Talk:Main Page/Archive index/115

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Olympics

I have two questions:

  • Why do you always focus on the negative? The greatest sporting event in the world, and you're worried about who underperforms.
  • Please explain how a country's policy regarding same-sex marriage would affect the performance of individual sportsmen and women? A statement like that defies all logic. --MaartenG 10:05, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I have to agree with this statement. The Olympics are the single greatest sporting event in the world, and an opportunity for athletes from across the United States to honor their country and achieve in the name of patriotism. Why does this have to have a political agenda about which countries whose policies we don't agree with doing poorly? Let's agree to cheer for the United States doing well, since that should be our goal. Personally, I don't want to think about which countries have what laws or who is allowing what. I just want to enjoy this incredible global display and root for American success. Jpope14 14:49, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[1], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[2]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: Decline of atheism

In the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[3][4] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[5] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[6] See also: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: Atheism and health and Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism and Atheism and obesity

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side! Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: Views on atheists) :) Conservative 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

You know, I believe the primary sentiment expressed in the initial posts were not skepticism at the poor athleticism of atheists, but rather a desire to see someone on this site actually view something through a sane, normal point of view, rather than trying to politicize it. The Olympics are about patriotism, athleticism, and pride. Not about which countries allow gays to marry. Not about how badly we can trash atheists and atheism. Making it about those things is an insult to the athletes who compete in this country's name, an insult to the Olympics and everything they stand for, and is an insult to this country, which has pursued Olympic success for its own merit, not because we wanted to prove we had more Christians. Honestly, User:Conservative, give it a break (and this is coming from a Christian.) Jpope14 17:36, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
JPope, you just proved my point. Why liberals and atheists focus on "pride" (gay pride, etc.), psychobabbling excessively about "self-esteem" (without earning it)[7][8], conservatives focus on doing the things that cause achievement. Thank you for proving my point. That's one of the reasons why liberals and atheists earn less gold medals! Once again, pride cometh before the fall. Hit the gym for an hour a day and lose your flab prideful, obese atheists who can't win gold medals! See: Atheism and obesity. Conservative 17:44, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
And you, User:Conservative, just proved my point: That you are incapable of viewing anything outside of your red v. blue, conservative v. liberal, christian v. atheist prism, and that you clearly don't care about the spirit of the Olympics, patriotism, or pride in America. Why else would you feel the need to degrade everyone else instead of cheering on your fellow countrymen? I sincerely hope you never coach a team or participate in a team sport, because the notions of unity, achievement, and pride seem to elude you, while you focus on negativity, insults, and political maneuvering. The Olympics are meant to be a positive event, with each person positively cheering on their country. Not a negative event, where we squabble and bicker about politics. But I would hardly expect you to understand an event that isn't political. Jpope14 18:17, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
JPope, sports commentators discuss not only why teams win, but why teams lose. In the liberal world, everyone wins and gets a trophy whether they earned it or not (or they refuse to keep score) so I wouldn't expect you to understand this matter! [9] Conservative 22:39, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes, and when they comment on why teams lose, they don't politicize the matter by talking about whether their country allows gay marriage or if they are left-leaning or right-leaning. So I don't see why that kind of talk is necessary here on Conservapedia. Let's keep something as positive as the Olympics positive, not drag it down by politicizing it with meaningless and irrelevant political babble. Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from labeling me a "liberal" just because I take issue with the spirit and attitude of your comments. I'm a conservative, and have pride in my country, including our country's achievements in the Olympics. I don't enjoy seeing those achievements trivialized by your angry, negative, politicized rhetoric. Let's just enjoy the Olympics for what they are. An incredible sporting event and an opportunity for athletes to do honor to their country. Jpope14 23:11, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm guessing that Conservative didn't even read the original post. Nowhere was atheism mentioned. What was mentioned was asking for a clarification between a government's stance on gay marriage and the performance of individual sportsmen. It would appear from his replies that he has a one-track mind, so I'm guessing that answering this question is beyond his ken. MaartenG 08:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Don't pick on Conservative - his postmodern irony is the best thing on this website!!NikRoberts 17:00, 2 July 2012 (BST)

See: Atheism and homosexuality. Is it any wonder that so many atheists and agnostics lack machismo! An excerpt from Richarddawkins.net that was quoted from a column at Independent.ie: "So Mary Kenny thinks that there are more atheist men than women, and that this is the result of some sort of attempt at overt manliness on their part. She really must try to pay attention - to Richard Dawkins, for example whom one could hardly describe as being the epitome of machismo." Señor Dawkins is not the epitome of machismo? Why might this be the case? Was this unfortunate situation caused by nature? Was it caused by nurture? Is it merely a reflection of his free will?

See: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? Conservative 13:31, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Let's see...

"I have two questions: Why do you always focus on the negative? The greatest sporting event in the world, and you're worried about who underperforms. Please explain how a country's policy regarding same-sex marriage would affect the performance of individual sportsmen and women? A statement like that defies all logic. --MaartenG 10:05, 1 July 2012 (EDT)"

Do you see the word "atheism" anywhere in there, User:Conservative? I don't. So your attempts to link religion to the Olympics, as I stated earlier, is nothing more than indicative of an unhealthily one-track mind, inability to argue rationally, and insulting to this country and its Olympic success.Jpope14 16:53, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
MaartenG, do I always focus on the negative? Why do you throw out false accusations you fail to support. Who largely created Conservapedia's creationism and creation science articles on these positive subjects? Conservative 00:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I believe, Conservative, that the original question was directed at Aschlafly, not you. That is why your reply, which is butting into the conversation, has no relevance. EddieI 10:55, 10 July 2012 (EDT)


Not me!! I dont have the rights to contribute to it. Id like to though, and would if I could!!

Harvard's Reversing the Aging Process

In the news feed, the following headline was posted: "More Liberal claptrap from Harvard and Nature magazine: "Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans." [13] Both Biblical scientific foreknowledge and the Second Law of Thermodynamics reveal the futility of that goal."

While I can think of scriptures supporting the Biblical scientific foreknowledge refutation (we shall all return to dust, and the verse in Genesis imposing an age limit on human beings etc...), wouldn't their success with rats imply that the second law of thermodynamics refutation isn't valid? i.e. If they could reverse the process in rats, why would the second law of thermodynamics prevent them from doing it for humans?

Good question, but based on a big "if". I doubt the researchers have really reversed the ageing process in rats. Moreover, humans are far more complex than rats, and lots more places for disorder to creep in as time goes by.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Actually, Andy, humans and rats are very similar, in terms of complexity. We have roughly the same number of genes, and the vast majority (>99%) of our genes are close enough in sequence that they are interchangable without physiological consequence; this often done in research, by creating transgenic mice or rats that express the human version of the mouse or rat gene (I've done it a few times myself). Regarding the news item, I cannot seem to find the paper referenced by the article in any of the recent issues of Nature, I am wondering when it was published as I would very much like to read it.
Without reading the paper, I will say that it is much more likely that the investigators reversed a single cause or mechanism of aging, rather than the entire aging process (which is quite complex, and still not entirely understood). That said, aging, rejuvanation, and regeneration are currently pretty hot areas of research. Here is a review article from 2007 that provides a pretty good background to the field. Additionally, here is a review from earlier this year summarizing recent work on the stem cell theory of aging.--JHunter 11:59, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Here is an even better review from this year, discussing the potential of using epigenetic reprogramming to reverse the aging process.--JHunter 12:10, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative triumphs blog

Do "you" (singular or plural - take your pick) write that, User:Conservative? WilcoxD 02:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Wow. If I was pretending to be an educational resource I'd be embarrassed to publish something so badly written on my main page. It really doesn't create the right impression. Am you grammar letting we down, Conservative? MaartenG 08:52, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
MaartenG, your complaint lacks sufficient clarity in terms of remediating any grammatical problem. Please elaborate. If you could write your complaints using greater detail in the future, it certainly would be more constructive and educational as well. Conservative 14:27, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Is it your blog, User:Conservative? WilcoxD 19:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - Sun Tzu. “Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu Conservative 00:02, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Ok, I'm going to take that as a "yes". I honestly didn't mean to upset your mysterious plan though, I was simply asking on a hunch WilcoxD 01:07, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
I/we have no interest in wrangling with an atheist and/or discussing my/our private details or activities. By the way, I/we will leave squabbling to atheists since they appear to be experts at it. :) See: Atheist factions Conservative 14:45, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Heh, you just don't like answering questions :) WilcoxD 23:24, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Oh, also, stop questioning people's faith - it's an unnecessary insult. I know that, due to being in the "inner loop", you can get away with this, but it doesn't mean you should. You like quotes, right? One of your former presidents said "...if you want to test a man's character, give him power." WilcoxD 23:27, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

WilcoxD, if someone from a liberal branch of religion challenges biblical creation and the Bible's historicity, then they open themselves to having their errant religion face legitimate criticism. If they can't stand the heat, they have no business being in the kitchen. Of course, being a liberal, you want errant, liberal religion to be unquestioned. Conservative 23:50, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

My question was simple and had nothing to do with religion or politics. But hey, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not after you ;) WilcoxD 00:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

An interesting news item

Jonathan Krohn, the homeschooler who wrote a book on conservatism, is now a liberal[10]. Considering how he was promoted on this site I'm curious what Mr. Schlafly and other higher-ups think of this. AndrewTompkins 22:10, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Oh no!!!! I'm disappointed and wonder if the homeschooling stopped. Sometimes homeschooled students do change their opinions after going to school ... if their homeschooling did not prepare them for the liberal propaganda in school.--Andy Schlafly 22:31, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I can't find anything on whether his homeschooling ended, although the article says he is attending NYU in the fall. AndrewTompkins 09:46, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
He's still a kid. I don't doubt that he'll be a conservative once again when he's older.--Jpatt 22:58, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
As people grow older, they notice the logical flaws in their views, and tend to change their views to become more logical (more conservative). They begin to question and reject the incoherent teachings by liberals in school.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Atheist "machismo" and liberal censorship in action

There's a big, foul mouthed bunny fight going on at freethoughtblogs, the atheist blog site. They've been infighting for a few weeks recently about sexual harassment at their conferences - some say ignore it, some say stand up and fight but the dominant majority want a strongly worded policy document. A couple of bloggers dared to grow a pair and, for disagreeing with the groupthink[11], they've been kicked off "freethoughtblogs". One of the bloggers, the self-appointed Foxhole Atheist and a serving soldier, is upset because someone threatened to kick his butt in an e-mail![12] User:Conservative, you were right! Rafael

A lot of atheist infighting could be stopped if misogynist atheist men stopped mistreating atheist women and there was a greater outcry about this matter. See: Atheism and women. Given how few atheist women attend many atheist meetings, you would think much greater measures would be taken to end these behaviors and that Richard Dawkins would apologize for some of his recent behavior (No doubt foolish pride is an issue plus the rebellious and cantankerous nature of many atheists and agnostics). See: Causes of atheism and Atheism and women and Elevatorgate and Women's views of Richard Dawkins. Wired magazine reported that atheists tend to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged men" so its not surprising greater efforts have not taken place plus the New Atheism is further aggravating this problem within atheism.
Next, I already cited and quoted a portion of your first link (see: Atheist factions). As far as the second link, it seems as if the infighting within Western Atheism is intensifying (see: Atheist factions). No doubt the infighting will increase in the future as a losing team filled with undisciplined players generally has more infighting. See: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline and Why are the years 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers? and Atheism: A house divided and in global decline
In addition, special forces with a plan and well designed strategies/tactics easily prevail over a squabbling bunch of thugs in a burning building. :) We know that global atheism is burning while their "leaders" fiddle. In addition, Christian organizations with highly trained individuals are co-laboring with God and growing Christianity and they are tremendously aided by Christian laymen sharing their faith. See: Internet evangelism and Question Evolution! Campaign forms strategic alliance with leading internet evangelism organization and Global Christianity
Also, now that a Question evolution! booklet and Question book for middle school students are nearing completion, a greater emphasis on creation evangelism is going to occur within a group of Question evolution! campaign supporters. [13]
The future of atheism certainly does not look bright as dark clouds are forming over atheism. I can certainly see waves of biblical Christianity and creationism growing and hitting the rickety houses of evolutionism and global atheism and Western atheism with tremendous force. See this article and this article
Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side. :) Conservative 14:33, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Evolutionists and atheists, of course your silence implies assent

Evolutionists and atheists, you seem mighty silent about the above comments. I am taking your silence as meaning you agree. The future of evolutionism and atheism does not look bright and atheists are weak cowards who will allow atheism to be buried in its intellectual bunnyhole while they bicker amongst themselves.

2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Don't say you were not warned.[14][15]  :)

Evolutionists and atheists, if you want to debate, you know where to go, but be prepared to lose badly: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 Conservative 18:09, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Do you think the apparent silence of atheists and evolutionists may be down to the fact that many of them have received lifetime bans from this site specifically for making comments that disagree with Conservative? --CharlesM 08:51, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I think a more plausible explanation is they are in a state of deep depression about the decline of global atheism and the expected acceleration of decline which is expected to affect Western World atheism. See: Atheism and depression Conservative 09:53, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
Maybe they are too busy celebrating the so called God particle. CameronD 15:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Happy 4th of July!

A very happy 4th of July! --Joaquín Martínez 09:09, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you, Joaquin!--Andy Schlafly 09:45, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Happy birthday to the richest, most powerful country on God's earth. CameronD 15:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Wealthy and most powerful due to hard work, charity, respect for the Rule of Law, free speech and Christian values.--Andy Schlafly 15:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
Couldn't agree more. CameronD 08:01, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Great day for science!

Higgs boson-like particle discovery claimed at LHC! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455 EJamesW 11:49, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

They can't know with 100% certainty that it's the Higgs Boson, but they are over 99% sure. http://gizmodo.com/5923422/physicists-have-found-the-higgs-boson - This is an incredible development in the physics community, and just made my Independence Day all the better. Jpope14 15:38, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
You may not have heard, but they also detected [Dark Matter] directly for the first time recently, in a galactic filament! AlbertSey 18:57, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
AlbertSey, have you seen this. It relates to the other "Dark matter" reports. Conservative 23:40, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
So.. The God particle has been discovered. Congratulations to the scientists on their hard earned results. --ClarkeL 21:29, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

When somebody wants so desperately to believe in something they will see whatever they are looking to see, even when it is not there.

Has the author of this unsigned comment seen the numbers that have been coming out? This sort of science isn't quite the same as going out into the wilderness and looking for a rare bird, and you think you see it but it's just a pigeon. --Guitarsniper 11:13, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
The author of that unsigned comment was casting a very, very wide net ;)
A great day for science when atheists understand that the God particle is the work of God.--Jpatt 11:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Imposter theory you might be interested in. I do admire the fact that everyone involved in this is seemingly willing to admit they are wrong if somebody is able to prove otherwise (or even find a better theory) WilcoxD 20:31, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Earth's moon

Did not understand what is special about Earth's moon. Can you please clarify?--ClarkeL 21:26, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

See Moon to learn what is special about it, unlike any other known moon in the universe.--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
Er, while technically correct, given that we "know" of only 169 moons out of what is probably a minimum of a trillion trillion moons in the Universe, it's probably a little premature to claim much in the way of uniqueness of our Moon within the context of the entire Universe. The original comment on the main page states it better.MarkJW 23:20, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Unemployment

Despite holding steady, it's good that it's been trending down over the last two years since it peaked, right?

It's good, in the same way it's good if a junky isn't using as much heroine as he was two years ago. A real, strong recovery would have seen jobs created at a much faster pace. EricAlstrom 14:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Murray in final!

What a great day for underachieving, atheistic, hapless Britain! EJamesW 13:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

GDP per capita and population size are strong predictors of total Olympic medals obtained.[16] No doubt the USA with its higher GDP per capita and its higher population size, will handily win more gold medals than the more atheistic, less fertile and more socialistic British.[17][18] Britain has a below replacement level of births. See also: Decline of atheism. Conservative 14:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Interesting to note just how many of the high GDP per capita nations are current or former British colonies.--CharlesM 14:57, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
No doubt due to a legacy of the Protestant work ethic. They can thank Wycliffe, Tyndale, John Bunyan, John Wesley and others. Conservative 15:01, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

User C - is there no joy in your heart? We're a small country but we came 4th in the last Olympics. We actually won a war - see Falkland Islands - by ourselves. We invented the jet and the computer. EJamesW 15:30, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

And a Brit invented the telephone. And we broke the enigma code without the help of our former colonial cousins, despite what hollywood would like you to believe. Davidspencer 15:40, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
We invented the railways, tv, the internet and most importantly Mr. Whippy ice cream by Margaret Thatcher. EJamesW 15:47, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Britain's a pretty cool guy, beats americans in almost everything, and not afraid of anythingbrenden 17:51, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Furthermore, not only did the original post in this section not mention the Olympics, politics, GDP, or population size, but also...Andy Murray is Scottish. Not British. [19]Once again, User: Conservative shows his true colors by desperately attempting to paint anything and everything as the fault of the religion or sexual preference of someone's native country. Too bad he doesn't bother to check his facts and see whether he even has the country right! In my mind, that demonstrates either a remarkable laziness in fact-checking or a deceptiveness in presentation of facts. Now, isn't there something about Atheism and deception on this wiki? Clearly, User: Conservative is a closet atheist. Why not come out of the closet, User: Conservative? There are many wonderful Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian on this website. Jpope14 18:07, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Um, sorry to hit you up with this Jpope14 but being Scottish is not the same as "not British". It is the same as not being English (for example) but British refers to a resident of the United Kingdom (i.e. someone who is English, Welsh .... you get the idea. You're arguing that a Wisconsian is not an American. Please keep calm and edit from facts not emotion. Pdorme 18:32, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Notice how 99% of the great British achievements were prior to atheism and socialism taking it over? I'm all for restoring Britain to its past glory.--Andy Schlafly 18:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, 99% of the United States history in my history textbook for APUSH (2005) was about achievements and events before 2000. I don't think it's any surprise that 99% of "great British achievements" (an undefined term) took place "prior to atheism and socialism taking it over" (when this happened is not stated). (Incidentally, I might point out that Britain has an established Church of England, while America does not.) GregG 18:39, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
EJamesW, I see you mentioned past events in British history. I imagine many people of declining empires engage in that sort of thing and I certainly would like to see Britain repent instead of many of its people reaping the bitter fruits of rebellion. Bible believing Christians are able to do much more than merely engage in nostalgia. Bible believers can rejoice in God's expanding kingdom which will last forever and ever. Amen! By the way, Biblical Christianity and creationism are rapidly expanding in the world. See: Global Christianity. Conservative 19:09, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
So you consider conquering distant lands and forcing the native populations in to indentured servitude, if not outright slavery, to be examples of Christian virtue and devotion? I am British, and I'm proud of much of the heritage I share with other Brits, but the past "glories of empire" are not something I wish to glory in. Much of Britain's past might was derived from the ruthless exploitation of the resources of the British Empire, and the British aristocracy grew rich on the backs, lives, and suffering of millions of others in those far off places. It is to British people's credit that they divested themselves of their empire and gave many nations their independence, but all too many of those bitter fruits of empire are still being felt in a number of places around the world, not least in the Middle East.
The book is very clear on this. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5). Those subject to slavery are clearly dealt with through the word. Pdorme
Atheistic Europe, who fund CERN, discovered evidence for the Higgs boson. Trufax: this was June 2012, not 1930s Europe that did so. Also trufax: Alan Turing, (Turing test, Turing machine, etc), was atheist, and homosexual.brenden 21:17, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Discriminating against creationists.

