Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-13T01:36:59Z

Zerlock: /* Final word for 1600s */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-13T01:24:52Z

Zerlock: /* Slipshod */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611) : I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

Hope this helps... -[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Wikiproject:News

2009-01-29T02:35:31Z

Zerlock: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Project leaders==
Project leaders are responsible for supervising the project. Some of their responsibilities include:
#Posting news suggestions and wanted page links to the news page.
#Archiving completed wanted pages.
#Recruiting new members to the project.
#Encouraging current members to contribute and follow the project guidelines.
#Suggest improvements to the project.
*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] began this project on August 8, 2008.
*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) (promoted to admin on 1/1/09).

==Admins==
Admins have the rights to add news suggestions and wikify wanted pages to the Main page.
*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:06, 28 December 2008 (EST) (promoted 1/1/09)

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

''If you are a liberal...'' we are not going to put [[liberal]] items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. You can contribute by creating [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted articles]] that link to the Main page.

*[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:QWest|QWest]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008
*[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
*-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]][[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 09:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 08:23, 19 November 2008 (EST).
* [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:33, 22 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:BradJohnson|Brad Johnson]] [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 15:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Conservapedia1|Conservapedia1]] 00:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
*----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 10:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Subprojects==

===In the News===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

This doesn't mean we are going to place information which is incorrect, uncertain, or known to be false. Our "bias" is one of interest and perspective. However, the misleading interpretations, wishful thinking and outright lies of the (mainstream) [[liberal media]] will not be presented here. Conservapedia aims to expose and debunk such propaganda.

We're also not trying to reproduce Fox News and report on every news story. There will be a wide range of sources (including blogs) that illustrate news and opinions according to the guidelines.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

====Editing the "In the News" section====
If you're an administrator, you can edit the news section. Here's how to do it:
#On the Main Page, there is an edit link to the right of "In the News".
#Click the edit link, and you will be editing "Template:Mainpageright (section)".
#Enter a post below where it says "PAGE CONTENT BEGINS BELOW THIS LINE".
#You can put a return and ---- to separate the posts.
#Add the news posting.
#Put something in the edit summary and click the preview button to see how it looks.
#Click "Save page" and view your addition on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|News Suggestions]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 contributors
! Number of suggestions ''as of 1/1/09''
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Jpatt2008|44]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Chippeterson2008|33]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Benp|Benp]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Benp2008|9]]</center>
|}

===Today in History===
If you have a suggestion for "Today in History", post it [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Today in History|here]]. Your article will be posted on the Main Page on the corresponding day.

===Wanted Pages===
This is a very important part of this project. Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted page]] for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page|Wanted Pages]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 Contributors
! Number of pages ''as of 1/1/09''
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>134</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>57</center>
|}

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion]]
[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Wikiproject:News

2009-01-29T02:35:16Z

Zerlock: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Project leaders==
Project leaders are responsible for supervising the project. Some of their responsibilities include:
#Posting news suggestions and wanted page links to the news page.
#Archiving completed wanted pages.
#Recruiting new members to the project.
#Encouraging current members to contribute and follow the project guidelines.
#Suggest improvements to the project.
*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] began this project on August 8, 2008.
*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) (promoted to admin on 1/1/09).

==Admins==
Admins have the rights to add news suggestions and wikify wanted pages to the Main page.
*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:06, 28 December 2008 (EST) (promoted 1/1/09)

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

''If you are a liberal...'' we are not going to put [[liberal]] items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. You can contribute by creating [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted articles]] that link to the Main page.

*[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:QWest|QWest]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008
*[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
*-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]][[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 09:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 08:23, 19 November 2008 (EST).
* [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:33, 22 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:BradJohnson|Brad Johnson]] [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 15:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Conservapedia1|Conservapedia1]] 00:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
*----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 10:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]]

==Subprojects==

===In the News===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

This doesn't mean we are going to place information which is incorrect, uncertain, or known to be false. Our "bias" is one of interest and perspective. However, the misleading interpretations, wishful thinking and outright lies of the (mainstream) [[liberal media]] will not be presented here. Conservapedia aims to expose and debunk such propaganda.

We're also not trying to reproduce Fox News and report on every news story. There will be a wide range of sources (including blogs) that illustrate news and opinions according to the guidelines.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

====Editing the "In the News" section====
If you're an administrator, you can edit the news section. Here's how to do it:
#On the Main Page, there is an edit link to the right of "In the News".
#Click the edit link, and you will be editing "Template:Mainpageright (section)".
#Enter a post below where it says "PAGE CONTENT BEGINS BELOW THIS LINE".
#You can put a return and ---- to separate the posts.
#Add the news posting.
#Put something in the edit summary and click the preview button to see how it looks.
#Click "Save page" and view your addition on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|News Suggestions]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 contributors
! Number of suggestions ''as of 1/1/09''
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Jpatt2008|44]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Chippeterson2008|33]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Benp|Benp]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Benp2008|9]]</center>
|}

===Today in History===
If you have a suggestion for "Today in History", post it [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Today in History|here]]. Your article will be posted on the Main Page on the corresponding day.

===Wanted Pages===
This is a very important part of this project. Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted page]] for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page|Wanted Pages]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 Contributors
! Number of pages ''as of 1/1/09''
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>134</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>57</center>
|}

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion]]
[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Texas State Pledge

2008-11-07T03:50:50Z

Zerlock: New page: The State of Texas has its own state pledge of allegiance, which comes from when Texas was a republic. It is recited daily after the United States Pledge of Allegiance in schools i...

