Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-02-11, 05:52 PM   #1
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criticism

Jimbo Wales (the founder of wikipedia) criticized the Hugo Chavez article for not including criticism of Chavez's food policies. Some of the things that Jimbo criticized the article for not including are the very same sources that I had added in the past, which the Chavez supporters then deleted.

My original account was Grundle2600. I was banned by User Rd232. He was one of the Chavez supporters who kept deleting that information.

Here's what Jimbo said about the Hugo Chavez article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hu...havez_and_food

I am not going to have time to contribute substantially to this article, but I wanted to be clear about why I have said (up above) that this article is very very bad and a huge disappointment.

Let's just take one aspect of the world as it related to Chavez: food. Food for the Venezuelan people.

Reading the article, we see food mentioned exactly and only 4 times:

"Costing $113,000,000, Plan Bolívar 2000 involved 70,000 army officers going out into the streets of Venezuela where they would repair roads and hospitals, offer free medical care and vaccinations, and sell food at cheap prices."
" The new constitution included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare and food."
"In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds."
In the section on human rights: "In the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, 116 of 300 articles were concerned with human rights; these included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare, and food."

So everything we learn about Chavez and food from Wikipedia sounds positive and helpful to the poor. Twice we mention that the constitution gives rights to food. Once we hear that he had the military out selling food at cheap prices, wow, talk about swords into ploughshares! And we hear about his funding for communes that produce some of their own food.

What do we not hear?

Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
"But nearly five years after the measures were implemented nationwide, farmers and agriculture experts say, Venezuela is not only far from self-sufficient in food, but also more dependent than ever on foreign countries. " Washington Post
"Under state ownership, though, production has suffered. From 1999 to 2008, per capita, sugar cane was off by 8%, fruit declined by 25%, and beef production dropped by 38%, according to Carlos Machado, an expert in agriculture at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies, a business school in Caracas. "The cooperatives have failed and our cattle ranching has been decimated," Machado says." A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez
From 4 days ago: "“There’s still going to be speculation and shortages, and who will suffer the most? He who has the least..." Bloomberg News

The facts of reality are being systematically obscured here. A reader of this article would naturally be impressed with how Chavez appears to have been achieving a certain kind of socialist dream. That it is in fact, as evidence plainly in reliable sources, not quite so rosy, is something that we have kept carefully hidden.

This is just one issue, food, which I picked more or less randomly. The article is a disaster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't seem to know that this info has been repeatedly added and then deleted from the article.

The person who banned me from wikipedia was Rd232, one of the Chavez supporters who had kept deleting that information.

And now the very founder of wikipedia is upset that that information is not there!

Last edited by grundle; 12-02-11 at 06:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 06:48 PM   #2
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
dan30oly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,748
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

You're a hero!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 06:52 PM   #3
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan30oly View Post
You're a hero!
Thanks!

Are you that wheelchair guy who used to dumpster dive for empty DVD cases who used to post here back when I was just a lurker?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 06:52 PM   #4
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 16,999
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Please welcome Dvdtalk's new Politics and World Events moderator, Rd232!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 07:05 PM   #5
Premium Member
 
The Cow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Grazing in a field somewhere...
Posts: 20,270
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Thanks!

Are you that wheelchair guy who used to dumpster dive for empty DVD cases who used to post here back when I was just a lurker?
That was Danol. He died.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 07:12 PM   #6
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,899
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

(Sorry Grundle, I was a bit douchey after reading my own comment so I edited it out)

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

Yikes... and they hated you.

