User talk:Ira padow

hello my name is ira and i'm a sixty year old retired teacher who was forced to retire because ulitimately i refused to teach toward a test at a detention center where i worked. i'm pretty much down on President Shrub and all the crap that seems to pass as what i call selective morality. i tend to write every day and todays stuff might be usable by your show.

The Shrub Plan If we reduce the population that collects Social Security that would be the best case scenario of solving this huge problem for the future.That's why they are stumbling so slowly on creating a country wide health system, that's why they aren't prosecuting those corporations for stealing all those retirees investments, that's why they are letting companies change and mismanage pensions, that's why it's not that important to have quality air and tree preservation, no stem cell research, allowing the cut backs on public services to the needy, Allowed to go to war to kill mostly the have nots, also based on a lie to begin with. The plan needs a divne solution that gives those who know who they are the feeling that they don't need to be held responsible for their actions. Some might compare this to the definition of what a sociopath is. They've come up with the perfect plan, pray to God, that's the solutionit doesn't require any action, no one will question them both because we don't ask hard questions anymore especially in the news and legislature nor do we mess with anything Godly. God says we can abuse Gay people, God says we can't have modern birth control practices,and since he's allowing this plan to work so far, haven't heard to many churches bringing up anything slightly close to a complaint about what's going on in our country, bynot standing and defending their people that they ar supposed to be bound to they are showing that they are part of this conservative bandwagon sweeping our country. There can't be any otherr explanation. God is weeding out the weak an aged from the pack, sort of like the explanation of the book Never Cry Wolf.Letting them die of illness, lack of medications, worry of the future without their nest eggs, less clean are to breath, less jobs available, because outsourcing is really greed, your paying people a lot less money for their services. Which leads to the terrorist's complaintthat the ugly Americans don't respect them in their own countries, changing the culture an governments, sort of like what happened in the early development of our history to any town that had a company store controlling everything that happened there.I just don't just understand how the religious faction of our nation works, unless you see them not as a way for people to get fair treatment, but as another corporation themselves, more worried about their wealth and image then then the common good of humanity. i think the sins that are allowing today maybe the wors church actions in history. i beg them to start acting in a more humane and caring way; it's not too late.

As i said i write everyday and this is part of what came out of my messed up mind, if it's not over the top use it. i love you show and think that we need to not only laugh at what's going on, but get serious too. I believe the Shrub team does not reflect or have the best interests of our country, they are a greedy bunch of bastards that have conned those who vote for them. i also suggest an periodic segment called the Carl Rove update, now there's a real slime ball that has too much power.

i don't know how this works, but would appreciat some feedback if possible. thank you for your time

From ira the carer

Welcome
--Aphaia 21:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote user page policies
Ira,

I am happy to see that you have become a registered user of Wikiquote, and hope that you will find it useful for looking up quotations from notable people and works, possibly contributing some that you know as well. However, your sole contribution to date, this talk page, suggests that you may not be aware of the purpose of Wikiquote, or of Wikiquote user pages. Please allow me to clarify some points.

First, Wikiquote is not a blog. Your sole posting appears to be a long discussion of political and social viewpoints that are more appropriate for a weblog, not a compendium of quotations by famous people and works. This mainly applies to the main article space, not so much to user pages, but user pages and user talk pages are still not meant to be used as blogs. Discussion of what is appropriate for these pages can be found at Wikipedia:User page, as Wikiquote, being the junior project it is, borrows this (and many other policies) from its senior sister project. Three passages are of particular relevance:


 * What can I have on my user page?
 * Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to [Wikiquote]. [Wikiquote] is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a [Wikiquotian].
 * What can I have on my user talk page?
 * In general, your contributions to your user talk page should be in response to other people's comments - avoid stuff that would be better placed on your user page.
 * What should I avoid?
 * Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to [Wikiquote]. Examples include:
 * A weblog relating your non-[Wikiquote] activities
 * Extensive discussion not related to [Wikiquote]
 * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)
 * Opinion pieces not related to [Wikiquote] or other non-[quotation] material

Second, I have additional concerns about the content of this posting. I was initially worried that your posting might be considered libelous, but although I'm not a lawyer, I think we're okay on that issue &mdash; in the U.S. at least &mdash; based on the information at Wikipedia:Libel. Please note, however, that you are ultimately responsible for your postings. To paraphrase the aforementioned article, "contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikiquote is not defamatory".

Also, this posting appears to be a transcription of a call or email to a radio or other talk show. (The sentence starting with "i love you show" certainly suggests that this text was not originally meant for Wikiquote use.) Any lengthy passage from a copyrighted show puts Wikiquote in danger of violating copyright laws. Even if you are the original author, you will find that many commercial programs claim copyrights to any contributions they record, often requiring implicit waiver of participants' rights in order for them to participate. When we suspect a potential problem, we attempt to track down the sources for the text, but you have posted this here without citation. It would help if you could cite either the source of the material or the reason why it is not a copyvio.

I apologize if all this seems rather harsh and legalistic, but please remember that our purpose here is not to provide general public forums, but to provide a compendium of notable quotations.

In summary, I recommend that, if you wish to express these ideas in your user page, you boil them down to something that doesn't look like a weblog or a potential copyright violation, and move them from your talk page to your user page. Please consider, though, that anything that appears to be more like a personal soapbox than a Wikiquote-related user page may be considered in violation of the policies mentioned above and could be voted for deletion. (See Deletion policy for more information.) One useful and amusingly appropriate way to communicate your personal views within policy is to quote yourself (succinctly) on your user page, as some Wikiquotians do &mdash; myself included. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns about these policies and recommendations. Thank you for your cooperation. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)