The State of [[Texas]] has its own state pledge of allegiance, which comes from when Texas was a republic. It is recited daily after the United States [[Pledge of Allegiance]] in schools in Texas.

== Text ==
"Honor the Texas flag;
I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,
One state under God,
One and indivisible."

Talk:Liberal Style

2008-11-06T23:41:47Z

Zerlock: /* Really guys? */

Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers to point #28. So either Obama is not liberal, or Point #28 should be modified.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Good point, but Obama is not a ''fellow'' liberal with respect to Hillary. He is an "adversary" to Hillary. Any suggestions to make more precise, while keeping it concise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Instead of using "Never", perhaps use the word "rarely". --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: Good suggestion. "Rarely" is weaker than I'd like, but let's use it as the best suggestion so far. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Israel ==

"referring to Israel as "occupied territories""

Hello, I notice the article (which is very funny and good by the way) gets it right about "occupied" "palestinian" territories, but conservapedia article for Israel doesnt'! If you look at the map it shows east-jerusalem and ALL judea-samaria, golan hights, as not Israel, even parts that are definely Jewish. maybe some of the "Palestinian" cities, like area "A" in Oslo treaties, should not be mapped in Israel. But absolutely east-jerusalem must be, since it is annexed to Israel since 1980s, and not even liberals expect Israel to give it up to the terrorists. same for golan. i would remove the map myself but, the artical is "locked" from vandalisms.

Étienne Léger

== Neville Chamberlain ==

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative Prime Minister, it's a bit foolish to criticise a liberal trait and use a conservative as an example.--[[User:JesusIsMyHomeboy|JesusIsMyHomeboy]] 22:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Childish ==

While I understand that conservapedia wishes to be encyclopedia with a conservative bias, there is a difference between childish name calling and factual data. Please I beg you hearsay and opinion are no basis for an encyclopedia. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

This should really be an essay, since it's basically vilifying everyone at the other end of the political spectrum; characterising them as slippery, disingenuous and vindictive. Why on earth is it so hard for people here to accept that liberals are capable of honest discussion? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:44, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Because we can't recall ever seeing any. Perhaps you'd like to be the first to destroy my preconceptions? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'd be more than happy to. Perhaps you could critique my entry on [[liberal ideology]]? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Seriously. Half of these are not even credited to any source. Its particularly ironic that one of the points is "Unjustified expertise" with no citation. Plus liberals just see the way we should solve problems differently... we are people too (and good ones at that too!). --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 15:09, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Removing 'sigh' entry ==
A sigh is an expression of tiredness and/or exasperation. Everyone sighs, including your sysops (see [[Talk:Hollywood values]] for evidence)
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:01, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

It would appear I cant so can someone else?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:02, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Point number 39==
This entire article is somewhat hyperbolic. Having this point is somewhat hypocritical?

==Tragic==

The contradictions I see here are the same contradictions the Liberal left display when they attack the conservative right. Partisans have no idea of how foolish they look to the rest of us. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 14:12, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Shame" ==

I think the shame point is a bit ridiculous. Heck, shame is a theme in Christianity -- Adam and Eve felt shame for being naked. I don't think God is a liberal.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Can someone remove this point? It doesn't look like there are any objects.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:53, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Point No. 8==

Global warming is a wacky liberal theory? As if thermometers have liberal ideologies? Heavens. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 12:19, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

==Quantify==
"32. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness". 
I was told specifically by a very conservative person, that quantifying things only make things worse. Care to explain? o.O [[Special:Userrights|Make me a sysop!]] [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 10:01, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Really guys? ==
Okay, I understand that this is a conservative website and that we may not like liberals a whole lot, but we accuse liberals "bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views" when we are doing the same to them. This page is proof. We sit here and say all of these great things about ourselves and we just leave the liberals to eat dirt. Here's my evidence:

*concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them 
*calling conservative free speech "hate" speech 
*claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false 

Really? Is this how we should be acting? If us conservatives really want to be the best group, we shouldn't insult other groups just because they're liberal and such. Now, I'm not saying we should accept their viewpoints, but we should be a little less...harsh...in our evaluation of liberals. Even though liberals have a style we don't agree with, we aren't any different. So, I think a revision of this page should be done in order to reduce the harshness. We should also do a revision on Conservative style and maybe mention some of the things we tend to have problems with. --[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]]

User:Zerlock

2008-11-06T04:26:18Z

Zerlock: New page: Oh, hey there. I haven't had time to create an actual page, so you can go ahead and stare at this until it happens: <math>F={ma}\,\!</math> It's Newton's second law in the form of an eq...

Oh, hey there. I haven't had time to create an actual page, so you can go ahead and stare at this until it happens:

<math>F={ma}\,\!</math>

It's Newton's second law in the form of an equation, if you couldn't tell.

<math>x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}</math>

That's the Quadratic Formula.

<math>{}_pF_q(a_1,...,a_p;c_1,...,c_q;z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(a_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(a_p)_n}{(c_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(c_q)_n}\frac{z^n}{n!}</math>

Um...