You have just stated that you know the accusation in your proposed edit is untrue, but you intend to place the accusation into the article anyway because these edits and suggestions of yours are part of a larger battle with liberals that you feel ceaselessly compelled to wage at Wikipedia. Bro, you need an outlet ''someplace else'', and you need to get it ''now''. Encyclopedias do not purposely place untruths in articles to make a political point, or to balance out other perceived untruths. To reek of partisanship and antipathy for the subject of an article, as you do, is one thing. But when you openly acknowledge that you intend to knowingly place untruths into a political Obama article for a personal partisan vendetta against perceived hypocrisy ''the very week you come off a three-month Obama topic ban''—and do it concurrent with [[User talk:Grundle2600#Voluntary break from editing political articles |your personal pledge not to edit Obama-related articles]] '''''as a gesture of good faith''''' that got an arbitration request closed by the requesting editor—you are making a mockery of everything you say, promise, do or intend, and a mockery of every sincere and patient effort in good faith (and there have been many) to explain an encyclopedic standard or elucidate an issue for you. You show on a daily basis that temporary topic bans and personal declarations of restraint mean nothing and have no effect on your editorial state of mind or behavior. You should be banned not only from editing political articles but from participating on their talk pages, as you have shown repeatedly that you prefer to absolutely flood them with trumped up partisan synthesis to proper editorial sourcing, and you intend to hold talk pages hostage to deflecting your inane and unfounded "suggestions", compelling us to call you on every shred of your disingenuousness and explain issues to you rather than you reading more than one screed to learn about them yourself. Because of you, each archive of an Obama article contains more discussion of and links to your puerile presentations of unfounded synthesis than of real issues; indeed, more than the articles themselves contain links to accurate sources. Any further discussion of this issue with you would be absolute insanity. Any editor familiar with the protocol of doing so should instead request an administrative review of your actions to implement a ''permanent'' reinstatement of your political article ban.

Is there a back-story to this? Moderator vendetta? Kill this guy's cat? I hope that they at least got busted for this.

Anyways... I might not care for many of your posts, but I'm glad you are here to say them. Keep up the good fight!
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan

Last edited by Navinabob; 12-02-11 at 07:26 PM. Reason: Edited out my own commentary as it was douchey of me
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:19 PM   #7
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23 View Post
Please welcome Dvdtalk's new Politics and World Events moderator, Rd232!
Nooooooo!!!!!!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:20 PM   #8
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cow View Post
That was Danol. He died.
Oh my - that is so sad.

I was just joking about getting the names confused. I had thought that he had been banned.

That's so sad.

R.I.P.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:28 PM   #9
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Wait, danol died?! When?

(Wow, a grundle thread yielding information that interests me)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:30 PM   #10
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
(Sorry Grundle, I was a bit douchey after reading my own comment so I edited it out)

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

Yikes... and they hated you.

You have just stated that you know the accusation in your proposed edit is untrue, but you intend to place the accusation into the article anyway because these edits and suggestions of yours are part of a larger battle with liberals that you feel ceaselessly compelled to wage at Wikipedia. Bro, you need an outlet ''someplace else'', and you need to get it ''now''. Encyclopedias do not purposely place untruths in articles to make a political point, or to balance out other perceived untruths. To reek of partisanship and antipathy for the subject of an article, as you do, is one thing. But when you openly acknowledge that you intend to knowingly place untruths into a political Obama article for a personal partisan vendetta against perceived hypocrisy ''the very week you come off a three-month Obama topic ban''—and do it concurrent with [[User talk:Grundle2600#Voluntary break from editing political articles |your personal pledge not to edit Obama-related articles]] '''''as a gesture of good faith''''' that got an arbitration request closed by the requesting editor—you are making a mockery of everything you say, promise, do or intend, and a mockery of every sincere and patient effort in good faith (and there have been many) to explain an encyclopedic standard or elucidate an issue for you. You show on a daily basis that temporary topic bans and personal declarations of restraint mean nothing and have no effect on your editorial state of mind or behavior. You should be banned not only from editing political articles but from participating on their talk pages, as you have shown repeatedly that you prefer to absolutely flood them with trumped up partisan synthesis to proper editorial sourcing, and you intend to hold talk pages hostage to deflecting your inane and unfounded "suggestions", compelling us to call you on every shred of your disingenuousness and explain issues to you rather than you reading more than one screed to learn about them yourself. Because of you, each archive of an Obama article contains more discussion of and links to your puerile presentations of unfounded synthesis than of real issues; indeed, more than the articles themselves contain links to accurate sources. Any further discussion of this issue with you would be absolute insanity. Any editor familiar with the protocol of doing so should instead request an administrative review of your actions to implement a ''permanent'' reinstatement of your political article ban.

Is there a back-story to this? Moderator vendetta? Kill this guy's cat? I hope that they at least got busted for this.

