| Hungarian Grand Prix
| 29 July
| Lewis Hamilton
| Sebastian Vettel
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 12
| Belgian Grand Prix
| 2 September
| Jenson Button
| Bruno Senna
| Jenson Button
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 13
| Italian Grand Prix
| 9 September
| Lewis Hamilton
| Nico Rosberg
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 14
| Singapore Grand Prix
| 23 September
| Lewis Hamilton
| Nico Hülkenberg
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 15
| Japanese Grand Prix
| 7 October
|
|
|
|
|-
! 16
| Korean Grand Prix
| 14 October
|
|
|
|
|-
! 17
| Indian Grand Prix
| 28 October
|
|
|
|
|-
! 18
| Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
| 4 November
|
|
|
|
|-
! 19
| United States Grand Prix
| 18 November
|
|
|
|
|-
! 20
| Brazilian Grand Prix
| 25 November
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

===WDC Standing===

== Controversies ==

Formula One racing has been involved in several controversies. [[Texas]] gave $300 million dollars to [[Bernie Eccelstone]] to host the [[US Grand Prix]] in [[Austin]], [[Texas]] at the [[Circuit of the Americas]] over the next 10 years.

The state of [[New Jersey]] also gave Ecclestone $300 million so it can host the [[New Jersey Grand Prix]] at [[West New York]] over the next 10 years, starting in 2013. There have been a number of reports that the 2013 [[American Grand Prix]] will not happen due to lack of payment of race fees to Bernie Eccelstone and lack of preparation. However New Jersey Governor [[Chris Christie]] has said that all is on track and that the required fees have been paid, however this conflicts with what is widely being reported in the [[European]] Press.

== Drivers' route to F1 ==

Almost all Formula One drivers start racing Karts in club and sub-national classes between the ages of 5 and their early teens. If they show some talent and have the funding they then progress to the national and international competitions. They then progress to either Formula Renault, Formula Ford or a National Formula 3 class if they have sufficient funding and talent. Drivers then progress to Formula 3 or GP3 which costs in the region of half a million euros per season. After this the drivers go into either [[World Series by Renault]] or [[GP2]], which can cost up to 3 million euros a season. Talented drivers also act as teams third and test drivers while they compete in these series; drivers who can bring large amounts of sponsorship money to the F1 teams are also given these roles even though they may be lacking in talent.

There are other, less common routes to a F1 race seat.. The last driver to come to formula one via this route was Paul di Resta who won the [[DTM]] title for [[Mercedes]] and was then given a race seat in the [[Mercedes]]-powered [[Force India]].

== Other Information ==
While many people think that F1 is similar to [[Indycar]], Formula One takes place on [[race circuits]] and [[street circuits]], while Indycar races often take place on oval tracks.

==External Links==
*[http://www.fia.com The Sport's governing body] 
*[http://www.formula1.com/ Official Website] 
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm BBC Sport F1 - Site of the UK broadcaster] 
*[http://joesaward.wordpress.com/ Highly Respected Formula One Journalist] 
*[http://www.autosport.com Worlds leading motorsport publication] 
*[http://piranha.excom.us Vast amount of Material on F1 ] 
*[http://www.ten-tenths.com Leader in Motorsport News ]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Motor Racing]]

Gun control

2012-10-03T07:17:36Z

TAbbott: Rewrote passages due to slight plagiarism.

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, even though guns are typically acquired for defensive and/or sporting purposes. Studies show that more gun ownership results in less crime, but [[liberals]] push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. But average people want gun control because they don't want THE WEAK to be killed by Conservatives.

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the fully credited (obvious) claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime, as guns are primarily offensive weapons.People who support gun control are able to show that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.

Gun control laws cause enormous hardships. In May 2012, a gun control law resulted in a 20-year prison sentence against an [[African American]] woman for merely firing warning shots against her husband, and there was widespread outrage in [[Florida]] against this unconscionable sentence.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. A study by Professor Gary Kleck, initially a liberal critic of gun control, caused him to change his mind on this issue when the evidence showed that crime was predominantly ''prevented'' when people could carry guns. ''See Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America''.<ref>http://www.largo.org/effects.html</ref> In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

Many [[religious]] leaders are in favor of gun control for "pro-life" reasons.<ref>http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=5250</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/religious-leaders-call-for-prayer-and-tighter-gun-control-after-colorado-shooting/2012/07/20/gJQAwMRcyW_story.html</ref> Opponents of gun control argue that this is a misguided position, and that guns actually do more to protect life than end life, as discussed above.

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the United States ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have firearms.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]
*[[Second Amendment]]
*[[Gun Control in Nazi Germany]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
Normal People.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Evolution

2012-10-03T07:12:20Z

TAbbott: /* Neutrality */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths.