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-11-06T04:16:46Z

Zerlock:

{{move|Debate:Did God create evil?}}

{{Debate}}

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

"Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?" He didn't, Neither exist. [[User:ChillinBM]] Sept 29 2008 15:34

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

This is the biggest issue with the whole bible, and christianity.
If you say that God is all powerful, and that there isn't anything he can't do..
Why did he then (if he created everything) create men on earth which were evil in their nature (at least after a while) and began to both destroy themself and everything else on earth, if god was allpowerful, he should have been able to create humans who did not have any hate in them and nothing of evil at all.

But since thats not the case, that only leave's us with two possible answers:
1) Good isn't allpowerfull and was newer able to create a perfect world, and the statement's in the bible most is obviously wrong.
2) The worst one, God is evil.
If God had all the powers in the world to create whatever he'd wanted, why did he create a humanity which has so many bad sides about them, like killing each other, killing other animals, torture, rape and everything like that.
If God truly is allpowerful and have the abilty to create whatever he want,
then God must, without no denying be the biggest sadist in the enitire world. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 06:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

It’s neither of those. God originally created the world and humanity in a perfect state. There was no evil at first. But, then people made the choice to sin and commit evil deeds. It’s because people have the freedom to choose that evil exists. God could have created a world where evil could not arise in it, but then He would have had to take away free will. Anytime you give a person a choice, you have to accept that fact that they may make the wrong choice. If you take away free will, then people would simply be pre-programmed robots. God want’s people to love Him, but He doesn’t want to force them to. God could either have robots who love Him only because they have no other alternative, or He could have people who love Him and freely choose to. Which would you prefer? Just about everyone would agree they would prefer somebody to choose to love them. That’s how God wants it, too. But that works under the premise that some will choose not too, and that people will choose evil. [[Ultimahero]] March 20 2008.

How, then, do you reconcile the Serpent? Did he not exist prior to man's choice? Was he not evil prior to that choice? I suppose an argument could be made that the Serpent was meant metaphorically, but that doesn't jibe well with the position that Genesis is meant to be read literally. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:28, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The serpent, which is Satan, was created before the rest of the creation. And there was a was in Hevean where Satan and some of the angels rebelled, which caused them to be kicked from Hevean. Same kind of thing. They had a choice, they chose wrong. That's not God's fault. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:...but it does establish that evil existed prior to the choice by humans. Moreover, we are still faced with the difficult quandry of why God created a universe in which evil was possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's first define what evil is. God is good. So anything that goes against God's holy character is evil. Man sinned, which allowed evil to enter this world, affecting us and everything around us. But, evil did exist before that in the sense that Satan had already rebelled and chose to go against God. As far as when evil first began, I suppose it would be whenever the first choice to disobey God was made. Pressumabley this was Satan. And God createda world where evil exists because He wanted us to have free will. If people have the ability to choose, then they invariably have the ability to make wrong choices. God could have not given free will and eliminated the problem with evil, but then all He would have would be little robots who can't really choose Him. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes...God created evil. That's a shocker; why did God, the perfect being that he is and only good and love comes through him, create evil? If there is no light, is there a such thing as dark? If there is no such thing as heat, is there a such thing as cold? If there is no evil, is there good? See, if evil didn't exist, we would be incapable of ever being good, since we would always be good, and that would put us as "average". No good can exist without evil. Love cannot exist without hate. Everything requires a contrast in order for it to exist. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]]

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

== By definition==

If God is everything , thus God is good and evil - [[User: tehliberator| tehliberator]]

Who said that God is everything? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if God isn't everything, or if not everything is of God's creation, than there must exist other powers than God.
Mabye God is just created by some higher powers of creators and that he is just a pice of a puzzle in their play...
Or perhaps god is more of a way to express everything which exists, and which in its divine prinsiple, both gives life and takes life, both allows happyness and wisdom, but also allows sadness primitivity.
Life couldn't be either "White" or "Black", but to allow every being existing in God's creation to live and learn, they must feel both the dark sides of life aswell as the light sides of it, and the dark will allways come from our own mistakes and not anyone elses. And Jusus also explained it so very well by his well known statetment that; "What you sow you will reap".

Said plainly and easly, the best thing you can do for yourself is to do as much good as you possibly can do to others, that is the way of God, and that is the way that man will appear in "God's immage, after his likness".--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 21:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

How are you defining "other powers"? I would argue that evil is result of man's choice to rebel against God. So, man could fit into the "other powers" section, by that definition. But nothing exists that God didn't either directly bring about or allowed to come about. (Ex: Man is a result of God directly bringing him into existence; man's evil is a result of God allowing man to choose to sin.) But this doesn't mean that God '''is''' everything. I can paint a picture, but that doesn't make me the painting. God can create but that doesn't make Him the creation. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 22:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well...
I think the biggest mistake all of you on this site has made, and that counts for every christian person which have the same view too, is that God once upon a time in the beginning of his creation chose to abandon the human race because of an error they persumably made.
Allthough you talk about free will, if God had all the possible powers in the world to create whatever he wanted, than one would think that the first highly intellegent creature he created (namely humans), should have been been a little more wise and perfected than what was obviously the case (since they choosed to go against the will of god and to be cast out from the Garden of Even, which in some way can be looked on as heaven).

Either it really sounds like God wasn't fully capeable of creating only divine creations, or else, the darkness which came when the humans choose to abandon god (which I think you mean is only for as long as humans exists on this earth) wasn't either a mistake from god, and neither from the humans.
Because, if god created us with minds that are only capeable to think selfishly and ruthlessly, then it isn't we that should be blammed. (I hope some of you can see the logic in that).