Anyways... I might not care for many of your posts, but I'm glad you are here to say them. Keep up the good fight!

Thanks.

I started editing at wikipedia in early 2007.

For the next two years, I made many edits to many articles, including many political articles, and I never got into any trouble.

In early 2009, I started adding true, accurate, reliably sourced information to the articles on Barack Obama. They kept deleting the information, and I kept putting it back. Eventually, I was banned from editing all Obama related articles.

Later, I was banned from editing all articles about any U.S. politician.

Eventually, I was banned entirely.

Here is the explanation of my ban:

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...e_on_Wikipedia

The truth will not set you free on Wikipedia

Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."

That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when this block was made. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their history, and hound them off the site.

The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy in her views and her policy statements, something that's been reported widely on if nto in the mainstream media.

Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've too have been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement.

These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The information that I got banned for adding was 100% true and accurate, and was reliably sourced.

The person who banned me, Rd232, was one of the people who had kept erasing my additions to the Hugo Chavez articles.

And that guy ChildofMidnight who defended me? He later got banned too. So did an editor called GoRight.

What all three of us banned editors had in common is that we all added true, accurate, reliably sourced information, which was critical of politicians and ideologies on the political left. Wikipedia is being heavily censored.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:35 PM   #11
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Here is the information that I recently added to the Hugo Chavez article using a sockpuppet account. My edit was reverted just a few minutes later. This is the info that the Chavez supporters at wikipedia don't want people to know:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=463493695

Hugo Chávez

Since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls have been causing shortages and hoarding.[122] In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[123] In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[124] In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar.[125] In March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.[126] Chávez has nationalized many large farms. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[127] Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[128] In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[129] In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.[130]

Chavez's price controls have caused shortages of materials used in the construction industry.[131] Chavez has nationalized key industries, including telephone and electric,[132] steel,[133] and cement.[134] As a result of Chavez's nationalizations of the steel and cement industries, production has fallen substantially. Nationwide production of steel rods declined 20 percent in September 2010 compared with a year earlier. Cement output fell 40 percent in the second half of 2009. These shortages have caused new housing construction in 2010 to fall to less than half that of the previous year.[135] In 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized oil industry was so severe that the country actually had to import gasoline, despite having some of the hugest oil reserves in the world. Also in 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized electricity industry was causing shortages of electricity.[136] In December 2006, the Venezuelan government instituted a 15% tax on imported toilet paper, which it described as being a "luxury."[137] The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom ranked Venezuela 174th out of 179 countries.[138]

Because of Chavez's criticsm and legal attacks against the productive members of his country, the country has been experienceing a substantial brain drain. Doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, business owners, software developers, advertising account executives, scientists, classical musicians, and lawyers have been fleeing the country. Of this brain drain, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily declared, "Chavez talks a lot about Venezuela being a rich country, and extols its vast oil wealth. But the human capital he is throwing out is far more valuable... He's throwing away his country's biggest treasure."[139]
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:37 PM   #12
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Here's what they don't want people to know about Al Gore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...rds_and_honors

Al Gore

In July 2008 when Gore gave a speech on global warming in Washington D.C., he was criticized for bringing a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV, and for letting one of the vehicle's engine and air conditioner idle for 20 minutes.[218] Gore has been criticized for owning stock in Occidental Petroleum, a company which drilled for oil in ecologically sensitive areas. He was also criticized because a zinc mine on his property had polluted a nearby river.[219] In 2010, Gore admitted that his 1994 tie breaking vote as President of the Senate in support of ethanol subsidies was actually bad for the environment, and that he did it for political reasons.[220] Despite Gore's repeated insistence that global warming is causing sea level to rise, in 2010, he spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa in Montecito, California.[221] A report by Science and Public Policy Institute pointed out 35 alleged errors in Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.[222][223] Gore was criticized for stating that the temperature of the earth's core was "several million degrees," when in fact the actual temperature is several thousand degrees.[224][225][226][227] Gore's Nobel Peace Prize award was criticized because Gore had beat out Irena Sendler, who had been nominated for saving the lives of 2,500 children and infants during the Holocaust.[228][229]
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:42 PM   #13
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Here's what they don't want people to know about Barack Obama. I had originally posted this info in the article "Presidency of Barack Obama" in various sections of the article, and it kept getting deleted. I later placed all of it in one single section in the article "Barack Obama" where is also kept getting deleted:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...rds_and_honors