I think this may have something to do with the fact that Creationism relies on an unfalsifiable premise namely God intelligently created the world, etc etc, rendering it psuedoscience, at best. This could also be because it is also a very specific creationist named. You never hear the creationists of the African religions, do you? It's only the abrahamic charlatans pushing their cause. Tl;dr:

  • Creationism is not falsifiable, therefore, not science.
  • Too specific creation story, why should the Abrahamic religions hold precedence for the Nobel organization.brenden 17:50, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Brendon, I think you have creation science mixed up with evolutionism. By the way, what are your thoughts about what medical science says about Homosexuality and health? Conservative 18:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm healthy, and surprise, fit, thank you very much.brenden 20:57, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, attacking an editor for his sexuality (which is none of your business) is a new low, even for you. Furthermore, you are once again guilty of both engaging in non sequitur and confusing correlation with causation. Without discussing the many factual errors in your great collection of rants volume of articles betraying an unhealthy fascination works on homosexuality (which would take several pages that I lack the time and inclination to write), I will say that a contributing factor to the prevalence of risky behaviours in the LGBT population is more related to the continued social stigma that they face than it is to their sexual preference; this has been the prevailing opinion of the medical and public health communities for almost two decades now. It is supported by the finding that risk-taking behaviours (and rates of infectious disease) have significantly declined among LGBT youth over time among populations where the social stigma has also decreased.
As for your baiting of Brenden.... Honestly, I understand your religious views. I understand how you believe that you know the "one true God", and how, as you see it, anybody who does not subscribe to your particular brand of evangelical Protestantism is not a "true Christian". I may disagree with your views, but I very much honour and revere your right to have them. I even support your legally-protected right to share your views with others and continue to practice the religion of your choice. However, your rights only extend so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. While your one comment above, linking to your hundred pages of egregious fact distortion (some, more liberal than myself, might call it "hate speech"), is hardly what I would consider "harassment" (admittedly, few reasonable people would consider it such), it does have undeniable overtones of incivility. Perhaps you are attempting to provoke him into commenting to this effect, so that you may then arbitrarily ban him? Whatever your motive, you are despicable.
Finally, where is this "creation science" you keep talking about? I read biomedical journals for a living (at least sometimes it feels like I do) and, out of the thousands of papers I read every year, I have yet to see a single paper by one of these so-called "scientists" supporting their presupposed conclusion. You say evolution is unfalsifiable? Great! I'll tell that to my boss...maybe we can finally hang up our pipettes, sell off the microscopes, and open a restaurant or do something else that would actually pay reasonably well. Seriously, read a book and stop poisoning this encyclopedia. --JHunter 21:44, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

I will just quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

(CCC 2358) GregG 23:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

EDIT With this in mind, I hope we all can get along to our main focus here: building an encyclopedia. GregG 23:18, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
First, I am not going to act in accordance with any wrongheaded liberal propaganda.
Second, it clear that liberals take a cafeteria approach to science and want to suppress sound science. Otherwise, why the outcry with what respected medical science journals say about homosexuality and health. Liberals want to live in a liberal la-la land cocoon protected by inconvenient scientific data and the squealing like stuck pigs here is evidence of this matter. If Brendon wants to bring up an issue relating to science and the Bible, then I am going to remind him that the Bible's prohibiting of homosexuality has medical benefits as demonstrated by an abundance of information about homosexuality and health.
The Catholic Catechism is wrongheaded about homosexuality. Paul wrote: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11. Homosexuality is a sin. Sins are chosen and sins can be repented off and conquered via the power of Jesus Christ. I met Ex-homosexuals who married women and are happily married in the first church I attended as a Christian. Bill Donovan and I disagree on various theological matters, but we both agree that the Catholic church's policies about homosexual priests was a bad policy, See: Homosexuality and pederasty. Conservative 00:27, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
Catholics believe that homosexual behavior is objectively sinful. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "Catholic church's policies about homosexual priests was a bad policy," and I don't want to prematurely make any presumptions about what you meant. In any event, I don't see why you have an issue with Christians being called to "love your neighbor as yourself," regardless of what objective or perceive wrongs that neighbor does against you or against God. GregG 00:46, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
ADDENDUM The "Bible's prohibiting of homosexuality" is really a codification of natural law; homosexuality is sinful not because the Bible says so (in contrast to, for example, the rest of Mosaic law before Jesus fulfilled it), but because God created us in a way that homosexuality is disordered and inherently sinful. Additionally, your comment that "sins are chosen and sins can be repented off and conquered via the power of Jesus Christ" is correct, but it downplays the effects of Original Sin and temporal punishment for sins causing many people to have a greater inclination to commit sin. For them, resisting the temptation to sin is a very tall challenge. We as a Church must support such people in their trials. GregG 01:01, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
FURTHER EDIT And when we do sin, it is through the grace God imparts to us in the sacrament of Reconciliation that helps guard us against falling into sin again. Although one may struggle with a particular sin for years, it is that grace that helps one to finally overcome that sin. GregG 01:04, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
GregG, John Paul II in 1992 with the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, wrote "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial". [20] Homosexuality is a sin and they do choose to be homosexuals. They may not choose to be tempted, but they do choose to be homosexuals. Secondly, it seems to me that the Roman Catholics in general give the field of psychology too much weight.[21][22][23] It is not surprising to me that that the RCC called homosexuality a "condition" which is the language that medical doctors and psychologists commonly use for various issues that people face. Homosexuality is best conquered like any other sin,[24] and not through the field of psychology (see: Ex-homosexuals). The Apostle Paul said various members of the early church overcame homosexuality and no doubt they did it without psychologists. The field of counseling psychology does not have a great track record. See: Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather. Biblical Christianity has a long track record of success in conquering homosexuality for those who desire to conquer it all the way back to the early church (I Corinthians 6:9-11) whereas psychology has not shown the same degree of success. See: Ex-homosexuals.
Lastly, judging from your lack of sufficient commentary re: what the Apostle Peter said about a global flood and those who deny it (previous main page talk discussion), I don't see us coming to agreement on the homosexuality matter. Conservative 08:08, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
Excessive gambling that wastes money needed for necessities is a sin, yet we recognize that there are compulsive gamblers. Excessive dedication to games like FarmVille that use up time and money needed for self, family, and friends can very much be sinful, yet, in the news, we find people who are addicted in that manner. Likewise, homosexuality is a sin, and yet there are people who, either through how God created them, their upbringing, or the temporal consequences of past homosexual sin (such as addiction), face very real challenges in not succumbing to temptation. The Bible makes it clear that we cannot surmount those challenges through our own accord; it is the grace of God that allows us to ultimately win. And, ultimately, even when we do fall into sin, we recognize (1) that God is willing to forgive our sins and allow us to start a new life, and (2) that God is loving and ultimately takes into account our state of consent to sin when the determination of whether mortal sin has been committed, which would deny us access to heaven if we die outside of the state of grace. As Christians, we are not called to pick on those who commit homosexual sins; rather, we are called to love them as the creation of God that they are, understand their trials, and, yes, rebuke their sinful behavior.
Also, not all psychology is counseling psychology. One field that comes to mind is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which, to my understanding, involves using rewards and punishments to influence behavior. It is true though, that while psychology can be turned to for some relief, the grace of God is the complete answer. GregG 10:59, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
ADDENDUM I don't think Peter was making a scientific statement as to the extent of the flood. I don't deny that a flood actually did happen (as Jesus himself confirms [Lk 17:27]). I do think it is somewhat baffling to read modern science into a text written for people who had very little understanding of science. GregG 11:12, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
GregG, the Apostle Peter clearly said there was a global flood and I demonstrated this. You also failed to show he did not claim this. I am not going to spend a lot of time wrangling with an obstinate person who is reluctant to admit error. Also, it is very clear that you are a person who cannot defend their evolutionary beliefs yet insists on spouting them. You know where to go if you want to attempt to defend your evolutionary belief via a recorded debate this is distributed to 20,000 YouTube subscribers: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 We both know, however, that you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and you will continue to be reluctant to debate. Conservative 11:21, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, user:Conservative, what did ShockofGod and Creation Ministries's questions have anything to do with what GregG said?brenden 11:46, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
Brendon, if you cared about scientific evidence and had wisdom, you would heed what medical science says about homosexuality and health, repent and become an ex-homosexual.Conservative 22:38, 7 July 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, if you cared about what shred of credibility - if any - that you have left on this encyclopedia, you would answer User:Brenden's question directly. Jpope14 19:07, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Tiger Woods misses the cut

Woods has the most wins of anyone on the PGA Tour this year, and his winning performance the 2012 AT&T National at Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Maryland last weekend moved him past Jack Nicklaus into second place on the tour list. JeffreyB 00:56, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

With that logic, Jack Nicklaus should be receiving nearly as much media attention as Tiger Woods. But Nicklaus doesn't.--Andy Schlafly 14:31, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
You do know that Nicklaus is retired, right? Athletes that don't participate in competitions don't tend to get much press coverage. JeffreyB 14:44, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
Nicklaus has competed in the last ten years -- the British Open in 2005, I think, and another contest with Tiger Woods in 2010. [25] But Nicklaus doesn't receive the media adulation that Overrated Sports Star Tiger Woods does, not even during Nicklaus's prime.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

2005 is a long time ago in the world of professional sports, and one contest two years ago is hardly going to keep making news after it's over. As for Nicklaus's coverage in his prime, it's a tough comparison, given that Woods came to prominence as a veritable media explosion was well under way--there was a lot fewer media hours to dedicate to Nicklaus in his time. Anyway, the main point of my argument goes uncontested--nobody has more wins than Woods this year. JeffreyB 17:19, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Wimbledon

Can we update the mainpage to reflect that Murray lost in Wimbleodn? Gregkochuconn 14:09, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the tip.--Andy Schlafly 14:30, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Murray at Wimbledon--I was really hoping the underdog would pull through.

I was really pulling for the underdog in this one. Too bad. JeffreyB 15:09, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

The Brits need to take a lesson from the American. Create sports that no one else plays so that you can be world champions at that sport. nikroberts 15:11, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Nikroberts- Tennis was originally French and no Frenchman has won for years either. Pdorme 16:42, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
France is dominated by atheism now just as Britain is. See Olympics 2012, atheism section. It's tough for a player to win for the fans when the fans aren't even praying for the player, because the fans are stuck in an atheistic culture.--Andy Schlafly 17:08, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
Is my memory playing tricks, or didn't the Soviets and the rest of the Eastern Bloc used to do really well at the Olympics?--CharlesM 17:27, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
We're talking about free societies, like most of the world today. In totalitarian societies, a regime can field a good team by compulsion and slave-labor-style training.--Andy Schlafly 18:17, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm just surprised Andy wasn't pulling for the underdog--isn't that what conservatives and Christians do, according to him? JeffreyB 17:31, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

I was pulling for the underdog ... and that's why I asked atheistic British tennis fans to pray for him to win. But that was asking too much of the British fans, apparently.--Andy Schlafly 18:15, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, I'm not much for ghosts, goblins, genies, demons, deities, centaurs, orcs, minotaurs or other supernatural or mythical creatures, but if that helps you enjoy the match all the more, I suppose there's no harm in it.... JeffreyB 18:55, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
It's interesting that Murray - the player who is famous for pointing to the heavens and thanking God after his victories - was defeated by the player, Federer, who really doesn't make much of his religion. I would think Murray, the Christian underdog, would have won. Where was God on this one? Jpope14 19:00, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
I might get banned for suggesting something this crazy but ... perhaps it could have just come down to player skill on the day? WilcoxD 00:35, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
What? Player skill? No, there has to be an underlying political motivation. Always. ALWAYS. Jpope14 00:37, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
I've never heard Murray thank God for a victory, but perhaps I've missed it. Federer has met with the Pope.--Andy Schlafly 01:00, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Might the lack of prayer for Murray just be down to the British sense of fair play? In tennis the most skilled and able player should win. Perhaps the British didn't pray for Murray because they felt it would give him an unfair advantage. Or perhaps they did pray, but with a similar sense of decency the Lord God decided to ignore the prayers and let the players get on with the game.--CharlesM 08:14, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Murray's trademark sign after a victory is to point to the skies with both hands and say "Thank you." He's spoken about it a few times. He's not as outspoken as, you know, Tim Tebow or anything, but it has quietly become his signature move. Jpope14 16:27, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Who's Murray thanking? Is there a link to a quote with an explanation mentioning God?--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm curious. If the Brits wanted Murray to win, they'd be supporting the underdog. And this site is on record as saying that atheists and liberals don't support the underdog. So it's unlikely they were praying for Murray to win. On the other hand, England's Jonathan Marray won the men's doubles final, with his Danish partner. So maybe God was watching the wrong match? EddieI 08:18, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Of course, you've also left yourself open for exactly the same thing to be levied against you, every time a Yank doesn't win something. Take Zach Johnson for example - thanked Jesus for winning a Major... and has done nothing since then. Whereas the "overrated" Tiger Woods has just gone past Jack Nicklaus' record of all-time wins. I'm not saying you shouldn't use stupid measurements to justify your belefs, but don't forget that they work both ways. When last did an American man win a tennis major? Good grief - is America becoming atheistic too? EddieI 11:35, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Barack Obama Guilty of Treason?

I don't know how closely people here at Conservapedia actually watch the United Nations, but the United States has a long and extensive history of ignoring UN treaties and legislation, even ones we voted for and ratified! Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing. BUT... it does mean that this new treaty (which, really, if you look at the actual language of the document, is FAR removed from the description given in the blog post cited) really won't have much affect on the United States at all. Our own Congress' laws have always been, are, and always will be prioritized over the "suggestions" from the United Nations. Mainly because, as such a weak organization, they can't really enforce much of anything. What would they do, threaten sanctions? The United States' money, on a given year, makes up 20-25% of the UN's budget, so I highly doubt that. And furthermore, the definition of "treason" is "...only in levying War against them [The United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." This treaty hardly fits that description, and anyone who claims it does is fooling themselves or deliberately fooling others for the purpose of a larger overall political agenda. I'm not suggesting the removal of the article entirely from the front page, but perhaps the language could be changed to better reflect reality and facts, and a better source could be found that actually offers a rational analysis of the treaty and its (admittedly negative) consequences. Jpope14 00:46, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

I lost count of the number of times Obama has been accused of treason a long time ago (the same happened with Bush too), which brings to mind the old fable called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." The problem with the T-word being trotted out on an almost weekly basis is that nobody--not even those who might be sympathetic to the issue--is going to take it seriously any more. Sooner or later, they're going to have to start talking about Obama's super-treason or mega-treason to get anyone to take notice.MarkJW 03:18, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
There's a better chance of a true conservative winning in 2020 if Obama wins this year. If Romney wins, they'd have to defeat him in a primary when he was the incumbent. I don't think there's even a slight chance of that happening. Gregkochuconn 09:25, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

"Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 3; emphasis added). Someone needs to explain how the President's signing of this treaty would amount to treason under the definition provided by our Constitution. CasparRH 11:29, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

"Is the current economic crises in Europe caused..."

For a website created by an alleged teacher, the number of spelling and grammatical errors here is astounding. CasparRH 11:33, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

I think you'll find Mr Schlafly has no formal teaching qualifications. EddieI 11:38, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

An all-out assault on evolutionary belief?

An all-out assault on evolutionary belief?

Is it near?