I think that god created us in the unperfect way we were in from the beginning, so that we could experiance what the effects of our mistakes would be, and so, gradualy, to become more in harmony with the world, and in absolute, more in harmony with god.

I think that it is the misson of "free will", so that the humans can learn what is right and what is wrong, and the more you understand this, the closer to god you will get.

A lot of wrabble mabye, but I see the creation of everything god has made as a complete logical creation, which in you viewpoint normally is totally oppisite, since you feel that all humans have been born with guilt and are obviously not a creation that god is proud of, so you hope that god can forgive you be pleeding him for forgivness.

Btw, that thing I said about "other powers" was just an example to show that god isn't so much a existing person or angry being as he is both a prinsiple of all that is created and also the divine creator of all. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Alright. I think you’re misunderstanding what Christians (or at least what I) believe. You make it sound like the Christian perspective is that God made people, they sinned, and He abandoned them. But that’s not true. The Christian perspective is that God created people with the knowledge that they would sin. He didn’t cause it, but He knew it would happen. He used His knowledge to take it into account. So, God’s plan from the beginning and purpose in creation was to show His mercy by being merciful to man. People sin and have no possible way to escape from it, so God takes on flesh as Jesus Christ and dies on the cross for sin. God never abounded people. He provided them the way to escape.

People are responsible for sin. God isn’t, because He doesn’t make us sin. We just choose to sin. It’s our fault, as we are responsible for the decisions we make.

I would agree that creation is logical and makes sense. I don’t know why you feel that I wouldn’t accept that, seeing as I never said that it wasn’t. All people are born sinners, yes. Is God proud of His creation? I don’t know that “proud” is the best descriptive word. He was pleased with it in the beginning, saying it was “good”. And we know He doesn’t want people to sin, but He cares enough about His creation to go through the process of redeeming them.

I agree that God is the divine creator of all. But He is an actual being with emotions like anger. May I ask you what religion, if any, you are of? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 13:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I am NOT of any religion, neither am I any kind of atheist, allthough I am very interested in finding the truth, or at least, as far as my mind is able to perceive.

And will tell you, so that it can stick hard enough into your brain, it is NOT your or anyone elses fault that god created you with a "weakness".
If God in the beginning created you with an intellegence and wisdom that wasn't sufficient enough to keep you in the "track" or "path" that god whished you to stay in, than it WAS god's fault.

Our free will is actually not as free as you would have liked it to be, becouse how free we are to think, and how logically we are able to percive, is directly tied to how "evolved" or "completed" our mind is.
God could have used his ablility to create a world of only brilliant, god and angel like beings, were no form of violence or hate could ever have existed.
But since that is not the case, he must have had a reason to why he didn't create our world into such a place, and it is not becouse God didn't have the ability or skill to do it, and it is neither becouse his creation "rebelled" on him, becouse if that was so, than it would have meaned that his creations wasn't so perfect, since they didn't mannage to do what god had wanted them to do.

But that is the way that the normal christian person looks at it, only that he chooses to look away from one half of it, namely the part were god's acts could only have been a evidence of weakness...

In reallity, god created absollutly everything in the most perfect way that you could have ever imagined.
And as I partly said earlier, the apperance of darkness on this planet, in the form of violence, hate, murder and everything of damaging form, is not a evidence of anyone's rebellion against god or his whishes, but is in fact a part of god's plan.

And in trying to make you understand this, I am gonna give you an example which wasn't really made by me:
But lets say that the entire world was a picture, (a picture made by god) then it wouldn't be a specially interesting picture if it was only painted white, as you could not really see anything.
Likewise, the picture would be just as meaningless if it was only painted black, as nothing could really be seen in it.

However, if you suddenly painted it full with all kinds of collors, and used just all kinds of variations, the image could suddenly become quite interesting to look at, since the were plenty of variations to the two main collors: Black and White.

That is also in a way how life exists, and the only way it could exist, since if you got to a point in life were it was allmost so dark and full of pain and missery that it was allmost impossible to see anything else, life would allmost have ceased there and no experiance could have been made becouse there was no variations to the light that was let down there.

The same is with the fact that if you got to a place were you only experianced the "heavenly" passion all the time and only could see and feel the pure light, there would be nothing to make a contrast to it, and therefore where there is no contrasts there is not sensing, and where there is no sensing there is no life.

And the final key to life is this; that if life is to exist, and if the beings which life consists of is to be allowed to live and experience, then life must be an ever changing cycle between darkness and light, and the degree of how close you are to god is the direct deciding factor to how much light your life consists of, just as how far away you are from god, decides how dark you life and fate will be.

It is an endless cycle, and to experience, there must allways be a change in the object of which is experienced, and from forever past to forever in the future, you will allways experience both sides of god's creation and will allways have the chance to feel the light which is closest to him.
--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

It would be man’s fault for sinning, not God’s. God creates people with free will. If they choose to do something that is against God, it that their fault or God’s? It’s theirs. They make the choice, they did it. God gives people the ability to choose, but man is still responsible for his choices.

Yes God could create a world with no evil. No problem. But, He decided He wanted a world where people have the free ability to choose. As long as people choose, they can choose wrong. To take away evil, God must take away our ability to choose evil. God could do that, but didn’t feel like it.

That’s not an imperfection on God’s part. It’s just not.