In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same "off the books" funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama reqeusted an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator.[5]

In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work.[6]

While running for President, Obama promised that he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.[7]

In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its nearly completed new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.[8]

Obama fired the CEO of General Motors[9], and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company.[10]

During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors.[11]

The Obama administration pressured Ford to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama's bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.[12]

In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election.[13][14] In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges.[15] In July 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.[16]

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.[17]

In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."[18] A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated.[19] The letter can be read here. Fox News host Glenn Beck gave Walpin an on-air state certified senility test, which Walpin passed with a perfect score, meaning that he was not senile.[20]

In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate.[21] U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.[22]

Obama had Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, killed.[23] However, because Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and he was killed without judicial process, Obama was accused of violating the U.S. Constitution.[24][25] U.S. Congessman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama's actions might be an impeachable offense.[26] Prior to the killing, Dennis Blair, the country's director of national intelligence, had stated to the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives."[25]

Obama stated, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms."[27] However, the National Rifle Association gave Obama a rating of 'F' based on his voting record.[28]

In March 2007, Obama said of his health care plan, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process..." [29][30]

In September 2010, some insurance companies announced that in response to Obama's health care plan, they would end the issuance of new child-only policies.[31][32]

In October 2010, Obama gave McDonald's and 29 other organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of his health care plan.[33] Over time, more than 700 organizations were granted waivers, and the Department of Health and Human Services website published a list of these waiver recipients which can be read here.

In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, "... new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26... meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible."[34]

In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal.[35] However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. [36] Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal.[37] Furthermore, in July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California.[38][39] Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California.[40] Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas in Nevada, a state where medical marijuana is legal.[41]

In September 2010, it was reported that Obama planned to offer Saudi Arabia the biggest arms deal in the history of the U.S.[42]

In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described "communist" and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks.[43]

The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying.[44]

Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.[45]

On September 12, 2008, Obama promised, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." However, less than three months into his Presidency, he broke that promise when he raised the cigarette tax. Studies show that poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people.[46]

In December 2010, Obama signed a two year extension[47] of George W. Bush's "tax cuts for the rich."[48]

Obama said that he wanted to simplify the tax code.[49] However, in the real world, Obama's proposals would actually add thousands of pages to the tax code.[50]

In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso.[51]

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them."[52]

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency.[53]

Although Obama had promised to wait five days before signing all non-emergency bills, he broke that promise at least 10 times during his first three months in office.[54]

While Senator, Obama had voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[55] which included corporate welfare for AIG.[56] As President, Obama signed a stimulus bill that protected AIG bonuses.[57] Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, "when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."[58] However, after reading "line by line" and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, "Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay... How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" and also said that he would "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses."[59]

Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status.[60]

While living in Chicago and Washington D.C., Obama expressed his true opinion of America's public education system by sending his own children to private schools.[61]

Regarding school vouchers, in February 2008, Obama said, "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids."[62] However, in March 2009, Obama signed legislation which brought an end to a successful voucher program for nearly 2,000 students in Washington D.C. Although the Washington D.C. public school district spends nearly $13,500 per student, and the vouchers for private schools were only $7,500 per student[63], a federal study of the voucher program concluded that the voucher program was a significant success at providing students with a better education than that of the city's public schools.[64]

On September 22, 2008, Obama said, "I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there... We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government... The only way we can do all this without leaving our children with an even larger debt is if Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends."[65] However, Citizens Against Government Waste gave Obama a 2007 rating of only 10%, and a lifetime rating of only 18%. [66]

In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about his past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography.[67]
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:51 PM   #14
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

I don't know what's funnier, your attempts to edit wikipedia, or the epic mhg83's dating thread.

You should just open a thread and log all the hijinks that happen instead of constantly starting new threads every time an incident occurs, which seems to happen about every other day.

BTW, have you thought about using a proxy server to stop them from banning you and your sock puppets?

and another question: why don't you just leave wikipedia alone? why not just join conservapedia. They have a great article on Obama you'll love.
__________________
The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich.