Normandy.jpg
Nowhere near as convincing as the Flying Kitty. JeffreyB 19:13, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

I am guessing the Nazi German commanders who were evolutionists said similar things about the American forces filled with creationists, but we know how that ended. :) Good often has a way of triumphing over evil. Ask any of the dwindling number of world atheists and agnostics about that! Conservative 19:52, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Actually the Nazis (who banned all books on "the false science of Darwinism" in 1935) were more concerned about the Soviet forces filled with atheists, which is why 80% of their army was on the Eastern Front. Also, are you aware that of the 5 D-day invasion beaches only two were American, two were British and the fifth was British/Canadian?--BudVar 14:47, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

The Nazis were very nationalistic. Maybe they liked the German atheist and evolutionist Ernst Haeckel's material more than they liked the British Charles Darwin's material. Did Haeckel the German atheist and evolutionist have a large influence on German evolutionary racism? The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism." - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78)

Adolf Hitler wrote: "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable". See: Evolutionary racism

Third, a Question evolution! campaign blog indicates it has contact with a ministry that does ministry in Russia and they want to translate the campaign into Russian.[26] Conservative 15:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Why don't you try answering any of my actual points? Is the FACT that the Nazis banned all books on Darwinian evolution a bit inconvenient for you?--BudVar 15:34, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
See above remarks on nationalism and Haeckel and address them. Conservative 15:36, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
Häckel is irrelevant to the points I raised, so I don't see why you insist on bringing him up. However I'll be happy to discuss him after you explain why the "evolutionist" Nazis banned all books on Darwinian evolution under Section 6 of the 1935 proscribed books law.--BudVar 15:40, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
There are various varieties of evolutionism and various countries have championed varies schools of evolutionary thought and nationalism no doubt played a part. See: Theories of evolution You really haven't given me a strong case why creationists should not be against all varieties of evolutionism and why they should be against the various schools of evolutionists bickering amongst themselves.
Lastly, I hope you don't think your inane and petty complaint is going to stop the all out assault on evolutionary belief and the global decline of atheism. Conservative 15:56, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
I asked you why the "evolutionist" Nazis would ban all books referring to Darwinian evolution (that included Häckel's books by the way - Section 6 specifically named him) and you're not answering. Why not?
I will be delighted if evolution is replaced by ID in our classrooms, but your ridiculous analogies aren't going to achieve that because they're so obviously wrong, just like the 15 Stupid Questions that Evolutionists Are Laughing At. I wish you would stop this nonsense and support the Discovery Institute instead.--BudVar 16:00, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Bud, despite the futility of doing so, if you want to try to stop the all-out assault on evolutionary belief, I suggest teaming up with JHunter and debating Shockofgod and VivaRamones in a recorded debate focusing on the 15 questions for evolutionists. You can set up a debate here: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 I will warn you that the all of the debates so far have been creationist victories. Conservative 19:25, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

I'd love to team up with him, but I'm currently blocked at that chatroom for admitting that I had had a bit too much to drink one night that I was lurking there. I do apologize if I offended anybody, I simply felt that it would be dishonest not to admit my altered state, given the discussion in which I was participating. --JHunter 15:41, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

The evolutionist Carl Sagan, who claimed macroevolution was a fact, said he received some of his best insights while he was smoking pot. Why are evolutionists so against clear thinking? Are you willing to debate VivaRamones (moderator in chat room) if such a debate were scheduled? Do you promise to arrive to the debate sober (The atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens was fond of the bottle)? Do you promise not to pretend to have an earpiece malfunction when hit by a tough question which is what Hitchens did in his debate against Wiliam Lane Craig?[27] Conservative 16:00, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Past 12 months warmest ever for US

It's pretty peculiar how mum this place has been on the weather lately--the National Climatic Data Center just released a report that the past 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded in the US, since record-keeping began (1895). Since every major snowstorm seems to disprove global warming, what exactly is the hottest year in recorded history for the US indicative of? I'm very interested in your input on this. Thanks.--ThomasMP 18:51, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

"what exactly is the hottest year in recorded history for the US indicative of?" My guess? Jahweh is displeased with the direction the country is taking. JeffreyB 19:15, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
What's the pattern again? 12 months. Not much compared to cooling over the past 12 years. I am curious about the weather as well. Who has been disciplined for faking weather data? What has changed since data was cherry picked from weather stations while others were ignored? How many dissenting scientists have had their theories evaluated? It's fine that the climate change alarmists are willing to ignore the opposition because the past couple of years have seen a remarkable change in attitudes among the populace. The world is facing a dire tipping point only if you don't trust in God and put all your hopes in man. I'll rethink my stance after 5 straight years of record heat.--Jpatt 19:22, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Even if it were true that it had cooled over the past 12 years, I could use your logic and say that's inconsequential because it has gotten significantly warmer over the past 100+ years. But that's not the point here. The point is that this place exhibits a pretty obvious double standard by making a fuss every time there's a blizzard but ignoring the hottest summer in recorded American history..--ThomasMP 19:53, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
So you are saying regional climate fluctuation should alarm everyone? Double standards? Conservapedia isn't perfect but the days of blaming every incident on man-made warming is over. I welcome the flip side, pointing out the flaws in the movement.--Jpatt 20:13, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
What they didn't point out was that for Europe, this was one of the coldest 12 months on record. Some parts of India experience their first snowfall on record. We have a WEATHER system that has been moving warm air from the south into Canada. At the same time, this forces arctic air into Europe. Europe gets record cold, we get record warmth. Zero sum game.--PeterNant 14:07, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

The difference between pseudoscience and science, is that proponents of a scientific theory are prepared to discard it if certain observations are made. What possible observation would convince you that the global warming theory is false? --Ed Poor Talk 18:21, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

And here's an example of climate scientists doing just that, on a project part-funded by the Koch brothers, no less. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind -- Esseph 08:46, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
The warming's definitely occurring. The question is why? Deforestation should be more focused on I think, because when trees are cut down they release a lot of the carbon dioxide they were storing back into the atmosphere, as well as no longer replacing carbon with clean oxygen.[28][29] Rainforests of course are crucial. There's another factor, also - growing global population. Humans themselves like much other life replace oxygen with carbon dioxide.[30][31] However, neither of these really matter to the green industry and Al Gore who've both gotten rich off government subsidies. General Electric for example not only pays zero in federal taxes, but received a $3.3 Billion refund from the IRS in 2011.[32] There's a lot of money to be made just by complying with federal regulations on green industry - not to mention tax dodging through overseas tax havens. If you read through the ClimateGate emails, it becomes clear how corrupt the "science" behind this was; how shoddy.[33] I can't deny that warming is occurring, but I do question the motives behind Al Gore and the Green Industry movement in pinpointing fossil fuels like they do based on questionable "science".--Joshua Zambrano 10:39, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
This is the same science Evolutionists use too, Dendrochronology. Take a look at some of the emails from their inner circle relating to the method they'd have us believe is reliable: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
The Medieval Warming Period: [45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
This is the scientific transparency we should believe in: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
Sound Science: [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]
Consensus Building: [90][91][92][93][94][95][96]
--Joshua Zambrano 11:27, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Another conservative triumph!

A Conservative Triumphs article points out that the public is becoming less and less interested in global warming and climate change alarmism.[97]

Global warming alarmists, we hear you knockin', but you can't come in! Conservative 20:54, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

This is great! I actually watched a documentary in my church that states that global warming is being believed by fewer and fewer Americans! --James Wilson 20:55, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Was it Hamilton who said that the public is an ass? JeffreyB 20:56, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
Big government loving Hamilton! [98] Conservative 21:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
The science supports that anthropogenic global warming is happening. This is another clear example of argumentum ad populum being invoked. A fact does not cease to be a fact simply because a majority of the people do not believe it.--JHunter 00:20, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Before people say that dissenting voices were silenced, I must point out that the process of peer review examines method, not conclusion. I myself have peer-reviewed papers and recommended them for publication when, although I disagreed with their interpretation of the data (aka conclusion), their methods were sound. The reason I did that was because, although I did not believe that the data supported their conclusions, the data was collected in a sound manner and, as such, was publishable. Trust me, the paucity of papers concluding that AGW is not happening is not because of censorship--it is because the data is pretty unambiguous.--JHunter 00:40, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
James, when you say "global warming" do you mean (1) that the temperature increased or (2) that it increased mostly because of human activity?
We shouldn't confuse the two ideas. Virtually all scientists agree that atmospheric temperature has increased since the "Little Ice Age" ended in 1850. But they disagree about why it has gone up around one degree Fahrenheit since then. --Ed Poor Talk 11:58, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Remember the "global cooling" liberal hysteria? :)

Medieval warm period:

"The historian Charles Van Doren claimed that: "the ... three centuries, from about 1000 to about 1300, became one of the most optimistic, prosperous, and progressive periods in European history." All across Europe, the population went on an unparalleled building spree, erecting at huge cost spectacular cathedrals and public edifices. Ponderous Romanesque churches gave way to soaring Gothic cathedrals. Virtually all the magnificent religious shrines that we visit in awe today were started by the optimistic populations of the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, although many remained unfinished for centuries.

Throughout the continent, economic activity blossomed. Banking, insurance, and finance developed; a money economy became well entrenched; manufacturing of textiles expanded to levels never seen before. Farmers in medieval England launched a thriving wine industry. Good wines demand warm springs free of frosts, substantial summer warmth and sunshine without too much rain, and sunny days in the fall. Winters cannot dip below zero Fahrenheit for any significant period. The northern limit for grapes during the Middle Ages was about 300 miles above the current commercial wine areas in France and Germany.

The medieval warm period, which started a century earlier in Asia, benefited the rest of the globe as well. From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan. The Vikings founded colonies in Iceland and Greenland, then actually green. Scandinavian seafarers discovered "Vinland" along the East Coast of North America.

During the Northern Sung Dynasty (961 A.D. to 1127), one of the warmest times, real earnings in China reached a level not seen again until late in the twentieth century. The wealth of those centuries gave rise to a great flowering of art, writing, science, and the highest rate of technological advance in Chinese history. Chinese landscape painting with its exquisite detail and color achieved its apotheosis.

Over roughly the same period, the peoples of the Indian subcontinent also prospered".[99] Conservative 13:08, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

I knew the name Charles Van Doren was familiar due to his role in the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. He was an English Ph.D. [100], so he didn't specialize in history. I don't know why you are making a big hullabaloo about a book by a non-history major intended for a lay audience. GregG 13:01, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Did you show that his material on the medieval global warm period was untrue. The reason I ask is that I am familiar with the genetic fallacy. Conservative 13:08, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm not denying that there was a Medieval warm period (although according to [101], the Medieval Warm Period is not as warm as recently-recorded global temperatures). I don't think Mr. Van Doren is that qualified to make expert judgments as to how warmer temperatures increase prosperity, or that such increase would continue if temperatures were raised even more (like current temperatures). GregG 13:21, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Liberal alarmist scientists are clearly losing the public debate and for good reasons.[102] [103] [104] Conservative 13:08, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

How do you think this will turn out?

The trial on Texas's voter ID law started today [105]; it was on the radio, but I couldn't find anything about this news here on Conservapedia. What are your thoughts? GregG 21:15, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

British Olympics won't be thanking God?

So they won't be singing the national anthem, God Save the Queen, at the ceremonies or any other time, then? Dgalore

The truth is that the majority of we British do their worshiping in private. We do not feel the almost pathological need exhibited elsewhere to have other people watch as we pray. As far as I can recall there is nothing in the bible that says you must worship loudly and in public. Davidspencer 02:19, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
As Dgalore states, God Save the Queen will be played every time a Brit wins a gold medal, and assuming national anthems are usually played during the opening and closing ceremonies, there too.
Otherwise, I find the characterization of British Olympics rather strange. The Olympic Games don't belong to Britain, they are being held in Britain--i.e. London 2012 Olympics. The Olympics are special because they don't belong to any one country.
I also have a question. Was there a lot of 'thanking and recognizing God' in Atlanta and Salt Lake? I sure don't remember any. Of course, there were plenty of individual athletes who did, but that's going to be no different this year.
Finally, the fate of Christianity in Britain should be a cautionary tale to those who believe that the government should be in the business of officially recognizing and thanking God. Both of my British government schools started every day with a short service (a prayer, hymn, the Lord's Prayer, reading, and blessing) so most adults in Britain today will have attended over two thousand such services during their school careers. Yet today, only 5% of the population attends church regularly, and the average age of those who attend is almost 60. My parents' church hasn't had a Sunday School for years. Established religion--even if it's Christianity--is clearly not the answer.
So let's leave the thanking and the recognizing God to those athletes who wish to do so.MarkJW 03:23, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
All of the above comments are well-stated, but easily rebutted:
God Save the Queen may be played, but will it be sung??? Also, that doesn't really count as "thanking" God. It's more an example of praising British royalty instead, almost as a substitute for God.
The phrase "British Olympics" is no less valid than "London Olympics." This is where the Olympics is being held, and it will have a flavor of the host nation. I'm not saying the Olympics were much better when held in Atlanta or Salt Lake City - we have a great deal of censorship caused by atheists in our nation too, but Britain has historically been a source of such atheism.
As to the government schools in Britain, they have had token references to God at the beginning of the school day, but not as part of academic instruction. Quite the opposite: academic instruction for more than a century in Britain has been saturated with atheistic evolution dogma. Eating a cup of fruit in the morning is not going to offest the effect of a terrible diet for the rest of each day; teaching someone to believe in evolution is almost the same as teaching him not to attend weekly church.--Andy Schlafly 23:39, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Most church schools in the UK come under the state system. My old school - run by a Catholic order of priests, with both a chapel and a parish church in the school grounds - still stops to pray the Angelus every day and lessons at my sisters' old school still begin with a Hail Mary. Religious Studies are, as far as I know, still compulsory in all state schools although the subject can be broadened to include Judaism and Islam.Rafael 15:40, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Does atheism thrive on economic prosperity, and religion prospers when people are desperate and ignorant?

"Prospers" should be in the singular. JeffreyB 09:44, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. Already fixed. Conservative 11:58, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Why isn't this NY Times article referring to Romney as "Governor" Romney??

Why isn't it referring to Obama as "President" Obama? JeffreyB 22:56, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

The same New York Times sentence that refers to "Mr. Romney" does refer to "President Obama."--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
You're right, I missed that. What is Romney the governor of? JeffreyB 23:55, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Or to put it another way, go dig through the Times and find me a passage in which they refer to a former governor after he has left office as "Governor" X, or you have nothing to complain about. JeffreyB 00:00, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
OK, "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE VERMONT GOVERNOR; Dean Narrowing His Separation of Church and Stump," was a NY Times headine in 2004. Howard Dean was no longer the governor of Vermont at the time. (In the text of the article, he was referred to as "Dr." Dean.)--Andy Schlafly 00:07, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
Normally I'd say that this article was probably just written using British journalism standards (they refer to all people of public office - including President Obama, their Prime Minister, etc. - as "Mr." or "Mrs." Excepting the queen and royalty, obviously. But the fact that they refer to President Obama as "President Obama" is strange. Perhaps, as User:JeffreyB said, he's not governor of Massachusetts anymore, which really does mean people should stop calling him "Governor." Jpope14 00:25, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
The NYT stock is going down again and Murdoch is being forced to recognize the declining profits of the newspaper business.[106] [107] An economy getting worse and online marketing competition could easily finish off the NYT and I hope they don't get subsidies.[108][109][110] "One theory (pdf) gaining currency is that because the current generation of print newspaper readers isn’t being replaced, major U.S. print dailies will be dead in five years with only small-town newspapers and the national dailies surviving."[111] My guess is that if the newspaper business gets subsidies in the USA and the Western World that eventual Greece/Spain like conditions could end up ending the practice. Conservative 05:33, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
Murdoch is considering breaking up News Corp because he got a bloody nose from the British Parliament and the Levison Enquiry. If he doesn't start breaking up some parts of News Corp, he may find British courts doing it for him. Rafael 15:44, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
In the text of the article, he was referred to as "Dr." Dean. and in the text of this article, it's "Mr." Romney. So there's an equivalence. Nice try. JeffreyB 07:56, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
AP Manual of Style says not to use titles except for the first time you mention the person (which would include the headline). The exception is if they are well-known by that title (Queen Elizabeth II and President Obama are the two examples given in the latest manual - previous manuals have included the sitting president regardless of party). It says after that, to refer to them simply by their last name (i.e. "Romney") unless you need to distinguish them from someone else with that last name (i.e. "Mr. Romney and Mrs. Romney are going to London this summer for the Olympics".) Generally, Governors would not be referred to as "Governor so-and-so" except in their home state, and ex-Governors certainly wouldn't. The right thing, according to the AP manual, would be to call him "Governor Romney" in his first mention and either "Mr. Romney" or "Romney" thereafter. Exceptions are generally made for sitting presidents, royalty, etc. but not for much else. Gregkochuconn 07:48, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Eric Holder has to give a speech in Houston

Attending a speech is not a constitutionally-protected right. Voting is. This is an interesting juxtaposition, yet one that is easily distinguished and debunked. GregG 16:11, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Slight disagreement here; attending a speech is a First Amendment right, the freedom to assemble. Karajou 16:19, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't think the first amendment gives anyone the right to crash a speech at a private convention. GregG 16:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Gates and catholicism

Melinda Gates is planning to boost contraception among females. Can she be a true catholic. It is an issue which has confused me as well on a personal level.--Maria O'Connor 02:27, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Independent League Baseball Team's Game to Be Sponsored by American Athiests Association

See [112] the St. Paul Saints are an Independent League baseball team in St. Paul, Minnesota. On August 10, their game will be sponsored by the American Atheists Association and the Minnesota Atheists Association. For that night, they will be called the "Mr. Paul Aint's" and all references to the Saints nickname in the ballpark will have the "S" covered up. They even have new uniforms for that game (hence the reason it is listed on a uniform related blog). The Atheist groups will also have an information table set up in the ballpark. I've seen some pretty tasteless minor league promotions before, but this is the first one that promoted atheism.

It's not the first one to promote any anti-Biblical value though, nor is it even the first one this year. The Lake County Captains, a Class A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians, held LGBT Pride Night on June 30. See article at [113] Gregkochuconn 07:42, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Update: According to the meetup page for the game it is the same weekend as the regional atheists convention at a hotel in the area. Confirmed speakers include PZ Myers, Dave Silverman, Teresa MacBain, Hector Avalos, Ayanna Watson, Andy Thomson, and Robert Price. It's a good bet that many of them will be at the game. Gregkochuconn 08:27, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
If you don't like it, then I suggest you not attend that game. Seriously, leave the faux outrage for the left.
(PS - as a Minnesota native, I just want to say Go Saints!) EricAlstrom 11:57, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
I think you mean Go Ain'ts!!! JeffreyB 12:07, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
I have to agree with User:EricAlstrom, here. If you disapprove of the message of the group sponsoring the game, then don't attend that game. Isn't that how the free market of ideas everyone is always talking about is supposed to work? They're doing nothing illegal; also, would you feel similarly compelled to report this to the world if it were a Christian group sponsoring the baseball game? For some reason I doubt it. Jpope14 13:17, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
Yeah. I don't personally have a problem with it, but I figured many people on here would. Apparently not. Gregkochuconn 18:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

The "amused Christian" in the news

How on Earth is an ugly and obese man giggling childishly and unconditionally at anything the Christian debater says worthy of front page news?

All truth is God's truth is it not? Second, doesn't the Bible say "charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting"? Who is this Bible verse talking about: "“Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God..." (Ezekiel 28:11-13)? Conservative 08:14, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Penn State

Just to be clear, Joe Paterno was a conservative republican and Rick Santorum graduated from there.

"This would be called a "conspiracy theory" if a conservative said it about a liberal..."

This begs the question of Mitt Romney being a conservative. Your article calls him a RINO-- (who "claim to be Republican but are in fact liberal) so,by definition, not a conservative. Which is he? JeffreyB 10:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Lackluster performances?