So evil is part of God’s creation? He wants there to be evil? Does God like murder and rape? Of course not. This was never part of God’s desire.

I don’t see the how your painting example has any logical implications. Your saying that if there’s too much good or too much evil, then it wouldn’t be “specifically interesting”. Well, so what? (Forgive me if that comes across as rude.) Just because it wouldn’t be interesting doesn’t mean that it is logically impossible. Tell me why it is logically impossible for there to be all good or all evil. God is all good. Why Can’t he be? Man is all evil. Why can’t he be? Give me a logical reason that makes it impossible.

Finally, let me ask you something. You said that you don’t belong to any religion. Fair enough, that’s fine. But, how then do you know that anything you say is true? Someone might ask me how I could know Christianity to be true, and I could point out that Jesus is a historical figure, that the resurrection account is incredibly reliable, etc. The validity of the Bible is a debatable issue, but at least I have something to point to that’s outside of myself. At least I have some objective standard to look to. But what do you have? Where are you deriving your views? Are you just getting everything from your subjective opinions and feelings? And, if that’s the case, do your feelings determine truth? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 15:08, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-11-06T04:15:59Z

Zerlock:

{{move|Debate:Did God create evil?}}

{{Debate}}

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

"Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?" He didn't, Neither exist. [[User:ChillinBM]] Sept 29 2008 15:34

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

This is the biggest issue with the whole bible, and christianity.
If you say that God is all powerful, and that there isn't anything he can't do..
Why did he then (if he created everything) create men on earth which were evil in their nature (at least after a while) and began to both destroy themself and everything else on earth, if god was allpowerful, he should have been able to create humans who did not have any hate in them and nothing of evil at all.

But since thats not the case, that only leave's us with two possible answers:
1) Good isn't allpowerfull and was newer able to create a perfect world, and the statement's in the bible most is obviously wrong.
2) The worst one, God is evil.
If God had all the powers in the world to create whatever he'd wanted, why did he create a humanity which has so many bad sides about them, like killing each other, killing other animals, torture, rape and everything like that.
If God truly is allpowerful and have the abilty to create whatever he want,
then God must, without no denying be the biggest sadist in the enitire world. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 06:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

It’s neither of those. God originally created the world and humanity in a perfect state. There was no evil at first. But, then people made the choice to sin and commit evil deeds. It’s because people have the freedom to choose that evil exists. God could have created a world where evil could not arise in it, but then He would have had to take away free will. Anytime you give a person a choice, you have to accept that fact that they may make the wrong choice. If you take away free will, then people would simply be pre-programmed robots. God want’s people to love Him, but He doesn’t want to force them to. God could either have robots who love Him only because they have no other alternative, or He could have people who love Him and freely choose to. Which would you prefer? Just about everyone would agree they would prefer somebody to choose to love them. That’s how God wants it, too. But that works under the premise that some will choose not too, and that people will choose evil. [[Ultimahero]] March 20 2008.

How, then, do you reconcile the Serpent? Did he not exist prior to man's choice? Was he not evil prior to that choice? I suppose an argument could be made that the Serpent was meant metaphorically, but that doesn't jibe well with the position that Genesis is meant to be read literally. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:28, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The serpent, which is Satan, was created before the rest of the creation. And there was a was in Hevean where Satan and some of the angels rebelled, which caused them to be kicked from Hevean. Same kind of thing. They had a choice, they chose wrong. That's not God's fault. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:...but it does establish that evil existed prior to the choice by humans. Moreover, we are still faced with the difficult quandry of why God created a universe in which evil was possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's first define what evil is. God is good. So anything that goes against God's holy character is evil. Man sinned, which allowed evil to enter this world, affecting us and everything around us. But, evil did exist before that in the sense that Satan had already rebelled and chose to go against God. As far as when evil first began, I suppose it would be whenever the first choice to disobey God was made. Pressumabley this was Satan. And God createda world where evil exists because He wanted us to have free will. If people have the ability to choose, then they invariably have the ability to make wrong choices. God could have not given free will and eliminated the problem with evil, but then all He would have would be little robots who can't really choose Him. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes...God created evil. That's a shocker; why did God, the perfect being that he is and only good and love comes through him, create evil? If there is no light, is there a such thing as dark? If there is no such thing as heat, is there a such thing as cold? If there is no evil, is there good? See, if evil didn't exist, we would be incapable of ever being good, since we would always be good, and that would put us as "average". No good can exist without evil. Love cannot exist without hate. Everything requires a contrast in order for it to exist. It's as simple as that.

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

== By definition==

If God is everything , thus God is good and evil - [[User: tehliberator| tehliberator]]

Who said that God is everything? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if God isn't everything, or if not everything is of God's creation, than there must exist other powers than God.
Mabye God is just created by some higher powers of creators and that he is just a pice of a puzzle in their play...
Or perhaps god is more of a way to express everything which exists, and which in its divine prinsiple, both gives life and takes life, both allows happyness and wisdom, but also allows sadness primitivity.
Life couldn't be either "White" or "Black", but to allow every being existing in God's creation to live and learn, they must feel both the dark sides of life aswell as the light sides of it, and the dark will allways come from our own mistakes and not anyone elses. And Jusus also explained it so very well by his well known statetment that; "What you sow you will reap".