And I, another user, though I am an agnostic (however, I am inclined more towards atheism than ever due to articles like this) understand that evolution is a flawless theory. It is scientific fact, a certainty, that unnerves me as much as it does anyone else - and yet it is undeniably a fact because there is a huge body of evidence supporting it. This body of evidence is readily available in brilliant books that you can borrow from your local library, and impossible, if understood, to contradict (using logic and reason). It makes me sad to see debates raging on on this subject when the matter has long since been settled. Evoltuion is proven by the fossil record, without exception; by the science of genetics, without exception; it is actually played out visibly if you care to study the development of a human embryo; it sheds light (though of course, cannot be proven, as that would be a cyclical arguement) by the many oddities that plague human anatomy, such as vestigial tails, redundant organs, and certain instincts (like that twitch you feel when you are falling asleep and your arm falls: that is a best explained as remnant of a trait our ancestors developed to prevent themselves falling out trees). The often quoted existence of a 'missing link' is also imaginary, for reasons that would become evident to people who actually studied the facts of this issue. I am certain that every creationist, and evolution denier, in fact, every non ultra-Darwinist, has not thoroughly researched the topic. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins provide the most accurate overview of evolution in the scientific world. There is literally no reason to dis-believe in evolution, or even to believe in it. This is because it is not a question of belief. It has been proven. Therefore one does not need belief to realise it is true.

== Issues ==
There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. [[User:Crzyclarks|Crzyclarks]] 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

This article needs to be unprotected. Only admins seem to be able to edit and from what I've seen, all admins are YEC's. The section above this one offers improvements to the article, yet it was removed by an admin and the fixes and suggested content still has not been implemented. In short, the article is embarrassing for the website and makes its motto look like a joke. Literally a joke made to poke fun at itself. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:49, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

==Popper Quote==

The Karl Popper quote is taken out of context. For example the next line is: "and although it is no doubt THE BEST AT PRESENT AVAILABLE, it can be slightly improved." In addition, anyone who researches more will find that he recanted his view later in life.

I find incidents such as this common throughout the page, and I humbly ask for it to be unprotected so that I can fix the mistakes throughout. [[User:TAbbott|TAbbott]] 8:12, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Joke sports

2012-10-03T04:56:06Z

TAbbott: Removed Olympic Association Football (Soccer). Lower paid players are used as this fits with the Olympic spirit. Also, the standard is still higher than the MLS.

'''Joke sports''' are games that some people consider to be poor substitutes for athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement with a underlying purpose to the event. The inclusion of many joke sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize joke sport winners more than world records set in real sports, which distorts the legitimacy of the [[Olympics]]. Also, the format used for at least one of the joke sports below (badminton) resulted in an expulsion of several teams from the 2012 Summer Olympics which caused embarrassment to the entire Olympics.

Examples of possible joke sports include:

*Aerial skiing
*[[Badminton]]
*Beach volleyball
*BMX cycling
*[[Dressage]]
*Rhythmic [[gymnastics]]
*Mogul skiing
*Halfpipe Snowboarding
*Synchronized [[swimming]]
*[[Swimming]] relays<ref>In running relays, there is a baton that must be artfully passed during the race. No such baton passing exists for the silly swimming relays. Would anyone want a long jump or pole vault "relay"??? However, in swimming relays, strategy is an important component. Placement of the fastest and slowest swimmers in the order is important. Also, precise timing is required as well - the swimmer completing his/her turn must touch the wall before the following swimmer can leave the starting block.</ref>
*[[Table_tennis|Table tennis]]
*[[woman|Women's]] [[boxing]] and [[wrestling]]

Of course, the [[International Olympic Committee]] (IOC) is constantly being lobbied by sports executives who would gain funding and prestige if their sport were included in the Olympic Programme. To respond to these pressure groups without admitting even more sports into the games, the IOC created a "half-way" status of "recognized sports federation." There are currently 68 sport federations recognized by IOC.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/governance/international-federations/?tab=mission|title=International federations|publisher=olympic.org|accessdate=Aug 13, 2012}}</ref> Over half of those administer sports in the Summer and Winter Games. But the 31 members of [[Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations]] (ARISF)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arisf.org/members|title=ARISF - Members|publisher=arisf.org|accessdate=Aug 13 2012}}</ref> administer sports that are '''not''' a part of the Olympics. Some of these sports, such as motor sports, are ineligible from ever being a part of the Olympics because the Olympic Charter excludes motor sports.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf|title=Olympic Charter|accessdate=Aug 13, 2012}}</ref> The ARISF members nonetheless receive funding from the IOC and the national Olympic committees.

== Notes and references ==

<references/>