Do you have a source saying that Bryant and James are expected to have lackluster performances? And in Friday's game, both Bryant and James were rested by Coach K, which resulted in less-than average point totals. AndrewTompkins 14:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative internet evangelism organization gives 145 million online gospel presentations

A conservative Christian internet evangelism organization shared 145 million online gospel presentations.[114] They saw 19,287,789 indicate that they prayed in faith to receive Jesus Christ.[115]

Global atheism is going to get ground up faster and faster while global Christianity and biblical creationism continue to be juggernauts. Internet atheism is doing badly right now and with this tough economy tightfisted atheists are going to be reluctant to throw good money after bad.[116][117]

Of course, it was all predicted:

2012 is going to be a very bad year for atheism and evolutionary belief.[118][119][120]

See also: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline

You were told it would happen atheists. It's happening.Conservative 06:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Addendum: Now contrast this with Thunderf00t who has given about 44,000,000 video presentations mostly preaching to the evolutionists and atheist choir. Once Thunderf00t got to the front lines and got in "hand to hand" to combat with the Christian Ray Comfort his credibility was obliterated as Comfort unequivocally won the day. [121]
Plus, according to a prominent atheist on one of the largest atheists blogger communities, Thunderf00t has little to no talent at blogging. For example, he frequently used all caps and all italics in his first blog post at their blogging community! Needless to say, they were appalled! :) [122] Conservative 12:11, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
"145 million online gospel presentations" is a misuse of words and a misstatement of the what the pdf linked in the article says: "Shared the Gospel with more than 145 million people" (p. 4). Hundreds of millions of people saw Barack Obama's State of the Union address this year, but one would not say that he made hundreds of millions of presentations.
P.S. As a Catholic, I find the statement "Typically, around 15% of all visitors indicate they prayed in faith to receive Jesus" amusing. We believe that we actually receive Jesus every time we receive the sacrament of Holy Communion.
P.P.S. "Oxygen" is misspelled in the blog post.
GregG 13:09, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
GregG, you wrote: " We believe that we actually receive Jesus every time we receive the sacrament of Holy Communion." Do we actually believe that? The National Catholic Reporter declared: "We found that half of adult Catholics (50 percent) know the church’s teaching regarding the real presence and half do not."[123] Second, I find your quibbling about the number of gospel presentations rather inane. Conservative 13:20, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Well I know what the Church believes and I personally believe it myself; as to those who believe otherwise, we can only seek to educate them as to Jesus's teaching ("Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.'" [Jn 6:53-57, NIV]) and how the Church has interpreted it, and inform them of their error. I was not quibbling about the number; I was questioning whether it is appropriate to refer to each page impression (it's not clear from the pdf what exactly is meant by "Shared the Gospel with") as a separate presentation. When GSN airs an episode of The $25,000 Pyramid or someone watches a clip of it YouTube, does Dick Clark rise from the dead to give yet another presentation? GregG 13:24, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
ADDENDUM Additionally, from reading the pdf, it appears that every visit to the website is counted as a presentation. I don't see any indication that multiple visits or visits to multiple pages by the same person are deduplicated. Thus, in addition to all the other problems with the quoted statement, it's probable that the number of unique persons who visited the website is far lower than 145 million. See, for example, Mathsemantics by Edward MacNeal (1994), which in one chapter describes similar issues with counting airline passengers. GregG 13:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
You wrote: "Well I know what the Church believes". Is a church merely its leaders or more aptly described as the church body as a whole or a church body in a given locale depending on the context. I do know that when the Apostle Paul wrote to churches, he was addressing every member of those church bodies and not merely its leaders. By the way, what percentage of Catholics believing in the doctrine of papal infallibility? Conservative 13:37, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: Judging from the fast rate of growth of evangelicalism in Latin America and the number of ex-catholics in America and the Europe, I certainly have my doubts the belief of papal infallibility is widespread among Catholics.[124][125][126] For example, in the USA if ex-catholics were considered a denomination, they would be the third largest congregation in America.[127] Conservative 13:56, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

(outdent) Polling Catholics to see what the Church's position is on whatever issue is about as ridiculous as polling Americans to determine what the United States copyright statutes say, surveying drivers' obedience to speed limits to determine whether speed limits exist, or polling video game players to determine what the case law is regarding End-User License Agreements and arbitration clauses. There certainly may be a dissonance, but this is resolved through education of people who may have had little formation (especially nominal or cultural Catholics), not by making Church doctrine subject to majority rule. GregG 13:54, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

GregG, judging from the amount of ex-catholics in the Western World/Latin America and your weak argumentation, the odds of me becoming a Catholic is far, far less than you becoming a Protestant - especially since the members of the extremely conservative sectors of protestantism are far less likely to convert to Catholicism. Your argumentation has been exceedingly weak and it is certainly not going to bring me to accept the more liberal pronouncements of the Roman Catholic hierarchy such as theistic evolutionism. For example, you have yet to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Also, your argumentation and the evidence you present is weak in general. For example, I seriously brought into question a recent comment of yours via a quote from the National Catholic Reporter. [128] After losing so many debate battles badly, I really don't know why you continue to stubbornly persist in your pointless crusade against my evolutionism/atheism related front page posts (And it is not due to my debating prowess that I win these debates so easily, but due to the exceedingly weak "argumentation" you employ). :) Conservative 14:20, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
None of this has anything to do with evolution, so I will not take into account the previous comments about the "15 questions." By the way, I would suggest asking Ken Miller at Brown University the 15 questions if you really want them to be answered (I can ask him on your behalf, if you want), as opposed to just saying that they haven't been answered in spite of numerous responses, including some right here at Conservapedia. GregG 15:24, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
EDITED TO ADD: "Your argumentation has been exceedingly weak"--you can think that all you want; that doesn't make it true. I happen to think that your arguments are exceptionally weak, too. Also, I responded to your NCR comment by saying that Catholic doctrine is not determined by polls. Yes, it's unfortunate, if true, that so many people who call themselves Catholics have heretical beliefs. No, this does not change what the Church believes. GregG 15:28, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
3rd EDIT: By the way, the link you have in the previous response is dead because you misspelled "creation." I would fix it myself, but I do not want to edit others' comments. GregG 15:34, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Feel free to contact Ken Miller and ask him to debate CMI scientists on the 15 questions for evolutionists. I wouldn't get your hopes up though. See: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates Conservative 17:32, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

I have contacted Dr. Miller about the 15 questions. GregG 10:20, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
EDIT In the meantime, you may want to have a look at Miller and Levine's Biology textbook. Although it's only a high school textbook, it may have the answers to some of the questions. (I don't have a copy of it myself, but I'll look for one at the library to see if there are any relevant passages.) GregG 10:22, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
By what means did you contact him? Email, personal phone call, leaving a voicemail? Here is contact info page from his professor job at Brown University which gives a phone number and email: http://research.brown.edu/research/profile.php?id=1100924768 Conservative 10:37, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
I sent an e-mail. GregG 11:07, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

"Inoculating people against evolutionism/atheism"

Maybe this is just the way I'm reading this headline, but "More proof and evidence that inoculating people against evolutionism/atheism and Christian internet evangelism will help grind atheism into a fine pulp." sounds to me like you are saying that we should inoculate people against evolutionism/atheism, AND we should inoculate them against Christian internet evangelism...and that doing both of those things will grind atheism into a pulp. That was how I initially read the headline. If I'm the only one who feels this way, then feel free to leave it. It could, perhaps, be reworded to say "Here is more evidence that inoculating people against evolutionism/atheism, combined with strong Christian internet evangelism, will help grind atheism into a fine pulp." Jpope14 15:48, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

I like Jpope's way of saying it, particularly since we it gets rid of the word "proof". In the original sentence, proof either (a) is a synonym for evidence or (b) is used incorrectly. </pet peeve> EricAlstrom 16:10, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Sorry for the delayed response. I just saw your message. I already caught the error and fixed it. Conservative 21:04, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Some more Hollywood values at work in the Obama campaign

Basically Rush arguing that the bad guy in the new Batman movie, Bane, is a play on Romney's company, Bain. To associate his past success in the private sector with something bad or negative to be used in the smear fest that Obama's campaign has turn into . Here's the link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign Nine 21:09, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

You, and Rush, do realize that Bane has been a Batman villain for near 20 years, right? EricAlstrom 07:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
I would presume that he meant that this particular villain was picked in part due to his name, not that he was invented for the movie (seems a wee bit far-fetched either way, but then you never know who's paying for things). Of course 'bane' has a negative meaning regardless of whether it was used in a movie recently (Durin's Bane, the plant wolfsbane).Cmurphynz 08:41, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
I can't speak for Nine, but it does seem like Rush thinks the villain was invented just for this movie. He makes a comment about how "Bane" is spelled differently than "Bain", and that it is an insult to our ability to spell, as if the production study changed the name so as not to be too close to Romney's company.
Also, as a self-professed comic book nerd, with an emphasis in Batman-related studies, Bane was a fairly obvious villain choice to end a trilogy of this nature.
EricAlstrom 08:57, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
I know it wasn't created for the movie, or that it was used explicitly for the purpose Rush mentioned. But it's quite a coincidence, don't you guy think? Nine 18:14, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

If by coincidence, you mean "a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time by mere chance", then sure. (I apologize, I feel like I'm being a jerk, and I don't mean to. Rush just rubs me the wrong way sometimes...especially when there are so many real problems to worry about). EricAlstrom 18:35, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Typo

It's AllEn West, not AllAn. AndrewTompkins 22:22, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Great catch - typo is now fixed.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Colorado mass murder

If everyone in the theatre had a gun, how many people do you think he would have been able to kill before being taken out himself? --DamianJohn 08:22, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Colorado law actually allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile, it doesn't require it however, and most normal people don't carry a gun into a movie theater. In addition, the idea that more people shooting guns in a chaotic theater filled with smoke would have made the situation safer is clearly ridiculous. Does more even need to be said on this. I don't know what movies or TV shows you've been watching, but in the real world, I think it's very easy to argue more guns in this theater would have made a horrific situation even worse. --Krayner 10:16, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
The fact is that an armed woman did stop a similar massacre that was attempted in a Colorado church -- see Conservative_parables#The_Fasting_Woman.--Andy Schlafly 10:29, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't believe the shooter in the parable you cited was wearing a bullet-proof vest, nor a gas mask, nor did he begin his attack by filling the church with tear gas. In addition, the woman who took him out was a trained security guard. Now perhaps you are arguing that movie-theaters need more trained security guards, and privacy and efficiency concerns aside, after a tragedy such as this, everyone needs to take a deep-breath and consider ways to improve security. Having said that, suggesting that all this theater needed was more guns, is patently absurd. --Krayner 10:36, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

In any case, the simply fact here is Colorado law allows people to possess handguns at places of business. Unless you are suggesting people be mandated to carry guns, which I can't imagine any conservative seriously proposing, then I don't know what possible suggestion you are offering here. "If only gun control laws weren't so strict we could prevent this," well they weren't strict here, and it still happened, perhaps your theory needs reexamination?--Krayner 10:45, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Krayner, if witnesses could tell that the gunman "dressed like a SWAT team member, fired steadily except when he stopped to reload", then any normal person who did carry a gun into that movie theater would have been able to shoot him. Gun control proponents say things like, "more guns in this theater would have made a horrific situation even worse", but without any statistical basis. Many mass murders have been prevented by armed, law-abiding citizens. Can you give examples where lawfully armed onlookers who took action made significant mistakes? --Ed Poor Talk 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't believe I suggested gun control was the issue here at all. Again, as I have said several times, Colorado law allows people to possess handguns at places of business. Again, I don't believe your position Mr. Poor is to mandate gun possession at all times either, so this is clearly an incident where even lax gun control could not prevent violence. As I said, it seems preposterous to me to suggest that multiple people firing guns in a tear-gassed filled theater (with the antagonist wearing a vest, and panic running rampant, would have been positive. You seem to think more gun-fire in this scenario would have a) been effective and b) would not have caused additional damage. That's fine, I disagree. This situation strikes me as unique and terrifying, but in any case, again as I stated suggesting that all this theater needed was more guns, is patently absurd.--Krayner 13:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
It's not the theater that needed more guns; it's the people inside who needed them. They have a fundamental right to defend themselves against a nutcase such as this gunman, and throwing bags of popcorn at him isn't going to work, no matter how many liberals think it can. Karajou 13:25, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
And, as stated several times, every patron in the theater had the fundamental right to do so. This was still not prevented. Are you taking the position that people should be required to carry guns?--Krayner 13:28, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Anyway I have said my piece here, Mr. Poor, you raise an interesting point, and I am unable to point to a specific occasion where an armed civilian escalated a situation such as a school shooting or this tragedy. Nonetheless, I'm happy that there aren't many instances to examine here, and would contest your notion that "many" mass murders have been prevented. In any case, I believe that people do have the fundamental right to self-defense and support Colorado's gun laws. My position here is simply, that Colorado law did not prevent this shooting clearly, and in this rather unique situation, I would not have wanted disoriented civilians firing guns amidst panicking theater patrons.--Krayner 13:34, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Neither would I. Unfortunately, the liberal left is eyeballing the right, especially Tea Party groups; but when the news comes out - and it is coming out now - we're going to see a registered Democrat from a liberal college who couldn't make it to a Ph'D in neuroscience, with a smile on his mug that would be a match for the Joker. Karajou 13:40, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Hey, I don't know about you lot but i think that it is pretty obvious that this is a case where the gun control laws have failed. When someone can walk off the street, and only using a drivers licence, purchase an automatic rifle with an extra-large magazine, I believe there is a problem. Automatic rifles are designed for one purpose: to hit the largest number of targets in the shortest space of time. There are obvious military advantages to this, and it also comes in handy for mass shootings like this, but there are almost no legitimate civilian uses. In most countries, aside from places like Somalia or the US, it is essentially impossible to get hold of these weapons, where I live for instance you would have to prove to the police that you had a legitimate reason to own one (a professional goat culler that required the large magazine capacity to get rid of entire mobs in one go might qualify) and also comply with a number of safety regulations. Basically if he had lived in a place with sane gun restrictions there is no way that he would have had that rifle, and probably he would not have had access to the pistols either.Cmurphynz 06:28, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Video games

Regarding the Colorado shooter...don't you think it's irresponsible for a section of the site devoted to reporting and analyzing news to make wild assumptions about whether he played video games or not? Considering that it's only been a few hours since he was preliminarily identified, any more information about him won't come out until later in the day. Your invocation of Columbine, an unrelated massacre from 13 years prior, is simply to invoke fear and perpetrate the false belief that the perpetrators of that massacre were led to kill by video games (they definitely did play them but there were a myriad of other causes). Until then, it is best to stick to facts and not try to make the story fit your narrative that video games are bad, and dare I say, liberal.

EDIT: You even say in your list of young mass killers that you are waiting on updates. What gives you the right to wildly speculate on a page all website visitors will see and then admit that you are speculating on a less-seen page? AndrewTompkins 09:02, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

The First Amendment protects the important right to speculate and ask questions.--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
That is obviously true. However, not everything that can be done should be done. One of the biggest problems with the media these days is that they often put questionable material in their headlines. When said questionable material turns out not to be true, people remember the headline, not the subsequent retraction. The same thing could very easily happen here if this incident is not related to video game playing at all - casual readers will still associate video games with the killings and no amount of retracting you subsequently make can change that. --DamianJohn 09:43, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
The biggest problem with the media is that it is liberal, and that means suppressing questions when they are embarrassing to liberal goals. The likelihood that the latest young mass murderer was a violent video game user is high, and this should be one of the first questions asked at any press conference.--Andy Schlafly 10:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Is a liberal goal the promotion of violent video games? Al and Tipper Gore would likely disagree. Where is that in the Democratic Party Platform? Are you referring to the liberal goal of not censoring? Are you in favor of censorship of video games? Would that prevent this tragedy? Is it irresponsible, short-sighted, and potentially embarrassing to speculate on potentially tangential motivators to a crime still fresh in people's mind and effecting families and friends in profound ways? Is now the proper time to score political points (As if one political ideology explicitly supports violent video games)? Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should.--Krayner 10:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
It's the kind of thing where a lot of people now play video games, far more than did so at the time of the Columbine shootings. Moreover, the games industry has found a relatively consistent, easy-to-produce product in the First-Person Shooter. Because of the consumption of these games, eventually someone who happens to play them will commit some kind of atrocity. It's probable that this guy and the Columbine shooters also had eaten pie at some point in their life. However, we don't blame the pie. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, but as a gamer myself, I tend to react somewhat strongly to the entire medium being painted with such a broad brush.--Guitarsniper 21:36, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

The first question at a press conference should always be: How and where did the suspect get his guns/gear? It seems pretty clear, taht aguy who had an assault rifle a handgun, a shotgun and teargas, should have been asked at one point what his goal was wit those weapons.--VPropp 14:45, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

A real tragedy indeed. Our prayers are with the families of the victims in these troubled times. While this shouldn't be used by second amendment opponents to try to pass stricter laws, it's hard to argue that less gun control would have prevented this. This is a tragedy. Are issues with gun control or public / higher education to blame? I don't think so. They're symptoms of the underlying problems America is facing today. Nine 18:29, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Another Tragedy

I’ve been very saddened by the latest mass shooting. A lot of families have unexpectedly lost sons, daughters, mums, dads, brothers and sisters in a completely senseless way. As a community, I think we should be thinking of the victims and their families. Personally, I don’t pray (or believe in a god) but my thoughts are with the families that are grieving at this time. EJamesW 13:55, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Our prayers to God are also with the victims ... and also for an open dialog that examines the ideas and activities that cause these tragedies, to prevent recurrence.--Andy Schlafly 14:34, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Andy, with that statement, i hope there won't be any news items on the main page decrying liberals for bringing up gun control. Not that i believe a lack of gun control caused this, but if you are for an open dialog that examines the ideas and activities that cause these tragedies, to prevent recurrence, than it is an issue that will naturally come up.--Rad7 15:56, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

12 people are dead, 59 are wounded

And you take the opportunity to take a shot at public universities. I can't take this crap anymore. Delete my account. EricAlstrom 14:14, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

When you have public schools and public universities removing any sort of decent morality, despicable clowns like James Holmes is what happens. Or didn't Penn State teach you anything? Karajou 14:22, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
A university taught this latest young mass murderer, as in other examples. More discussion of this problem, not less, is warranted.--Andy Schlafly 14:41, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Hundreds of thousands of people are taught in public schools. Just because some people are disturbed doesn't mean their education is the cause of it.--Rad7 15:58, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

EDIT: I am a little disturbed at how quick this site tried to use the tragedy for political gain. Asking what caused the tragedy is one thing, but just a few hours after the tragedy happened, with almost nothing known about the motivation, this site has already used the story to attack video games and public schools, again without any evidence to support these claims.--Rad7 16:06, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

You'll get more responses if you quote the text which offends you (with a link to the page it's on), and explain what political gain appears to come from that text. --Ed Poor Talk 16:41, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
As usual, liberals can't answer the question; they just accuse and hope readers won't notice that they supply no evidence. Turns out it was just the other way around:
  • Liberals are exploiting the Aurora massacre to advance a political agenda. The tragic mass murder of 12 people is being used as fodder against the right. Within hours of the killing spree, the media establishment was hoping to link the suspected shooter, James Holmes, with the Tea Party, conservatives and -- ultimately -- the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. [129]
Someday, the middle will wise up and join the right in casting out the demonic, reality-denying left. --Ed Poor Talk 22:42, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Karajou, You know what Penn State taught us? It taught us that a conservative republican like Joe Paterno is just as capable of being immoral and despicable as a liberal can be.