Said plainly and easly, the best thing you can do for yourself is to do as much good as you possibly can do to others, that is the way of God, and that is the way that man will appear in "God's immage, after his likness".--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 21:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

How are you defining "other powers"? I would argue that evil is result of man's choice to rebel against God. So, man could fit into the "other powers" section, by that definition. But nothing exists that God didn't either directly bring about or allowed to come about. (Ex: Man is a result of God directly bringing him into existence; man's evil is a result of God allowing man to choose to sin.) But this doesn't mean that God '''is''' everything. I can paint a picture, but that doesn't make me the painting. God can create but that doesn't make Him the creation. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 22:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well...
I think the biggest mistake all of you on this site has made, and that counts for every christian person which have the same view too, is that God once upon a time in the beginning of his creation chose to abandon the human race because of an error they persumably made.
Allthough you talk about free will, if God had all the possible powers in the world to create whatever he wanted, than one would think that the first highly intellegent creature he created (namely humans), should have been been a little more wise and perfected than what was obviously the case (since they choosed to go against the will of god and to be cast out from the Garden of Even, which in some way can be looked on as heaven).

Either it really sounds like God wasn't fully capeable of creating only divine creations, or else, the darkness which came when the humans choose to abandon god (which I think you mean is only for as long as humans exists on this earth) wasn't either a mistake from god, and neither from the humans.
Because, if god created us with minds that are only capeable to think selfishly and ruthlessly, then it isn't we that should be blammed. (I hope some of you can see the logic in that).

I think that god created us in the unperfect way we were in from the beginning, so that we could experiance what the effects of our mistakes would be, and so, gradualy, to become more in harmony with the world, and in absolute, more in harmony with god.

I think that it is the misson of "free will", so that the humans can learn what is right and what is wrong, and the more you understand this, the closer to god you will get.

A lot of wrabble mabye, but I see the creation of everything god has made as a complete logical creation, which in you viewpoint normally is totally oppisite, since you feel that all humans have been born with guilt and are obviously not a creation that god is proud of, so you hope that god can forgive you be pleeding him for forgivness.

Btw, that thing I said about "other powers" was just an example to show that god isn't so much a existing person or angry being as he is both a prinsiple of all that is created and also the divine creator of all. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Alright. I think you’re misunderstanding what Christians (or at least what I) believe. You make it sound like the Christian perspective is that God made people, they sinned, and He abandoned them. But that’s not true. The Christian perspective is that God created people with the knowledge that they would sin. He didn’t cause it, but He knew it would happen. He used His knowledge to take it into account. So, God’s plan from the beginning and purpose in creation was to show His mercy by being merciful to man. People sin and have no possible way to escape from it, so God takes on flesh as Jesus Christ and dies on the cross for sin. God never abounded people. He provided them the way to escape.

People are responsible for sin. God isn’t, because He doesn’t make us sin. We just choose to sin. It’s our fault, as we are responsible for the decisions we make.

I would agree that creation is logical and makes sense. I don’t know why you feel that I wouldn’t accept that, seeing as I never said that it wasn’t. All people are born sinners, yes. Is God proud of His creation? I don’t know that “proud” is the best descriptive word. He was pleased with it in the beginning, saying it was “good”. And we know He doesn’t want people to sin, but He cares enough about His creation to go through the process of redeeming them.

I agree that God is the divine creator of all. But He is an actual being with emotions like anger. May I ask you what religion, if any, you are of? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 13:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I am NOT of any religion, neither am I any kind of atheist, allthough I am very interested in finding the truth, or at least, as far as my mind is able to perceive.

And will tell you, so that it can stick hard enough into your brain, it is NOT your or anyone elses fault that god created you with a "weakness".
If God in the beginning created you with an intellegence and wisdom that wasn't sufficient enough to keep you in the "track" or "path" that god whished you to stay in, than it WAS god's fault.

Our free will is actually not as free as you would have liked it to be, becouse how free we are to think, and how logically we are able to percive, is directly tied to how "evolved" or "completed" our mind is.
God could have used his ablility to create a world of only brilliant, god and angel like beings, were no form of violence or hate could ever have existed.
But since that is not the case, he must have had a reason to why he didn't create our world into such a place, and it is not becouse God didn't have the ability or skill to do it, and it is neither becouse his creation "rebelled" on him, becouse if that was so, than it would have meaned that his creations wasn't so perfect, since they didn't mannage to do what god had wanted them to do.

But that is the way that the normal christian person looks at it, only that he chooses to look away from one half of it, namely the part were god's acts could only have been a evidence of weakness...

In reallity, god created absollutly everything in the most perfect way that you could have ever imagined.
And as I partly said earlier, the apperance of darkness on this planet, in the form of violence, hate, murder and everything of damaging form, is not a evidence of anyone's rebellion against god or his whishes, but is in fact a part of god's plan.

And in trying to make you understand this, I am gonna give you an example which wasn't really made by me:
But lets say that the entire world was a picture, (a picture made by god) then it wouldn't be a specially interesting picture if it was only painted white, as you could not really see anything.
Likewise, the picture would be just as meaningless if it was only painted black, as nothing could really be seen in it.

However, if you suddenly painted it full with all kinds of collors, and used just all kinds of variations, the image could suddenly become quite interesting to look at, since the were plenty of variations to the two main collors: Black and White.

That is also in a way how life exists, and the only way it could exist, since if you got to a point in life were it was allmost so dark and full of pain and missery that it was allmost impossible to see anything else, life would allmost have ceased there and no experiance could have been made becouse there was no variations to the light that was let down there.