- P.J. O'Rourke

Last edited by Superboy; 12-02-11 at 09:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 08:54 PM   #15
Premium Member
 
The Cow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Grazing in a field somewhere...
Posts: 20,270
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne View Post
Wait, danol died?! When?

(Wow, a grundle thread yielding information that interests me)
You'll probably find more info if you search his name, but here's a post with the obit link:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LASERMOVIES View Post
He's never coming back because he's dead.

http://articles.mcall.com/2005-10-14...atholic-church
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 09:25 PM   #16
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superboy View Post
I don't know what's funnier, your attempts to edit wikipedia, or the epic mhg83's dating thread.

You should just open a thread and log all the hijinks that happen instead of constantly starting new threads every time an incident occurs, which seems to happen about every other day.

BTW, have you thought about using a proxy server to stop them from banning you and your sock puppets?

and another question: why don't you just leave wikipedia alone? why not just join conservapedia. They have a great article on Obama you'll love.

I've never used a proxy server - but I have created accounts from other computers. Once I've created an account from another computer, I can log on from my own computer. But the content of my edits is easily spotted, though.

My IP address is dynamic. When they put a temporary block on my IP address, they are blocking pretty much everyone who uses Verizon in western Pennsylvania.

Conservapedia is biased - and no one reads it anyway.

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased.

Last edited by grundle; 12-02-11 at 09:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 09:28 PM   #17
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cow View Post
You'll probably find more info if you search his name, but here's a post with the obit link:
Thanks for the link.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-11, 09:40 PM   #18
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
I've never used a proxy server - but I have created accounts from other computers. Once I've created an account from another computer, I can log on from my own computer. But the content of my edits is easily spotted, though.

My IP address is dynamic. When they put a temporary block on my IP address, they are blocking pretty much everyone who uses Verizon in western Pennsylvania.

Conservapedia is biased - and no one reads it anyway.

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased.
Conservapedia claims to be unbaised, just like wikipedia. In fact it was founded because they claim that wikipedia had too much of a left-wing bias.

Which really makes me wonder why you bother editing wikipedia. They claim to be unbiased, but clearly they're biased, so why not just leave them alone? you can't, because you have to prove that they're biased by throwing the most obtuse monkey in their wrench. And in doing so, you're just attempting to reinforce the narrative that you're some sort of conservative victim of liberal elitism.
__________________
The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich.

- P.J. O'Rourke

Last edited by Superboy; 12-03-11 at 01:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-11, 12:58 AM   #19
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Crosse, WI
Posts: 15,556
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Your attempt to pad your post count by replying to every post instead of multi-quoting is pathetic.
__________________
PSN - NORML54601

I'm a creationist, I believe man created God. - Seen on a bumper sticker
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 11:28 AM   #20
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,402
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superboy View Post

BTW, have you thought about using a proxy server to stop them from banning you and your sock puppets?


Since reading that, I have tried a whole bunch of different proxies that I found using google. Every single one of them has been blocked by wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NORML54601 View Post
Your attempt to pad your post count by replying to every post instead of multi-quoting is pathetic.

What are you talking about?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 03:04 PM   #21
DVD Talk Legend
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 21,084
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Didn't grundle get banned from Wikipedia for doing truthful and well-sourced articles about things like Michele Obama's bare arms? Merely being truthful and well-sourced is insufficient. The information should also be of interest to someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
__________________
Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler: Nick is the coolest!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 04:44 PM   #22
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post
Didn't grundle get banned from Wikipedia for doing truthful and well-sourced articles about things like Michele Obama's bare arms? Merely being truthful and well-sourced is insufficient. The information should also be of interest to someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
There's always a wiki for you if you don't like wikipedia.
__________________
The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich.

- P.J. O'Rourke
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 06:50 PM   #23
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East of Ypsi
Posts: 8,887
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Wow, the behinds the scenes conversation about the Chavez entry is way more interesting then the Entry itself.
__________________
"Why be racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic when you could just be quiet?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 07:08 PM   #24
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,916
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Fascinating!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-11, 07:19 PM   #25
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 50,942
Re: The founder of wikipedia criticized the Hugo Chavez article for its lack of criti

Grundle is my internet hero.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0