- UserPsu

You're missing the point here, Psu, big time. First, if Paterno was a conservative, he abandoned his principles the moment he ignored the kid's cry for help against a monster in the office next door. If Paterno was a Republican, he'd be a RINO. Second, there were others at Penn State who also ignored and/or swept under the rug the attacks done by Sandusky, and these individuals were very high up in the adminstration. You could only pick out one guilty man and brand him Republican; does this mean the rest were liberal Democrats? Probably so, as the news refuses to state party affiliation at all for them, EXCEPT FOR PATERNO! Third, and you can tell me this, did anyone in Penn State "look the other way" when it came to people handing out Bibles on campus, or did they fight like hell to keep it from happening? And fourth, it was the left side of the fence - your side, Psu - that politicized this tragedy first.
The big point here that you missed is the concept of cause and effect. If you, for example, get a new Chevy, and the owners manual tells you to change the oil every six months - and you refuse to heed the advice - you're going to get a blown engine. Cause and effect with regards to the public school and university system is pretty obvious. If the school kicks God out of the classroom; if the school bans the Bible; if the school bans any kind of Judeo/Christian morality - AS IT DID AND CONTINUES TO DO - we are going to get the effects of such policies. James Holmes, the Columbine killers, the Oklahoma City bomber, Jerry Sandusky, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, ad infinitum. And right now, here's the latest public university antic against our First Amendment rights: [130]. And yes, it's a just another liberal college under the control of a bunch of idiots. Karajou 12:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
If you're asserting that Joe Pa was a liberal, then he abandoned those principles as well. Unless you're actually saying that liberalism condones those actions, which would be absurd--Rad7 22:11, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
"Liberal education system produced the latest young mass murderer" This one is saying that "liberal" education is to blame for the attack. So far, there has been no evidence to suggest that the education system is to blame. This is an obvious attempt to blame the other side for the tragedy. "As in the Columbine massacre, was this perpetrator a violent video game player?" Again, there is nothing to suggest that video games are to blame, yet in the first post about the tragedy this site tries to paint the picture that video games lead people to commit mass murder--Rad7 23:25, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Karajou: I'm not missing the point at all. You and this whole site are so quick to try to blame liberals and democrats for all the evils in world. When bad things happen that are associated with conservatives and republicans you immediately say they are "RINOs" or find some other excuse. As if "your side" is incapable of committing crimes or being immoral. The POINT is that political affiliation has nothing to do with one's capacity for evil. You're the one missing the glaring point. MILLIONS, I repeat, millions of people go to these so-called liberal colleges and are law-abiding citizens who start families, work jobs and lead normal lives. Do you celebrate them? No. Something bad happens and you say it's because he went to a liberal college. Maybe you should try think a little harder about why tragedies like this happen instead of toeing the party line. It's juvenile. What if you do change the oil in your Chevy every six months and the engine still blows? Maybe it's something else. Maybe if used a bit of the critical thinking they encourage at liberal colleges you'd be able to figure that out. - UserPsu

Well, I guess you haven't been reading much history, have you, Psu? The American school system was number one in the world prior to 1960; number one in math, in science, in physics; we're the country that put a man on the moon. The worst sort of behavior during that time was maybe running in the halls or chewing bubble gum in class. Now look at it today. We're ranked at 23rd, behind a lot of other countries. We have rampant drug use. Kids are mouthing off to teachers with impunity. Teachers are raping kids. Guns are being used and people are getting killed. And just who is running the show? It's your side of the fence, Psu. And it was your side of the fence that threw God, the Bible, and prayer out of public schools back in 1960. You're seeing the results right now. If anyone needs to do some critical thinking, it's you. In fact, I'll give you an assignment, and it's a pretty simple "see-for-yourself" thing that's very easy for you to do. You're going to go to the Gideons, ask for a box of Bibles, and then you're going to call up any public school and ask them if you can pass out those Bibles within the school grounds. You don't even have to preach the Gospel. Karajou 01:31, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

"Ranked 23rd, behind a lot of other countries." Exactly. And if you take a look, I'll bet that a lot of those countries would be considered more atheistic than the United States. (Japan, Finland, New Zealand...) And if you take a closer look, you'll find that many of them have lower crime rates too. But facts, when they don't match up with your narrative, don't matter much, do they? -UserPsu

Facts don't matter to you, Psu, which is why you're here trying to force your liberal ideology on this site. Bye. Karajou 13:29, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Juxtaposition

On the right hand of the main page there is a string of tragic news about the massacre. At the same height on the left hand side, we see pictures of a meet-mincer and a flat-line. That is unfortunate. AugustO 14:27, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

That's nothing compared with what millions of impressionable minds see on video games for hours each day.--Andy Schlafly 14:36, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Conservapedia is not a video-game. For me, it looks undignified - but perhaps I'm too sensitive. I just think that maybe the families of the victims when visiting Conservapedia would like to see more fitting pictures. AugustO 14:39, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
...and now a Grim Reaper? Please, stop it! AugustO 04:59, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
"That's nothing compared with what millions of impressionable minds see on video games for hours each day." -- This isn't a good reason to have images that, due to timing, are in poor taste on our front page. Likewise, just because millions of people see scantily-clad women in compromising positions doesn't mean that Conservapedia should feature such pictures on its main page. GregG 12:20, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I removed the one graphic from the main page.

Second:

The Christian Post reported that the mass murderer James Holmes was heavily involved in his local Presbyterian Church.[131]

In 2012, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution, by a lopsided vote of 353-150, reaffirming its support of evolution. [132] In October of 2011, the Presbyterian Church USA ordained its first homosexual "minister". [133]

The acceptance of evolution by the mainstream churches in Germany (the home of so-called ‘higher criticism’, which is merely evolutionary rationalism applied to the Bible) almost certainly helped pave the way for Hitler’s ideas.[134]

Did James Holmes attend a evolution and homosexuality promoting/condoning liberal "church" or a Bible Presbyterian church which are fewer in number? Darwinism has a bloodstained legacy and has been linked to a decline in morality.[135][136] Conservative 12:43, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for removing the grim reaper - the removal was quit thoroughly done. Please take another look at the Main Page: the meat-mincer is still inappropriate, and the farewell-sign looks quite awkward. But of course they aren't as tasteless as the grim reaper, so maybe a simple removal from the page will do? AugustO 13:13, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
I second the thank you. The grim reaper on the front page was rather tasteless in light of recent events. --JHunter 23:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm pleased to see that there has never been any inappropriate content on the main page over the last days... AugustO 01:50, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Joker on Weed?

I'm not sure what your implying by saying the suspect was a pot head, what did that have to do with his rampage? The other "drugs" referred to on the first place was apparently Vicodin (straight from the linked source)...should we ban pharmaceuticals and go after big Pharma for this incident as well? Also, other reports are saying that his "brilliant scientist" was from a good Church going home and that there is no record of him using the typical "liberal" outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn...what insights can Conservapedia offer using this information? - WildBill

Pot obviously leads to other drug abuse. And it is his beliefs that really matter, not that of his relatives.--
Well, I'd like to see empirical proof that pot "obviously" leads to other drugs AND/OR that this "fact" has anything to do with this case. I agree that his beliefs matter more than his parents beliefs, although I find it hard to believe that you don't think his parents beliefs have any effect on his. Had his parents been shown to be atheists, something tells me that would be printed LOUD AND CLEAR on page one right next to the one stating that he is a product of Liberal education as though that had anything at all to do with this. With that in mind, perhaps Conservapedia should refrain from making baseless assumptions about his "liberal" education, video game habits, and the effects of his "drug" use until there is something factual to report...they are just now getting into his apartment, so let's wait and see what is uncovered, shall we? WildBill 11:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Apparently it's a gateway drug to Vicodin. -MarkN85 21:39, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Archive old "In the News" headlines

Template:Mainpageright is getting a bit lengthy. This causes problems in browsers like Links, in which one has to scroll through 25 pages of text in the "In the News" section before getting to the content on the left side. I think some of the older headlines should definitely be archived. (I'm also looking into how to automate the archival process.) GregG 14:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

"But will the lamestream media even ask law enforcement about" the Colorado shooter and video games?

That's an odd question to ask, given that Conservapedia is alleging on the front page that Holmes was "groomed" to commit the crime, allegedly (once you read the linked story) because of something to do with an upcoming gun treaty. So which is it? Violent vidogames or grooming? It can't be both. RayM 18:46, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

"It can't be both," you say, but don't explain why. Regardless, good questions should be asked by the lamestream media.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
"It can't be both" because if he was, as CP alleges, some sort of agent groomed to do the job like a Manchurian-candidate style operative, then video games didn't make him do it. RayM 19:27, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Unless the games industry was in on it! It's a massive conspiracy! (I would like to note that the previous statement was made entirely in jest)--Guitarsniper 23:44, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Lt. Col. David Grossman, a former West Point psychology professor, has called video games "murder simulators", saying that they help desentize people toward the use of lethal violence. Grossman has said that video games often copy the methods used by armed forces to make their personal more willing to kill. It is therefore possible that Holmes was both groomed by someone to commit the massacre AND that violent video games were part of the methods used to make him desentized toward violence. Alternatively, he might have desentized himself on his own through years of playing computer games (he's 25 years old; most people at his age began playing violent computer games by elemtary school), removing the need for desentization training by whomever groomed him to commmitt the massacre. - Markman 12:27, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
The self-styled "Colonel" Grossman is a noted kook and has been discredited by folks on both sides of the political spectrum. Violent video games don't inherently make people more violent; violence has decreased despite more and more video games being produced. The question is, is there something in those games that makes already at-risk people more likely to snap? That's a much more useful discussion. LeRoyB 14:59, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
"Discredited"? By whom? Not even liberal wikipedia criticises him, so I very much doubt that. I'm sure there are some liberal psychologists who attack Grossmans's work, but then again most of those also try to present homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle so I'm having a hard time trusting them. - Markman 15:06, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Censorship, Creationism and Christianity in UK schools

I posted the following earlier today and it was removed for being offensive:

The problem with using blogs as a news source is that they tend to be opinion rather than fact based. Unfortunately, the Truth always trumps opinion. For example, Creation Ministries International says creationism will be banned in UK schools by the Department for Education. However, only last week the British press reported that the same department has approved three state funded Christian schools with a strong creationist ethos. [137] [138] [139] As you can see from the first source, one third of the new state sector Free Schools given the go ahead for September are faith schools. They join the hundreds of existing state sector faith schools.

Removing corrections on points of fact is a liberal practise, not a conservative one. The Truth is the Truth is the Truth. Rafael 19:00, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Missing from your analysis are the percentages of the population. Allowing only two schools to teach creationism is too small to be significant.--Andy Schlafly 19:19, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Two is better than none. A start is a start. --Guitarsniper 01:47, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Implying Faith schools are schools instead of indoctrination centers --Tirunus 00:03, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

There was a debate on the BBC this morning about this very subject - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01l9ndn/Sunday_Morning_Live_Series_3_Episode_7/ The creationist representative unfortunately became very flustered and was unable to any make any convincing arguments for his point of view. EJamesW 13:36, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

EJamesW, I have found that atheists and evolutionists very often behave like blowhards and engage in bluffing and fanciful speculation. Setting aside the fact that I have doubts about your account of the UK creationist being flustered and being unable to marshall convincing arguments, would you be willing to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded which would be distributed to 20,000 plus YouTube subscribers?
You could be the debate partner of JHunter and debate Shockofgod and a debate partner of his choosing (which would probably be someone who studied biology beyond the high school level). Are you up to the debate challenge or are you afraid you would become flustered due to the fact that you would be unable to make sound arguments for the evolutionary paradigm? Conservative 13:39, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Please remove everything after "are you up to the debate challenge", as this is clearly a personal attack against EJamesW. I trust that you will remove the attack yourself rather than having someone remove it for you. Thanks, GregG 13:45, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Hello User:C! Hope you are well. Well, I'm afraid on British national television, the Reverend George Hargreaves (see http://www.christianparty.org.uk/georgehargreaves.html) had an incredible chance to promote your world-view but blew it. Maybe you (or the group that you represent) would have done much better. That would be something interesting to see, why don't you (or group) engage in a debate in a more hostile environment (such as the call in show 'the atheist experience'). I'm sure that's something you would relish! Best wishes EJamesW 15:29, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I have to correct Raphael's comment above. Three new schools with creationist ties will be opened later this year with public funding (though I believe one is in jeopardy because of a lack of students), but they will not be allowed to teach creationism as science. In fact, they have been warned that if they do, their funding will be revoked. There are still concerns amongst the British science education community that they will bend the rules in some way, but they have been assured by the Minister of Education that they will not be allowed to do so. MarkJW 14:56, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks, but the original context was the Main Page link to a CMI blog saying schools were being banned from teaching creationism in RE. Obviously mistaken but that's the problem with citing blogs as sources.
Re EJamesW's link, I don't think people in the States can watch BBC TV on the iPlayer. Radio, yes; TV, no. I didn't think the creationist was flustered - more trying to debate three people at a time - but he didn't sound convincing. The other panellists swatted down his assertions time after time after time. Rafael 15:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
EJamesW, I see you are not up to the debate challenge. Just as I suspected! Conservative 01:41, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
User:C - sorry for the late reply. Only just noticed you made some sort of challenge in your last response. I'm certainly willing to give it a go - as long as you (or your group) are willing to debate on the 'Atheist Experience'. As you (or your group) have previously indicated that you relish debating Atheists and have enjoyed much success in the past, I emailed the show {for the attention of matt dillahunty) with references to your contributions. I'll keep you posted on any replies I get but I'm off on my holiday (to Greece) soon. EJamesW 16:17, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

GregG, have you heard back from the Roman Catholic theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller? Is he willing to debate the 15 questions? Please keep this in mind: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates Conservative 01:41, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I haven't heard anything back from him. I have read though (in Finding Darwin's God) that he has participated in many debates on this subject. GregG 02:26, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

A win for Great Britain

Not bad for an increasingly atheistic country. RayM 12:30, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Fan-flippin-tastic news! EJamesW 13:39, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
Lance who? MarkJW 14:50, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
I think his surname was Armstrong. He was brilliant as well! EJamesW 15:43, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Dark Knight Rises...

That headline should read: "the villains SEEM (without an 's') to come..."

Also, has the author of that headline seen the movie? The villains in Dark Knight Rises are the freed in-mates of Arkham Asylum and Gotham's prisons that Batman and the police had put in prison after 8 years. They're not just random people off the street; they're all hardened criminals who had to be let loose. Not that I'm saying Dark Knight Rises wasn't a phenomenal movie - it was. But I would avoid any politicizing of its themes, since they don't really stick the way you think they do. Jpope14 16:41, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

The author of that news article has seen the movie, and the villains within it are spouting the same socialistic themes that the OWS kids scream out continually. Karajou 13:26, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume you haven't seen the movie, Karajou. SPOILER ALERT: seriously, don't continue reading if you don't want the movie spoiled. What the bad guys were spouting, which I would consider anarchist before i would consider it socialistic, was actually a facade. The real goal was to destroy Gotham, which the League of Shadows viewed as a corrupt and crime infested city.--Rad7 15:46, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Hopefully, the limb won't break when you sit on it :) Karajou 16:11, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Clever. Have you seen the movie? Do you deny what I said?--Rad7 22:46, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

 :(

Regarding the tragic shooting, it seems no good has come out of this at all (one victim was 6), so... Why did God let it happen?

God could have prevented this shooting easily. Either he wasn't paying attention (not omniscient), didn't have the power (not omnipotent), or actively encouraged it (essentially evil). Did God approve the massacre either by neglect, incompetence or malevolence? Andy encourages people to ask questions of the liberal media and is frustrated that nobody isn't, so I thought I'd ask a question. BenKhali 20:58, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

You ask a good question. My own view is that God has other interests and is not inclined to spend every minute watching every single thing that happens -- or might happen -- in this world. Many accounts in the Bible describe how God is not always watching everything. Jesus lamented that God did not intervene to prevent the Passion. Evil can briefly triumph when good men do not do enough to anticipate and stop it.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
An excellent response that gives me pause for thought. I'll get back to you momentarily, with your permission, of course. BenKhali 21:36, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
I suppose my question is merely of priorities. Revelations 2:16 promises the faithful that "all who believeth in me may drink of the waters of life, freely", but proceeds that statement by making clear that God is "the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end." This, to me, seems to imply God is very powerful indeed... So, well, I struggle to find a good reason why He would concern himself with such small things as individual requests and prayers but ignore a dangerous man killing God's own children (Literally and figuratively). Perhaps this is a point for the Conservative Bible Project, to ask such questions and examine scripture to find an answer as to God's choices in this matter? BenKhali 21:43, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Additionally, I think that if God didn't notice one of his children becoming increasingly unhinged, buying assault rifles and tear gas, body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition, then booby trapping his apartment and marching off to massacre a dozen people it's unfair to berate anyone else for not noticing either. BenKhali 21:46, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
"God has other interests and is not inclined to spend every minute watching every single thing that happens"--God is omniscient and omnipotent. Such a statement appears to be the product of trying to apply human attributes that we know to God, whose divine attributes we cannot fully comprehend. GregG 22:13, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
God likely abides by logic, and doesn't try to replace our responsibilities. Humans were created in God's image, so applying human attributes is a reasonable starting point.--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Humans have limited amounts of processing capability and attention. We all believe God does not have such limitations; he is omniscient and omnipotent. Projecting attributes based on human limitations onto God, whose power is limitless, is not reasonable at all. GregG 00:30, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Definitely a hard question to deal with, but I'm not sure that denying the omniscience of God is the right way to go.Cmurphynz 01:41, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

GregG is right about God being omniscient and omnipresent. If you want to know what some of the best answers relating to the problem of evil, you should examine the Book of Job and the works of Alvin Plantinga, Saint Augustine and other like-minded Christians. Here is a good resource and make sure you read the footnoted material as well as the article: Atheism and the Problem of Evil.

The problem of evil is not a tremendously complex subject once you look at things from a biblical standpoint and look at the issue from a long term perspective. The reason it is a difficult problem for people in the modern Western World is often they have a hedonistic and/or short term (and impatient) perspective to life. While some may take issue with me as far as the problem of evil not being a tremendously complex subject, I think it is because they dislike what the Bible has to say about the matter. While it may not be fun to endure suffering, suffering can play a role in sanctification. [140] Conservative 12:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

A new angle on the Aurora shooting?