The same is with the fact that if you got to a place were you only experianced the "heavenly" passion all the time and only could see and feel the pure light, there would be nothing to make a contrast to it, and therefore where there is no contrasts there is not sensing, and where there is no sensing there is no life.

And the final key to life is this; that if life is to exist, and if the beings which life consists of is to be allowed to live and experience, then life must be an ever changing cycle between darkness and light, and the degree of how close you are to god is the direct deciding factor to how much light your life consists of, just as how far away you are from god, decides how dark you life and fate will be.

It is an endless cycle, and to experience, there must allways be a change in the object of which is experienced, and from forever past to forever in the future, you will allways experience both sides of god's creation and will allways have the chance to feel the light which is closest to him.
--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

It would be man’s fault for sinning, not God’s. God creates people with free will. If they choose to do something that is against God, it that their fault or God’s? It’s theirs. They make the choice, they did it. God gives people the ability to choose, but man is still responsible for his choices.

Yes God could create a world with no evil. No problem. But, He decided He wanted a world where people have the free ability to choose. As long as people choose, they can choose wrong. To take away evil, God must take away our ability to choose evil. God could do that, but didn’t feel like it.

That’s not an imperfection on God’s part. It’s just not.

So evil is part of God’s creation? He wants there to be evil? Does God like murder and rape? Of course not. This was never part of God’s desire.

I don’t see the how your painting example has any logical implications. Your saying that if there’s too much good or too much evil, then it wouldn’t be “specifically interesting”. Well, so what? (Forgive me if that comes across as rude.) Just because it wouldn’t be interesting doesn’t mean that it is logically impossible. Tell me why it is logically impossible for there to be all good or all evil. God is all good. Why Can’t he be? Man is all evil. Why can’t he be? Give me a logical reason that makes it impossible.

Finally, let me ask you something. You said that you don’t belong to any religion. Fair enough, that’s fine. But, how then do you know that anything you say is true? Someone might ask me how I could know Christianity to be true, and I could point out that Jesus is a historical figure, that the resurrection account is incredibly reliable, etc. The validity of the Bible is a debatable issue, but at least I have something to point to that’s outside of myself. At least I have some objective standard to look to. But what do you have? Where are you deriving your views? Are you just getting everything from your subjective opinions and feelings? And, if that’s the case, do your feelings determine truth? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 15:08, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T04:09:05Z

Zerlock: /* Birth Certificate Controversy */ fixed a few spelling errors

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in Honolulu,<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref> August 4, 1961), [[Democratic Party]] member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain <ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref>. He was previously a member of a socialist political party, and appears to have strong socialist tendencies.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] since 2004. On August 23 he chose [[Senator Joseph Biden]] as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was rated the most [[liberal]] Senator by the National Journal, who had rated [[Senator John Kerry]] the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> Obama pretends he's not a socialist, but his own memoir admits that he chose his "friends carefully .... The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/</ref>

Obama voted against strengthening law enforcement. The suspect in the recent [[gang]]-like [[murder]] of Jennifer Hudson's the 7-year-old nephew in [[Chicago]] is a convicted [[felon]] who had violated his [[parole]] conditions.<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story</ref> Yet "[[Obama]] was one of only three [[Illinois]] senators to [[vote]] ''against'' a proposal making it a criminal offense for [[convict]]s on [[probation]] or on [[bail]] to have [[contact]] with a street gang."<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html</ref> Chicago -- Obama's hometown -- has "75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer."<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html</ref>

[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]

If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Obama has not disclosed who really wrote his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," but computer analysis show only tenuous evidence that the terrorist Bill Ayers was the author of key parts of the book.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barak Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''. A computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of his friend's, the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book. "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed.</ref><ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/report-professor-paid-g-prove-ayers-wrote-obamas-autobiography/comments/</ref> Ayers admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he "should have done more."<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref>

Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama received his Democratic Party nomination, recently criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again."<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref> Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have observed that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089</ref> The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."<ref name="mind control"/>

==Obama would be the first Muslim President==
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|thumb|First Muslim President?]]
If elected, Obama would likely become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and could use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office.<ref>Christian Science Monitor, ''At swearing in, congressman [Keith Ellison, D Minnesota, who is a Muslim] wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.'', by Jane Lampman, December 07, 2006, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html]"In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible."</ref><ref>Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]</ref> The evidence that he is a Muslim includes:

*Obama's background and education are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]], which most Christians would not retain.<ref> Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali]. After Obama became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref>
*Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref>
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref>
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref>
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>
*On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref>
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref>
*Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."<ref>http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=23073&articleId=3249</ref>
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>

Obama downplays his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his church in Chicago in 2008 when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join.

__TOC__ 

==Obama and Elitism==

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

To counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim was an exaggeration as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.

==Insights==

Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> <ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

==Obama and Socialism==

Obama has espoused the socialist idea of "spreading the wealth" in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay taxes. From which John McCain replied "He's running for redistributor in chief, I'm running for commander in chief." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008</ref> The slogan "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]]. In addition, his health care plan forces employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system. The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to purchase it themselves. He favors closer ties with Cuba, China, and Venezuela, all abusive communist regimes.