Since the terrible events the other night, the Batman film has been on everyone's mind. We've all discussed it, we've all seen and heard discussion of the film, the characters and the plot and so on.

I pray I'm wrong but, Hollywood values being what they are and having read some of the ideas floated about the shootings, could this be some evil marketing stunt? Rafael 08:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Sure, in the same way McDonald's might poison their fries to increase sales.
This is just one terrible guy who did a terrible thing; it's not the fault of Hollywood, liberals, the wrong kind of Christianity, video games, or colleges. Blaming this on everyone else does nothing except shift us away from the "personal responsibility" mantra that is the foundation of our ideology. James Holmes shot those people. Nothing and no one else did.
Ideas have consequences. This young mass murderer acquired a belief system that led to murder and injury to many innocent lives. An inquiry into that belief system and how he acquired it is essential to recognizing and preventing recurrence of such a terrible tragedy.--Andy Schlafly 10:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
If your replaced the words "Ideas" and "belief system" with "Guns", your statement would be just as true. But no one is talking about how the guns were to blame. (And, as an aside, I'm staunchly pro-2nd Amendment, and I think that any gun control that gets passed because of this would be a tradgedy.)
(As another aside, I apologize if I'm being difficult or rude. I really do want to have a discussion, and see how people with different views are thinking about this. I like to think of it as passionate, rather than a jerk:)
No, your suggested replacement would not be just as true, because more than 99% of the uses of guns are beneficial and healthy. The same cannot be said of destructive ideas and belief systems. And, by the way, the murder suspect had weapons that were more destructive than guns, which in the absence of guns would have tragically harmed even more people.--Andy Schlafly 10:36, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Guns have three uses: shooting targets, shooting animals and shooting people. Only two of these generally have any chance of being beneficial and none are healthy. Personally I own guns and support the right to do so, but current US laws are ridiculous. Guns kept for home defence are about ten times more likely to end up killing the homeowner's children than they are an intruder, because storage requirements are so lax. My guns stay in a locked cabinet when not in use and the ammunition, plus the bolts from my rifles and the cylinder for my revolver, are in a separate locked box in a different room. Anyone who keeps a firearm where kids can find it is insane.--BudVar 13:13, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Your list of the uses for a gun is incomplete. Its primary beneficial use is to deter crime, and that use is successful millions of times each day. Accidents from guns are less common than injuries from falling at home, or drownings.--Andy Schlafly 13:33, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
If guns deter crime, why are our homicide rates so much higher than those in every other advanced nation? Doesn't seem to be working so well, does it? The fact is that Americans are three times more likely to be murdered as the English and SIX times more likely than the Germans. And I don't think that's because we're more atheistic either, do you?--BudVar 13:53, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I understand and respect what you are saying, and I partially agree. My back-of-the-napkin math says that any particular gun only has a 0.0042% chance of being used in a homicide. Having a gun doesn't make you a murder. But I bet the probability of a video game being the cause of a homicide is equal or less.
My point, I guess, is that for every 1 person who uses a gun in a destructive way, there are millions who use is as protection or for sport. Similarly, for every 1 person who sees a violent movie and does something destructive, there are millions who watch it and then go about there normal God fearing lives. And to say "universities did this", or "liberals did this", feels just as empty to me as saying "guns did this".

Downward tends

New all time low: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155690/Confidence-Organized-Religion-Low-Point.aspx This is why evangelism and QE! are thriving! Correct? :-) AlanA 10:09, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

American confidence in general is at all-time lows. If you look at other news on the right side of Gallup's results, American confidence on TV news, banks, and public schools are all at all-time lows. So is confidence in Congress. This study only addresses lack of confidence in organized religion and the Catholic Church, not less organized religion. 78% of Americans still identify with Christianity.[141] And as the study you cited concludes, "The percentage of Americans saying religion is very important in their lives has held fairly steady since the mid-1970s, after dropping sharply from 1952 levels." Other measures of Conservatism remain strong, since more Americans are calling themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice for the first time.[142][143] And belief in Young Earth Creationism is on the rise once more too, back up to 46%, 1 point shy of its all-time high.[144] --Jzyehoshua 12:07, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservatism by the way is going up too, to an all-time high of 40%, where it's remained for the last 3 years.[145] --Jzyehoshua 12:26, 24 July 2012 (EDT)


From the Financial Times about the public's growing mistrust of the scientific establishment:

"Public trust in science as a whole has suffered from recent attacks on climate research, the head of the senior US scientific body admitted at the weekend.

“There is evidence that the corrosion in the public attitude to climate science has spread over to other areas of science,” said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, citing public opinion surveys in the US and elsewhere."[146]

Also, while atheists such as PZ Myers are spouting counterproductive ideology to their movement such as abortion (atheists have sub-replacement birthrates) and spouting the complacent notion that atheism is supposedly growing in the world (which it is not),[147] creationists involved in the QE campaign are acting in a far more rational manner.[148][149].

No doubt many atheists will act in a panicked and irrational manner once the expected decline of atheism accelerates.[150] The endless bickering of atheists will intensify. Sports teams which are losing often have more infighting.

On the other hand, Christian creationists champions thrive on challenges because they know that the world's greatest champion in history, Jesus Christ, faced challenges with honor and grace and was victorious. Nothing can discourage a true Christian creation evangelist. This is one of the many reasons why conservative Christianity is growing in the West and global Christianity is exploding in new adherents.[151] AlanA, have you ever heard this song? Conservative 13:00, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Libertarian Presidential Candidate: Colorado Shooting Could Have Been Prevented if Moviegoers Were Allowed to Carry Guns

See [152]. This was about Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican Governor of New Mexico, who switched to the Libertarian Party and is now running for President on that line. He will likely have ballot access in 48, 49, or all 50 states (plus DC). And almost certainly some Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 49, even if the LP has to use another person with the same name as a stand-in in Michigan. (Oklahoma is the other iffy one). Interesting article. Basically, Governor Johnson said that criminals will get guns regardless of the law. I've never heard of a criminal who cared if their actions were illegal (civil disobedience aside). But if law-abiding citizens in the audience were allowed to have guns, then one of them could have prevented the shooting, or at least stopped it before it got as bad as it did. Regardless of what some Conservapedians think of Johnson's stances on same-sex marriage, abortion, and drug legalization, you've got to admit he's better than Romney on gun rights. Way better. Gregkochuconn 20:44, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

You have 2 articles on James Holmes

James Eagan Holmes; James Holmes RayM 09:43, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Olympics / Free Speech

Hello Mr. Schlafly. It's my understanding that you are an attorney, so I would assume that you know the right to free speech found in the U.S. Constitution only applies to governments. So if the games were happening in the United States there would be no free speech protections involved for an athletic competition run by a non-governmental organization. This of course leaves aside the fact that the Greek athlete is not a U.S. citizen and therefore could not sue under a claim that she has U.S. Constitutional rights. --LSamuelson 18:27, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

You raise good points. When American athletes sued to be allowed to compete in the 1980 Olympics, a court held that the U.S. Olympic Committee, though chartered by a federal law, was a private entity. See De Frantz v. United States Olympic Committee, 492 F. Supp. 1181 (D.D.C. 1980). But that was not a First Amendment case, and governmental participation in an Olympics hosted in the U.S. would be a stronger case for an athlete who was excluded after exercising a First Amendment right. As to your second point, I think foreign visitors can assert constitutional rights if the violation occurred in the U.S.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
You might be interested to know that the free speech issue just came up in Bluman v. F.E.C. related to foreigner free speech rights with election spending.[153][154]. The Supreme Court denied review of the D.C. court's unanimous ruling that they don't have free speech in the context of Citizens United.[155] --LSamuelson 09:32, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

An all-out assault on evolutionary belief is getting nearer.

Normandy invasion.jpg

An all-out assault on evolutionary belief is getting nearer. [156]

It always seems to be getting nearer. When will it actually happen? --Esseph 15:20, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Creationism growing in the past year in America and biblical creation believing evangelicalism quickly spreading in the UK, France, Latin America, Asia and Africa strongly suggests you are not ready do battle at all. Conservative 19:57, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

So when will it actually happen? -- Esseph 11:36, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left

Clip art, clip art, clip art, clip art, clip art, clip art, clip art, Cambridge Mosaic of Jesus Christ, clip art, clip art. And we talk of God being pushed out of schools.

See: Atheist whining. I hope that clears things up for you. Plus, how there is stronger mix of photos and art. Conservative 15:32, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

The Crossed Line

Hello, Andy and friends. A while ago, I arrived at Conservapedia a staunch conservative Christian. However, after examining the arguments, I rethought my place in the world and came to a more liberal, atheist worldview. Since then, I watched from afar, believing that you were wrong, but still deserved to have your arguments duly considered. However, I came back to Conservapedia after noticing something very disconcerting that I felt must be brought up. It has to do with the the recent tragedy in Aurora, in which twelve people died in the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises.

I first heard about the tragedy from a liberal blog. The blogger and people in the comments were very sorrowful, to the point where one man toyed with the idea of starting a charity for the survivors of the shooting (something I could easily get behind). However, the conservative response, in my opinion, has been absolutely disgusting. Pundits and politicians alike lined up to give their opinions on the shooting, claiming that the shooting was a result of 'atheist values' (which is weird, because atheists don't have fixed, objective values, that's sort of the point), and that liberals were somehow responsible for the massacre. One article even had the gall to claim that it was a government hoax, an assertion backed up by no evidence whatsoever (and before you say anything, yes, I did read the article in its entirety). The point is, instead of grieving, many conservatives are using the tragedy to attack political opponents!

Naturally, I went to Conservapedia to see your take on the situation. "They may be misguided," I thought, "But Andy isn't a political jackal. He wouldn't try to capitalize on the deaths of twelve people." (No offense, by the way) But woe and behold, you did exactly as I hoped you would not, using the tragedy to attack liberals, atheists, and others, all the while quoting the very same articles I read and despised.

So, Andy and sysops, I have come to call you out for this. For supposedly moral people, you seem to have absolutely no shame in twisting the deaths of a dozen people, including a six year old girl, to support your own political agenda. How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice liberals and atheists, including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go? --Bdor25 12:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Bdor25, whether the shooter was a liberal, I don't know. It's not something I've personally looked into that deeply yet. However, I will say that I find concerning governments which are atheistic and persecute Christianity and other religions like China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, and Cuba. So I do think liberalism and atheism can be blamed for certain wrongs in the world. With that said, not all atheists or liberals are represented as such, just like not all Muslims are violent. Such a sweeping stereotype will inevitably be wrong. So like I said, I haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other yet on the shooting - I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. But I'm not opposed to the idea that liberalism and atheism do cause problems worldwide.
Look, I encounter many atheists who criticize Christianity of certain evils, or more broadly criticize religion. Do you likewise criticize atheists and liberals for attacking Christianity because of Westboro or other examples? Because it's the same thing occurring, just from the other side. Put the shoe on the opposite foot, and I could ask, "How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice [Christians and conservatives], including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go?" My point is that the opposite accusations are leveled by atheists and liberals against Christianity non-stop. Why is it you take offense to them being leveled back in return? --Joshua Zambrano 01:19, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
The thing is, many of us don't support what people like Christopher Hitchens say. Religion definitely has its upsides as well as its downsides. While there are some fools out there with no sense of who's extremist and who's not, most of us aren't like that. You're just hearing the much louder minority. Much of my family is Baptist, and I get along with them just fine. There are just some self-righteous idiots plaguing the Internet.
Yes, there have been many oppresive atheistic regimes. Mao Zetong, for example, tried to eradicate it entirely with his terrible "Great Leap Forward". However, there have been many oppresive religious regimes as well. The Catholic Church, for example, hanged anyone that insinuated that God may not exist. They threatened to hang Galileo for daring to assert that Earth is not the center of the universe, as previously thought. My point is, when any belief system gains absolute power, bad things happen, and Christianity is certainly no exception. That's the advantage of a democratic, secular society: No belief system is in absolute power, and thus no one is persecuted.
"But wait," you're probably thinking. "Christianity IS persecuted!" Not exactly. Quite simply, Christianity has enjoyed a lot of power in our government for the last century or so, to the disadvantage of other religions. Because secular society is taking hold, Christianity is falling to the level of other religions. Because it is losing power, many interpret that as being persecuted. The thing is, most atheists don't about whether you worship God or not. You're perfectly welcome to do so in church or your own home. However, when it is constantly flaunted on us, a problem arises. Worship your God if you wish, but if we must follow laws based upon YOUR religion, not ours, than we have a conflict.
Heading back to dictators, I can tell you with absolute certainty that NONE OF THEM ARE LIBERAL. A liberal supports some government intervention, but not enough to infringe on our freedoms or our rights. When governments do something bad, liberals are often the first to point it out. Many liberals have even devoted their lives to fighting oppressive regimes. Right now, in our government, it is the liberals that are suggesting we go to Syria and help the rebels overthrow the dictatorship there. However, I hear conservatives going on about how we should invade Iran, when an Iranian nuclear weapon is, at worst case scenario, five years away. It is the liberals that are suggesting that we do something about Saudi Arabia, which has a ridiculously stifling regime, while conservatives are more than happy to accept oil from them without complaint. Does that sound like a party of wannabe dictators? --Bdor25 09:34, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
I guess my point is though, liberals and atheists criticize Christians on the internet all the time. It's hard for me to criticize Conservapedia for criticizing liberals and atheists on this when I see liberals and atheists criticizing Christians and conservatives over silly stuff like Westboro Baptist Church ALL THE TIME. They try to paint us with a broad brush non-stop, even on silly arguments like Westboro, which obviously has nothing to do with Christianity, but is just a team of lawyers that decided to play Christian so they could sue people they get mad under the 1st Amendment to get rich. Yet I've never heard liberals or atheists called out for doing so the way you just called out Conservapedia, ever. It strikes me as something of a double standard if it's wrong for one side to do it but not the other.
As for the Catholics, I'd argue that yeah, they've had a pretty checkered past, but when you look at who they were persecuting, those claimed to be Christians too. The Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists all claimed to be Christians and were around before Catholicism was ever created A.D. 313-380. The Montanists were around way back in 156 A.D., while Catholicism's warfaring version definitely wasn't around until the 4th century A.D. And the Arians, Waldenses, Bogamils, Albigenses, Cathar, and Petrobrussians were all around before 1100 A.D. I think there's a much stronger case for them being the real Christians than Catholicism. Point is, the people Catholicism was persecuting were Christians too, it's not like Catholicism was so much persecuting liberals and atheists, they were persecuting Christians. And Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Copernicus, Kepler? Those early scientists, many of which didn't get along so well with Catholicism, were overwhelmingly Christians.
As for Christianity in government, America only has religious freedom because Christians like William Penn and Roger Williams came over from England fleeing religious persecution and created religious freedom to stop persecution of Christians by Anglicanism and Catholicism. Penn for all intents and purposes created the United States of America in 1680 and was obviously the inspiration for Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Madison's U.S. Constitution, which was why Jefferson called Penn "the greatest law giver the world has produced". Many of the things we think of as created by later "founders" like a two-house Congress requiring 2/3 approval for bill passage, separation of powers (Judicial, Executive, Legislative), a bill of rights guaranteeing freedoms of religion and speech (see Penn's "Charter of Privileges), free elections, and trial by jury, were actually instituted by Penn's government a century before the United States (Province_of_Pennsylvania).
As for liberals, I guess it depends on the definition. By that standard, Obama is no liberal. He supported free trade and letting jobs go out of the U.S., even though he campaigned against it. He's taken credit for ending the Iraq War but it was actually Bush's agreement, the Status of Forces Agreement, that forced us to withdraw from Iraq. Obama actually tried to renege on the agreement and keep 10,000 troops there longer than the agreement specified, but the Iraq government refused. I put up full sourcing and detail about this at Barack_Hussein_Obama#2009-2011_Iraq_Troop_Withdrawal. And while Bush grew the scope of government (and I criticized him as early as 2004 and can prove it[157][158] - I also criticized Obama then[159][160]) including massive Medicare expansion, that was nothing to ObamaCare. Some of the worst corruption and abuse lately has been occurring under Obama's regime. I find it ironic that liberals like to criticize Bush and omit the teensy fact that Democrats ran Congress since 2006. Obama consistently voted for Bush's budgets, Iraq War funding, the Patriot Act, the bailouts, and free trade agreements while he was in Congress, yet now wants to blame Bush for the same stuff he himself voted for.[161]
Military funding was boosted hundreds of billions of dollars to its current high by a Democrat Congress under Bush, and Obama was part of it. Both the Stimulus and ObamaCare were entirely corrupt and pressured through when Democrats needed no or virtually no Republican votes at all. They were not bipartisan at all but Republicans were completely locked out of the process, yet now Republicans are criticized for having stopped cooperating in frustration. You said, "Does that sound like a party of wannabe dictators?" I think most Americans can recognize that Democrats, especially while they held a Supermajority (complete control of the House, Senate, and Presidency so they could pass bills without a single Republican vote as detailed here - Democrats_For_Life_of_America#2009-2010_Obamacare_Influence) were the "wannabe dictators". However, Republicans under Bush caused a lot of problems too. But the bottom line is that both sides are to blame. You can't just overlook that Obama's administration has been the obvious source of corruption the past 3+ years. --Joshua Zambrano 13:54, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Bdor25, wrote: "A while ago, I arrived at Conservapedia a staunch conservative Christian. However, after examining the arguments, I rethought my place in the world and came to a more liberal, atheist worldview." Where is the proof and evidence that: 1) He was a conservative Christian 2) He examined the arguments. Given the issue of the deceitfulness of the atheist community, Bdor25 needs to provide proof and evidence of his two claims. Conservative 15:39, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, do you have some kind of condition that keeps you from staying on-topic? --Rad7 00:18, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Obama's quote

It sure does seem like you left out an important part about roads and bridges. Heck, one might even argue that's what he was talking about when he said "you didn't build that." I'm sure it was omitted by error, though; you wouldn't leave a piece out in order to intentionally distort Mr. Obama's words, would you?