==Charitable Giving==

In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref>

==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==

At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down. She is living in public housing in Boston paid for by the government. It does bring up why it took so long for this to surface and how Obama would handle the issue of illegal immigration as President if his own extended family flaunts the law and, of course, what did Obama himself know?<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]</ref> The Obama campaign has since stated that they had no knowledge of this situation and that they would return the money that she gave to his campaign. It is illegal to accept money from people who are not United States citizens.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html</ref>

==Statements==
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama II is said to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is some evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy "...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.

At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies,
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref>

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref>

Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref>

===Campaign financing===
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].

===Secrecy===

The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a Presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref>

# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)
# Columbia College records
# Columbia Thesis paper
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
# [[Harvard]] College records
# Illinois State Senate records
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
# Occidental College records
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate
# Record of baptism
# Selective Service Registration
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
# Scholarly articles
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref>

===Tone===

Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref>

As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign. <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.

Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher <ref>http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html</ref>.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]

Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<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>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the president of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President:
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

== Foreign policy experience ==
In his presidential campaign, Obama bragged<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other kids in Africa.

While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
During the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth cirtificate, claiming that it is false and that he is intelligible for presidency. <ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The "dual loyalties" which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for president, not an invalid choice.

Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. <ref>http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605</ref> The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.

The state of Hawaii announced that the document is legitimate and official, Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.<ref>http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04</ref> If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for president because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens.

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]
*[[New Party]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Talk:Liberal Style

2008-11-06T04:05:55Z

Zerlock: /* Quantify */

Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers to point #28. So either Obama is not liberal, or Point #28 should be modified.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Good point, but Obama is not a ''fellow'' liberal with respect to Hillary. He is an "adversary" to Hillary. Any suggestions to make more precise, while keeping it concise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Instead of using "Never", perhaps use the word "rarely". --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: Good suggestion. "Rarely" is weaker than I'd like, but let's use it as the best suggestion so far. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Israel ==

"referring to Israel as "occupied territories""

Hello, I notice the article (which is very funny and good by the way) gets it right about "occupied" "palestinian" territories, but conservapedia article for Israel doesnt'! If you look at the map it shows east-jerusalem and ALL judea-samaria, golan hights, as not Israel, even parts that are definely Jewish. maybe some of the "Palestinian" cities, like area "A" in Oslo treaties, should not be mapped in Israel. But absolutely east-jerusalem must be, since it is annexed to Israel since 1980s, and not even liberals expect Israel to give it up to the terrorists. same for golan. i would remove the map myself but, the artical is "locked" from vandalisms.

Étienne Léger

== Neville Chamberlain ==

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative Prime Minister, it's a bit foolish to criticise a liberal trait and use a conservative as an example.--[[User:JesusIsMyHomeboy|JesusIsMyHomeboy]] 22:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Childish ==

While I understand that conservapedia wishes to be encyclopedia with a conservative bias, there is a difference between childish name calling and factual data. Please I beg you hearsay and opinion are no basis for an encyclopedia. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

This should really be an essay, since it's basically vilifying everyone at the other end of the political spectrum; characterising them as slippery, disingenuous and vindictive. Why on earth is it so hard for people here to accept that liberals are capable of honest discussion? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:44, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Because we can't recall ever seeing any. Perhaps you'd like to be the first to destroy my preconceptions? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'd be more than happy to. Perhaps you could critique my entry on [[liberal ideology]]? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Seriously. Half of these are not even credited to any source. Its particularly ironic that one of the points is "Unjustified expertise" with no citation. Plus liberals just see the way we should solve problems differently... we are people too (and good ones at that too!). --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 15:09, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Removing 'sigh' entry ==
A sigh is an expression of tiredness and/or exasperation. Everyone sighs, including your sysops (see [[Talk:Hollywood values]] for evidence)
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:01, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

It would appear I cant so can someone else?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:02, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Point number 39==
This entire article is somewhat hyperbolic. Having this point is somewhat hypocritical?

==Tragic==

The contradictions I see here are the same contradictions the Liberal left display when they attack the conservative right. Partisans have no idea of how foolish they look to the rest of us. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 14:12, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Shame" ==

I think the shame point is a bit ridiculous. Heck, shame is a theme in Christianity -- Adam and Eve felt shame for being naked. I don't think God is a liberal.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Can someone remove this point? It doesn't look like there are any objects.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:53, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Point No. 8==

Global warming is a wacky liberal theory? As if thermometers have liberal ideologies? Heavens. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 12:19, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

==Quantify==
"32. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness". 
I was told specifically by a very conservative person, that quantifying things only make things worse. Care to explain? o.O [[Special:Userrights|Make me a sysop!]] [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 10:01, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Really guys? ==
Okay, I understand that this is a conservative website and that we may not like liberals a whole lot, but we accuse liberals "bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views" when we are doing the same to them. This page is proof. We sit here and say all of these great things about ourselves and we just leave the liberals to eat dirt. Here's my evidence:

concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them
calling conservative free speech "hate" speech
claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false

Really? Is this how we should be acting? If us conservatives really want to be the best group, we shouldn't insult other groups just because they're liberal and such. Now, I'm not saying we should accept their viewpoints, but we should be a little less...harsh...in our evaluation of liberals. Even though liberals have a style we don't agree with, we aren't any different. So, I think a revision of this page should be done in order to reduce the harshness. We should also do a revision on Conservative style and maybe mention some of the things we tend to have problems with. --[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]]