The quote was trimmed to make it suitable for a headline. "That" clearly refers to its antecedent in the sentence "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that." The context confirms that same obvious meaning: Obama thinks small businessmen take too much credit for the occasional success they have.--Andy Schlafly 09:17, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
No, actually, if you read the full quote:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.
It is clear that President Obama is referring to the infrastructure that businesses all over the country use. Roads, bridges, the Internet, public utilities, and even other businesses represent a joint collaboration between the public and private sectors. The "that" is clearly referring to the prior sentence and it's a bit dishonest to paint it otherwise.
Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, you know why you cut the line about roads and bridges out, and it has nothing to do with saving space, as it was only six words long. Here is my challenge - if you believe it is clear that Obama was saying that people didn't build their businesses, add the phrase "Somebody invested in roads and bridges" into your quote. Otherwise, you are just trying to distort his meaning. (Disclaimer - I did not vote for Obama last time and will not this time, but I don't like when people bear false testimony against their neighbors.)
Well, the evidence from the full quote indicates Obama was telling business owners directly that they didn't build their businesses. By separating the word "that" from the paragraph; by insisting that he was referring to the infrastructure rather than the businesses, all you have done was to make these business owners stand alone when they got started. You bolstered our argument. Karajou 13:45, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
If you "don't like when people bear false testimony against their neighbors", you're definitely on the wrong website. --Esseph 14:42, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
Wikipedia's a really bad site for false testimony. I had a horrible experience there, and there's no denying the liberal bias that's rampant there. With any wiki there are going to be some arguments made people disagree with, what matters is whether those at the top are committed to doing the right thing, and I believe Conservapedia has that. I believe Conservapedia's moving in the right direction - unlike Wikipedia. --Joshua Zambrano 12:54, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

I think Obama was telling business owners, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." - Chicagotony 15:01, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Exactly. Not much to argue with there, you might think. -- Esseph 15:22, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Karajou, if you think I bolster your argument, then you should add the phrase "Somebody invested in roads and bridges." It's more complete, looks like you're hiding less, and, as you say, makes your argument stronger.
Yes, why not quote the whole passage, without elisions, and then explain exactly why it's "liberal claptrap"? That would be educational, in keeping with the aims of the site. -- Esseph 18:33, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

It's my opinion that people are reading too much into this. This is just about raising taxes. American business thrive due to many reason. Public infrastructure and the general stability of the country are some. There's a price to pay for that, and while all honest business owners are willing to pay their fair share, they're not willing to keep feeding a corruption behemoth. But yeah, he also had a serious grammar gaff there. Nine 19:44, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

The entire context of the quotation is a consistent with a straighforward grammatical interpretation: small businessmen, according to Obama, take too much credit for themselves when they have occasional success.--Andy Schlafly 20:33, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
Shouldn't we be using the quote, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help", then? It basically makes the same point, but doesn't imply "that" refers to "business" rather than "bridges and roads" (c'mon, you know it doesn't). So, same point, but isn't seen as dishonest.
It does not make a significant difference whether "that" refers to its antecedent of "business", as grammar dictates, or to "bridges and roads." Obame's point is the same either way: he thinks small businessmen give themselves too much credit when then enjoy (occasional) success.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't disagree, that was the undertones of his speech. But using that line is dishonest. Obama was speaking off the cuff, and was saying that business didn't build roads and bridges. Sure, his grammar wasn't perfect, but the text surrounding the quote you highlight (that is omitted), makes it pretty clear he's talking about roads and bridges.
But I will say no more about this. If you really think you're being honest about this, you should at least add the phrase preceding the quote you want to highlight.
I see the quotation has been shortened yet more, presumably to make it suitable for a (non-existent) headline. Why not make some more edits? "If you’ve got a business, you ... made that happen." There. -- Esseph 11:15, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, I always like personally avoiding the periods and trying to quote fully. Sometimes my quotes look a bit too lengthy as a result, I suppose. But I'd support providing the complete quote though, just to prevent concerns that it's out of context. I haven't really followed the whole "didn't build that" controversy, just providing some thoughts about quote context since it seems to be a growing concern here. --Joshua Zambrano 12:59, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
I make no secret of the fact that the reasons I've disliked Obama since 2004 are his votes against providing medical care to children who survive late-term abortions, his dishonest attempt to cover up these votes, his political corruption, and his constant lying about his positions. Any other potential controversies need to be carefully examined I think to make sure they are valid and fair so they don't detract from the valid controversies surrounding him, otherwise people might see easily debunked ones and think there are no valid criticisms surrounding Obama. --Joshua Zambrano 13:03, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Frankly it concerns me that the GOP at times seems to use a policy of "throw mud and hope it sticks" with Obama rather than sticking to solid and irrefutable criticisms relating to his Born Alive votes, political corruption, or lies about major issues. I complained to McCain's campaign in 2008 about McCain doing this - I thought he should've focused more on irrefutable criticisms of Obama than silly minor issues, and that it ultimately helped Obama win. It was why I ended up voting 3rd party. I really dislike Obama's dishonesty and carelessly selected criticisms will only help his cause. --Joshua Zambrano 13:09, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

This is no more quote mining than Democrats criticizing the Republican candidate for saying he likes being able to fire people. It cuts to the heart of the disagreement between socialism and free market economics.

Capitalism is about investing, taking risks, working together on your own initiative with others to build something that other people tell you they want - by offering a high enough price for you to make a profit.

Socialism is about the government (i.e., other people, busybodies) telling you what you can or cannot do. Socialists hate profit and refuse to reward initiative or merit. --Ed Poor Talk 14:04, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

The economy is too unpredictable in the short term to predict its effect on the U.S Presidential election, but a slowdown seems to be in the works.
The next president of the United States is probably going to be a one term president. The big government spending for about the last 12 years and the lack of any meaningful reform is a big drag on the American economy during a difficult time in the global economy. I don't think Obama or a moderate Republican such as Mitt Romney is going to change the system in terms of overall spending in order for their to be meaningful reform. I think they both want to spend a lot of money except on different things. Also, it appears as if some serious consequences of many governments acting irresponsibly could certainly occur before the U.S presidential election in 2016.[162] If this occurs, my guess is that Obama or Romney would both bail out the big banks and load their mistakes on American taxpayers which would further put a drag on future growth.
Maybe 2016 will be a more meaningful election in terms of changing the political landscape of American politics.
My guess is that if Obama gets re-elected that the Republicans are going to oppose him more than they did in his first term as he is considerably weaker politically now plus he will have been pounded with a ton of negative ads during this election. Conservative 18:31, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

I kind of wonder why the quote is such a big issue. To me it comes off as the GOP attempting to appeal to business owners in the country, rather than the average American. While it might boost GOP fundraising and make Obama look bad to business owners, the majority of Americans might actually be turned off by the whole "didn't build it" controversy. So I kind of wonder if it could actually backfire. I sure hope not. --Joshua Zambrano 13:18, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Obamacare started in the House

PPACA (enacted as HR 3590) was an amendment of Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, which was a revenue bill that started in the house. Please correct this factual error.

Additionally, it may not be relevant to the issue that tax bills must be passed first in the house the extent to which the original HR 3590 was amended. See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) and the enrolled bill rule, which limits the extent to which the judiciary can look into how a bill that has been enrolled by the House and Senate became law. GregG 20:02, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't think PPACA was germane (relevant) to the other bill that it supposedly amended (replaced) in the House.--Andy Schlafly 20:28, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
That's irrelevant as to whether it meets the origination clause, as Flint tells us. Flint dealt with a House tariff bill being amended by the Senate to remove the tariff and replace it with a corporation tax. One could say that the content of PPACA came from the Senate, but HR 3590 began in the House, not in the Senate (as the ITN post says). GregG 20:42, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Why is everyone so happy about government healthcare? Is there any country which has a better managed system than the USA? Recently a politician commented on healthcare management with the following quote:

  • UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems.

So, as that politician said, why have the government run something which private enterprise is managing so well? --Ed Poor Talk 19:04, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of Obamacare either (although it will be interesting to see how Republicans are going to handle the health care issue if/once they repeal Obamacare). I'm just saying that the statement on our main page that "[Obamacare] started in the Senate" in reference to the Origination clause is simply wrong, and this calls into question the credibility of everything else on this site. We want to stay a trustworthy encyclopedia; to this end, I hope that this factual error is corrected. GregG 19:39, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
I can only speak from my own experience. Dialysis centers in the USA are, for the most part, private and profit-driven. They offer only the absolute minimum length dialysis treatment (3.5 to 4 hours, 3 times a week) to keep a person alive - not enough to give the person any kind of quality of life. 80 percent +/- of US dialysis patients are too sick to work, and end up on disability. I count my blessings that my employer allowed me to work from home, and on weekends in order to make up my time. Canada treats their patients for a greater time each dialysis session, and their patients have a greater life expectancy than Americans.
Regarding transplants, once a patient has been on dialysis for a year, post-transplant longevity is greater in Canada than the USA. Our centers are dirty, and I was never so thankful that my health insurance allowed my husband and me to do my dialysis in our own home. We were able to lengthen my treatment times, and as a result, I was healthier than most when I received my transplant in 2010. SharonW 19:57, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Obesity rate

You added this to mainpageright but the linked article says that the US has one of the highest rate of obesity and obesity related illnesss in the developed world. But I thought obesity was an atheist trait and not one exhibited by Christians. Is the atheism and obesity article wrong or is the article you linked to on main page right wrong? Davidspencer 01:32, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

More than one-third of Americans are obese, but only about 15 percent claim no religious affiliation, and only about two percent claim to be atheists. Of course, those two percent are very, very fat. -- Esseph 11:58, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
Hong Kong This picture depicts females - the one gender of humans that User:Conservative has never managed to get near, due to the amount of time that he spends on the Internet.

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)
David, are most Christians in the slimmer Eastern World or in the Western World? How is this issue relevant to your question? I also would suggest taking a statistics course and learning about multiple regression analysis. In addition, I would also suggest looking at the studies cited in the article Atheism and obesity. Next, atheists do have a history of engaging in deceit. See: Atheism and deception Please tell me where I indicated "obesity was an atheist trait and not one exhibited by Christians" or admit to engaging in a false report. Unlike atheists, I do try to be judicious in my claims and only make claims that are supportable. Lastly, what are your thoughts about Regina Benjamin and her job performance? Does Obama tend to hire liberals or conservatives? Do you think that Regina Benjamin is a liberal or a conservative? Conservative 12:39, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, you indicated that obesity is an atheist trait directly in the article you linked to, Atheism and obesity. The fact that the United States is a very Christian nation yet extremely obese is a striking counterexample to your argument. You're basically pathetic for leading this crusade against obese people and you should feel bad. Are you yourself obese? Why don't you post a picture of yourself? What do you have to hide? --SmokeyT 15:34, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

SmokeyT, you wrote: "User:Conservative, you indicated that obesity is an atheist trait directly in the article you linked to, Atheism and obesity." Please elaborate and be specific. Cite material from the article to support your claim. Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, please answer the question of whether of not the New Atheism leadership had a significant problem with being overweight and whether or not Penn Jillette is still overweight. See: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight. Also, to make sure you are not a liberal, atheist denialist address the issue of Lesbianism and obesity in terms of the evidence I presented and offer strong counter evidence if you take issue with the article. Lastly, support your claim that I have lead a crusade against obese people as I largely wrote about these topics: Atheism and obesity and Homosexuality and obesity. Conservative 17:26, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
You've completely jumped the shark here, Conservative. You want people to prove they're not atheists or liberals by attacking other people about their weight? How is that Christian? How is that anything but hateful? You have some serious issues regarding overweight people, and I would seriously suggest you spend some time thinking about your hatred toward us. SharonW 18:28, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." - Apostle Paul Conservative 11:49, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Jesus. Matthew 5:11-12 SharonW 19:33, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Can anyone clarify this egregious non sequitur? -- Esseph 11:52, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
"For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things." - Apostle Paul Conservative 11:55, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Apparently not. -- Esseph 11:58, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, I'd be happy to discuss the Bible, although I think we might disagree. I think by "appetite" Paul was referring to lusts specifically. I've heard preaching before against various physical behaviors, including obesity, but I'm not sure it matches up entirely with the Bible, since Paul says specifically that the only sin against a person's body, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, is sexual immorality or fornication:
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Look also at what Jesus said, that it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out:
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Paul did definitely say that exercise profits, but he underemphasized its influence as little compared to godliness which is much more profitable:
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
On a separate note, for a good book on obesity, I'd recommend "The New Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey. It points out that what matters most is anaerobic exercise for 12-20 minute periods a few times a week and that dieting doesn't work because you're basically starving your body of muscle as well as fat, and that muscle and the body metabolism burn off fat even when you're sleeping or not doing anything. Exercise doesn't just benefit you while exercising, but changes the body to convert fat to muscle the rest of the time also. Personally, I've always been a big fan of sports involvement as a way to keep fit - baseball, basketball, football - find something fun and be active. :) --Joshua Zambrano 12:48, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks, though I was looking neither for exercise advice nor Biblical verses. I was hoping to hear some sense about this absurd obsession with the nonsensical connection of atheism, homosexuality, liberalism with obesity. You want something linked with obesity, try HFCS. --Esseph 21:59, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Pregnant athlete ignored by the mainstream media?

Hardly. The story is in the NYT.. RayM 08:55, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

And The Guardian -- several times actually. I note the headline is posed as a question. The answer would seem to be "no". --Jdixon 11:57, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
If pregnancy is supposed to benefit female athletes, why have 150,000 condoms (about 15 each) been distributed to the competitors? -- Esseph 12:01, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

" the less self-centered Ryan Lochte..."

Do you mean this guy? Actual quote from this paragon of non-self-centered behavior: "it's basically a retainer filled with diamonds. … I wear it when I go on the podium. It's just a unique way of showing my personality out to everyone." Sounds like a really down-to-earth fellow who hates to draw attention to himself. RayM 22:18, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Tiger Woods Didn't Make The Cut This Week Because He's Not Playing

FYI. Why does it seem like almost every item posted to Main Page Right has something wrong with it? --Randall7 23:08, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

It's news the mainstream media doesn't cover, and the mainstream media doesn't cover it because it's incorrect, and they're professionals, perhaps? -- Esseph 11:56, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
The mainstream media is clearly liberal though, far more than the American public. And they did badly skew the 2008 elections in favor of Obama. Just a second, getting my sources ready. :) --Joshua Zambrano 12:09, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Okay, here's the first source, although it's from 2004 (they haven't asked it since then, so I can't update unfortunately).[163] Far more journalists identify as liberal and less as conservative compared to the general public, and this is even more extreme at the national level. This is just one of many examples cited by the Media Research Center.[164] --Joshua Zambrano 12:13, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
As far as bias in favor of Obama, it was in the news during the 2008 elections as you might recall, and immediately afterwards as well. The major report was The Color of News by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ).[165] It showed that both CNN and MSNBC were less critical of Obama than McCain, as was the media in general; only FOX was equally critical of both (40%).[166] Another study, the Tyndall Report showed overall coverage of Obama was far greater than for McCain.[167][168] --Joshua Zambrano 12:25, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
People perceive bias where they want to. The BBC, for instance, has as many critics claiming right-wing bias as left-wing (which probably means it's doing a decent job). Supposing we say that the people who write the mainstream media are, on average, better educated than the public? Would you agree with that, Joshua? -- Esseph 12:17, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, a few points on that though.
  • (1) BBC isn't an American news organization so it's somewhat a different topic.
  • (2) Right-wing and left-wing can mean different things in Europe than the U.S. so the BBC News being accused of those labels might mean somewhat different than here.
  • (3) People can perceive biases where they want but that's why it's useful to rely on statistics like surveys of journalistic attitudes or news coverage analysis in terms of percentages like I'm citing.
  • (4) The media does tend to be better educated, which only reveals the bias in colleges where professors tend to be more liberal, and indoctrinate their students to be the same way. --Joshua Zambrano 12:25, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if you look at the data at OpenSecrets.org for the industries in the right-hand box here and go to the Totals tabs[169], something that quickly emerges is that your business industries (private sector) tend to donate Republican (banks, oil and gas, tobacco) while your liberal arts industries (public sector) tend to donate to Democrats (lawyers/law firms, education, TV/movies/music, unions). Basically if involved with arts or government rather than business they tend to be more liberal industries. Each side has their favored industries I guess you could say. --Joshua Zambrano 12:32, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Education for the record, donates 75% historically to Democrats, and is donating 74% so far in 2012 to them.[170] By the way, I thought you made a pretty good edit to the Daniel Dennett page in cleaning up the grammar, nice work. --Joshua Zambrano 12:35, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
To deal with your first and second points: yes, the BBC is a special case; I cited it (a) because I'm British and (b) because the unique status of the BBC (publicly funded through a levy on TV owners, but kept as scrupulously away from political control as possible by means of its charter) means that it's the only media organization in my home country that is actually meant to be unbiased (I suppose the US equivalents would be PBS and NPR, though as I understand it their audiences are so vanishingly small as not to matter very much).
All other media, in a free market, are free to present the news as they wish. So you have liberal media (NY Times, MSNBC) and conservative media (Fox, WSJ). I've spent some time professionally in media analysis (though not to do with political bias), and it's a very tricky, nuanced thing to do. But ultimately it doesn't matter: news media are free to present the news with whatever slant they want. Audiences decide which they like best. The free market works: the only problem, in a democracy, is when uneducated people believe uncritically whatever they are told, because their lack of education means they don't know better. Democracy founders on the ignorance and indifference of the electorate; that is its Achilles' heel, which is why I value education so highly.
As far as the OpenSecrets.org data is concerned, no surprises there. Business owners expect the GOP to give them breaks; all the other groups you mention will tend to fare better under the Democrats.-- Esseph 16:48, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
We do need better education here in the U.S. However, the trouble is that for all the money we've thrown at the system in recent years the U.S. continues to fall behind other countries spending far less. A number of factors could be pointed to, the flawed "No Child Left Behind Act" that focuses on improving the nation's worst minds while neglecting its best, throwing money at private colleges rather than public schools, giving away money for liberal sex ed programs rather than teaching students, and discarding P.E. programs despite growing evidence that exercise does relate to cognitive abilities.
Concerning the OpenSecrets data, while the GOP has definite links to big business, especially oil/gas, tobacco, and banking, the DNC has definite links to lawyers/law firms, education, public sector unions, and the news media. Most Americans recognized they weren't faring better under the Democrats, that's why they helped vote them out en masse in 2010. Democrats have been extremely corrupt and unprincipled the last 4 years, apart from the Pro-Life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who took a stand. --Joshua Zambrano 13:11, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Tiger making the press for stinking it up at the Firestone Country Club. [171] --Jpatt 18:57, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Grammar error on main page

"The Bible is far more satisfying than science as it is God inerrant word which reveals His nature and speaks infallibly on man's experience" should be "...God's inerrant word." GregG 23:46, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Empty seats at the Olympics

Andy, did you read the article that you posted all the way through? It seems as if there is strong public demand for the seats in question, which have been reserved for officials and dignitaries. Sample quote: "Fans who would've gladly paid the exorbitant ticket prices were fuming." This implies that the seats would have been full, if only people had the chance to buy tickets. Moreover, some of those seats are to be made available to teachers, students and soldiers. That seems reasonable. If anything, this is a case of some poor organizing, not a case of a lack of demand for athletes other than Tebow. RayM 00:06, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

The picture of the sea of empty seats tells a thousand words, and the attempt by a few British Olympic officials to make excuses for this is hardly convincing.--Andy Schlafly 00:31, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
Did you notice the difference between the sports that were discussed in the text of the article-- "wildly popular events like beach volleyball and gymnastics. And even at the Aquatics Center..." and the caption of the image, which was taken at the far less "wildly popular" sport of dressage? A critical reader would have taken that into account. RayM 00:35, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
The picture was taken at the dressage even - no surprise that noone was interested! :o)
Seriously though, it could have been taken before the event began or during a break period. Do Tebow fans stay in their seats at half time or do they visit the toilet/bar/etcetera? WilcoxD 01:04, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

All this misfortune could have been avoided. They should have had Tim Tebow light the Olympic torch and then Tebow. Because of British stubbornness, the Olympics is cursed and utterly doomed. :) Conservative 08:18, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

It looks like they've had no trouble selling the seats in question, Tebowing or not. RayM 09:26, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
The lack of interest by Brits is so pathetic that the organizers have resorted to using soldiers and teachers to fill in many of the empty seats.--Andy Schlafly 10:47, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
Dear Mr Schlafly, please go back and read the relevant news articles. The seats are empty because the relevant national Olympic committees and sponsors have failed to use tickets which they have bought. It is not because the British general public have a lack of interest. I'm sure if you spent even 1 minute researching, you'd find endless stories about the dissatisfaction of fans who had attempted to buy tickets for such events, and had been unable to because the UK public quota had been sold out. Good day. HumanGeographer 11:08, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
Andy, these are seats reserved for Olympic dignitaries. The whole reason this was an issue is that the overwhelming number of people who couldn't get tickets were upset that said dignitaries were not using the seats allotted to them. Did you read today's article? They put some of those seats up for sale. They were sold. Because people are interested. RayM 11:09, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
There is a lot of bad feeling about the Olympics in London, something the mainstream media is not reporting. The last few months have seen serious disruption to our tranport system, a lot of small businesses have suffered so that bug businesses can profit and there is serious concern about the gagging of free speech by LOCOG who are effectively monopolising dozens of words and phrases associated with the Olympics. Try wearing a Pepsi T shirt to an Olympic event? Legally defined as contraband. Want to use the Olympics to promote your mom and pop hotel or bakery or restaurant? Best get a very good lawyer. London is much quieter than usual because so many residents have left for the duration. Combine this with the SNAFU ticketing system - only Visa accepted, don't bother trying to pay any other way - and its no surprise there are empty seats. There are plenty of hideously overpriced tickets available for events - the soccer, for example, but nobody wants them. Rafael 11:53, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

NBC News censor Christian Hymn in Olympic Opening Ceremony

Before this website continues to lambast the London Olympics, I'd like to remind you that it was the US media that cut an entire section of the opening ceremony that contained a moving rendition of the Christian hymn, Abide With Me in a section dedicated to loved ones who had been lost (including those in the July 2005 terrorist bombings). HumanGeographer 11:10, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Did they broadcast Parry's "Jerusalem"? Rafael 12:50, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
A good point. A quick Google search reveals NBC was the culprit.[172] Rotten NBC. So much for hoping that Comcast's new ownership might result in a change of course for the company. --Joshua Zambrano 12:55, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Another athlete sent home for a tweet.

Here, another racism-tweeting athlete for you to defend. RayM 13:59, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Finally, a positive Olympics story in the news feed

I like the Olympics and it's depressing, frankly, to read all the religious and political baggage that is being attached to every single Olympic-related topic brought up here. I am capable of simply enjoying the Olympics as a united spectacle of human achievement, is anyone else? WilcoxD 00:44, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Which positive story? That the UK is underachieving? For ASchlafly, that's a super positive story. RayM 00:53, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Both of you make valid points. I am concerned about being overly negative about the Olympics. But I also want to avoid uninformative "happy talk" amid the constant push by the lamestream media towards atheism.--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
For me, the only really negative thing about the Olympics is NBC's ignoring of sports that I care about, especially sailing--Guitarsniper 11:04, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't get this underachievement thing. Atheistic Britain has about a fifth of the population of the USA, yet at Beijing won more than half the number of gold medals (19/36) and slightly less than half the total medals (47/110). Early days for London yet, but who's the underachiever? --DHouser 10:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

So Britain has the potential, and yet is not achieving its potential. That's called underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 11:04, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Ah, I see. So you're saying that the UK fulfilled its potential at Beijing and that the effects atheism have set in over the last four years?--DHouser 11:30, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
No, that does not logically follow from what I said. Britain probably underachieved in Beijing also, given the historic wealth and long sports tradition of that nation. And the trend of underachievement by Britain is increasing.--Andy Schlafly 12:10, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Out of curiousity, how many medals ought the GB team win if the British prayed as much as the USA? CameronD 12:16, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Okay, so Britain (probably) underachieved in Beijing (by coming fourth, behind China, USA and Russia). But they still did far better per capita (and per GDP) than the USA. So isn't the USA underachieving even more?--DHouser 12:20, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Some parts of the United States are underachieving - big cities, public school students and graduates, liberal areas of the country, people who read the New York Times, etc.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Very amusing. I think they automatically test medal winners to see if they read the New York Times.--DHouser 13:05, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

ArbCom bans the chairman of Wikimedia UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9439046/Chairman-of-Wikipedia-charity-banned-after-pornography-row.html --Michaeldsuarez 10:31, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I removed a link that this person just put up because it led me to a disgusting website with pornography. People who do that shouldn't be allowed to post here. --LSamuelson 13:31, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
I undid your censorship. That's porn of a chairman of a Wikimedia charity. Those images inform readers about who's running Wikimedia's charities. --Michaeldsuarez 14:59, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Porn is porn, and I don't care to see it, and neither do the children who read this website, regardless of your reason. --LSamuelson 16:43, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
The UK Telegraph reference can stay; the so-called "encyclopedia" Dramatica's reference to it cannot. The difference is between a regular newspaper and a satire-based website run by idiots whose grammar is no better than the writers of Dick and Jane. Karajou 16:53, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Censoring Esseph's comment wasn't very nice of you. --Michaeldsuarez 14:00, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

The key point is that different countries or subparts of countries have organized chapters with elected officers. The ArbCom has banned a number of such elected officers for a variety of pretexts. Then people (e.g., present and former ArbCom members) have posted private and public demands for these individuals to resign from their elected posts. The point is that the ArbCom/Jimbo Wales power bloc is trying to intimidate elected officers from around the world who actually owe a legal duty to their local incorporated chapters and not to the "Mother ship." This individual was not only chair of Wikimedia UK but also chair of a newly-organized international group representing all chapters. When millions of dollars are being distributed, such battles are unavoidable, but messy. Wschact 14:51, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

The key point in this particular case is the fact that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia are doing something in response to the porn that has been placed within the site. The individual mentioned in the story has posted that content with impunity, and has attacked others for removing it; now he's perm-banned. Wales should be applauded for his efforts. Karajou 13:44, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Wales didn't have anything to do with the ArbCom case. --Michaeldsuarez 13:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ – Foxnews.com has published an article on this. --Michaeldsuarez 13:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Spain a socialist country?

Somebody needs to do some research. The Spanish government is a centre-right one. -- Esseph 12:04, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Also Spain is the current holder of the World Cup (which they won when ruled by Socialists) and European Champions.-- User:NikRoberts 17:18, 31 July 2012 (BST)

As to Esseph, I think the moderate current Spanish government came in after a long period of socialism.
As to NikRoberts, the prior success of Spain's team underscores how significant its defeat at the Olympics, a bigger stage, is.--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
For the record, Spanish governments since 1939: Right-wing Catholic dictatorship 1939 - 75; transitional right-wing government 1975 - 1979; elected right wing government 1979 -82; left wing government, moving increasingly to the centre 1982 - 96; centre right government 1996 - 2004; centre left government 2004 - 11; centre right government since 2011. Rafael 14:42, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
What is Spain's government spending as a percentage of their GDP? Is it over 40%? I don't see Spain embracing capitalism to a large extent over big government yet. Iceland chose to let the bankers take a big hair cut (big losses), Spain has chosen to bail out the banks.[173][174] Spain has chosen to embrace socialism and "fascism light" (crony capitalism). I really don't see a lot of difference between socialism and "fascism light" - two sides of the same coin. Both have historically embraced big government, evolutionism, etc. etc. Conservative 12:30, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
"the prior success of Spain's team underscores how significant its defeat at the Olympics, a bigger stage, is." Andy, you would be hard pressed to find a football fan who sees the Olympics as a bigger stage for the sport than the World Cup. FIFA's insistence that Olympic football teams have a severely limited number of experienced players (over 23 years of age) is par of its strategy to protect its own tournament as the world's premiere soccer event. RayM 12:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Socialism and fascism are essentially the same [175], but there are some differences.[176] See also: Obamunism and Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism for further details. Conservative 12:47, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Tomorrow my Morocco will beat Spain in the Olympics and our team of Islam will win gold! Alluha Akbar! ShalifR 14:18, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
By this logic, Spain's total success in EuroCup 2012 a few months ago, and the 2010 WorldCup, proves that real men DO want a Nanny / socialist state. Or maybe there's no real causation and basically no consistent correlation between the two, and some people are just grasping at straws to try to prove their own sociological theories. By the way, enjoy the games, and GO USA !!! Nine 14:20, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Real sportsmen are consistent winners! Conservative 18:52, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

"First become a winner In life. Then it's easier to become a winner on the field." - Christian football coach Tom Landry

The coach of the Dallas Cowboys, Tom Landry guided the Cowboys to 20 consecutive seasons during his 29 years with the team. As coach, he guided the Cowboys to 19 playoff appearances, 13 division titles and five Super Bowl appearances. During his career his record was 271-180-6, including winning two Super Bowls. A perennial powerhouse, the winning Cowboys helped restore Dallas' reputation following the assassination of President Kennedy. Landry is the third winningest coach in NFL history behind Don Shula and George Halas. Under his direction, the Cowboys became known as "America's Team." Conservative 18:57, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

machismo
If the agnostic/weak atheist Richard Dawkins finally agreed to debate Dr. William Lane Craig and a scientist at Creation Ministries International instead of making pitiful excuses, would Hispanic ladies finally believe Señor Dawkins has machismo? Olé! Olé! Olé!

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)
Conservative, care to point to a national soccer team that would be considered "Real sportsmen" according to your definition of consistent winner? For what it's worth, Spain has won 3 consecutive major titles (EuroCup 2008, World Cup 2010, and EuroCup 2012).  ::I might be mistaken, but I read somewhere that this was the longest streak of major titles ever. The Olympic soccer tournament is not considered major due to limitations on age and pro status. Nine 20:12, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Spanish and Latin American cultures have historically been very infertile grounds for atheism and feminism. It is a shame that Spain's world renowned reputation for machismo has been watered down somewhat by socialism and "fascism light" policies (crony capitalism) instead of them fully embracing capitalism and limited government.  :) Of course, the Protestant work ethic creates more economic machismo than socialism/atheism/agnosticism and Catholicism. [177] See also: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Atheism and cowardice. Conservative 20:31, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

China And Olympics

When did China become a God-fearing Christian capitalistic society? They sure seem to be doing well. Will Ingramm 11:50, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Already addressed on talk page of Olympics. although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[178], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[179] Conservative 18:01, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
You beat me to it, Conservative! So population and GDP are positively correlated to a countries overall success in the Olympics? That is very sound logic supported by statistical fact!! So why all this attention on a far more spurious causal factors (religion and economic/social philosophies)? ...let me guess, "multiple regression analysis"? Will Ingramm 16:45, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Fallacy of exclusion: you left out an important variable even though I bolded it. Plus, China's one child policy is a fairly recent development (1978) instituted by the Communist government which came to power in 1949. Before that, they had lots of opportunity to create a big population despite the tens of millions killed by the evil and incompetent atheist Chairman Mao. Has China's medals gone up as the allowed their country to be more capitalistic and more Christian? My educated guess is yes. Conservative 19:10, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

"Capitalism is more consistent with the Bible than socialism."

I know I have a grammar peeve, but I did a double take and thought "well, of course, capitalism is not consistent with socialism." Perhaps adding the word "is" at the end will make the headline clearer. Thanks, GregG 03:08, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. The right side of the main page was active today. I am surprised you dug down that deep in the page to catch it. :) Conservative 05:37, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
I do try to read all of the headlines, but I had a bit of a backlog to go through. GregG 16:48, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Newbie here...

Hey, I just made an account here after many, many years of being an avid reader, but I'm having some trouble working out how to make edits. I tried to ask a question on the talk page for the marijuana article, regarding the lack of reference for the idea than one of marijuana's effects is death, but each time I tried to save it I was told that my save was blocked by a spam filter due to a blacklisted website. I didn't use a link to any website so I'm not entirely sure what it means... Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated. Sambiam

Problem fixed. The page can be edited now. Thanks for mentioning this difficulty.--Andy Schlafly 10:16, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Much appreciated Andy Sambiam

Chinese Olympian not told of her grandparents' deaths for over a year...

This seems relevant to discussions of China's training methods. [180] --Benp 11:49, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Good cite, now posted. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 12:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Big government taxes Olympic medalists...

One more story which I think is sadly indicative of the state our country is in. Many countries laud their Olympians; what does our federal government do? Tax them $9,000 dollars for winning a gold medal. [181] --Benp 15:47, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

That is a shocking revelation, but the tax is not actually on the medal itself, which would be outrageous. It is on a separate cash honorarium given in addition to the medal by a U.S. Olympic committee.--Andy Schlafly 16:53, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
I completely agree, but I find the amount of the tax shocking nonetheless. $9,000 on a $25,000 honorarium? Apparently, it's not only those who excel in business who need to be punished with a punitively high tax rate, but also those who excel in athletics! --Benp 18:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Follow-up: Senator Rubio has proposed a bill to make Olympic prize money tax exempt. According to the article, they also tax the medals themselves! Glad to see someone's doing something about it. [182] --Benp 21:15, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure. I agree with Senator Rubio's sentiment, but if it's not pared with equal or exceeding spending reductions, one man's tax exemption is another man's tax hike. PaulRP 22:06, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
I think it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You have a government so deep in deficit that it is in serious trouble and you want to reduce the tax intake through special exemptions? Makes absolutely no sense to me. They have earnt their medals through hard sweat and tears, but the income they derive of it is still income. Many of them will also soon be in for considerably more income in endorsements, speaking and appearance fees, which will also be taxed (or should that be tax exempt also?). --DamianJohn 22:54, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Some will. Others will not. Consider the number of Olympic medalists, and then consider how many of those you actually see doing endorsements. Certainly, any endorsement income should be taxed--when it is received. The honorarium is largely a way to defray the considerable costs incurred by the competitor--years of training, travel to the event, and so forth. Do you think a $9,000 tax bill is reasonable for a 16-year-old who has no other income during the year? I don't. --Benp 12:45, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

If that's the teen's only income, there is no way that they will pay $9000. That is based on a 36% tax rate, which is not paid by someone with a $25,000 income (unless they have a terrible accountant who doesn't even bother to take the standard or personal deductions). The bigger point though - is it fair for me to shoulder that tax burden? I don't watch the Olympics or benefit from their gold medal, but letting them have money tax free shifts the burden to me. Our tax code is so terrible precisely because we are too eager to say "Oh, you get a special tax exemption. You too, and you and you and you." Now, the only people left paying taxes are getting squeezed. Everyone wants to give tax cuts, no one wants to pay for them. (excuse my rant) PaulRP 15:15, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Take it up with the Weekly Standard; they're the ones who ran the numbers. I'd LIKE to think that they wouldn't tax at that rate, but I have no reason to think the Weekly Standard would lie about it, either. --Benp 22:49, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Interesting Article by Conservative blogger on Chik-Fil-A Boycott, Free Speech, and Islam

Go to [183] it's an article by a conservative blogger about Chik-Fil-A. She said that, although she disapproves of same-sex marriage, she did not call for a boycott of Target when they started stocking gay marriage cards, nor did she even mention it. The same thing when JC Penny put a same-sex couple on its magazine cover. Yet now the liberals are calling for a boycott of Chik-Fil-A for expressing the opposite stance - opposing same-sex marriage. She asserts that therefore, conservatives truly value free speech, even for those they disagree with. Also, she questions why these advocacy groups aren't calling for boycotts of Islamic organizations, even though Islam calls for EXECUTION of homosexuals. Even the Christian doctrine, which liberals have termed excessively cruel, doesn't go nearly that far. Interesting article. Gregkochuconn 21:16, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Interesting. The reason liberals won't boycott Islamic organizations is because they have a common bond, they both oppose the GOP.--Jpatt 23:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
It's definitely something worth considering, though I'd argue that if anything, it's more to due with the fact that domestic Christianity in America has a far broader public face, and far more influence over policy decisions, than does domestic Islam.--DTSavage 00:50, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

There were several overweight people in the pictures I saw of the Chik-Fil-A lines. I assumes that means that athiests were solidly behind the CEO as well.--Nikroberts 13:03, 2 August 2012 (BST)

No, mostly Christians.--Jpatt 09:19, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Wake up JPatt, that was a joke by Nik there! --DamianJohn 13:18, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
I am awake DamianJohn. Yes overweight people come from many backgrounds and Conservative's articles rub atheists wrong, so they must point out the absurdities. You have a strange sense of humor. --Jpatt 15:26, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

It is me that has the strange sense of humor - I was trying to work in a 'Karen Carpenter must have been one of the most religous people ever' joke but that is really going into the relms of bad taste (pardon the pun).--Nikroberts 21:23, 2 August 2012 (BST)


Liberals AND conservatives have called for boycotts of various companies and organizations about gay rights. Chick-Fil-A is now being subjected to one over its CEO's comments. Charity Give Back Group faced the same. If I remember correctly, the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel was boycotted over HR policies regarding gay workers back in the 80s/90s (they were fired if the company discovered they were gay).

One Million Moms (part of American Family Association) has called for boycotts over this issue too: Amazon (Jeff Bezos' donation supporting same-sex marriage), JCPenney (Ellen DeGeneres), Marvel and DC Comics (gay characters), and Kraft Foods (rainbow Oreo ad). Disney has been boycotted over Gay Days, and the company doesn't even sanction the event. The event is organized by outside groups.

Both sides are right - it's their legal right to call for boycotts (as ineffective as I think they are), and both sides are wrong - pretending only the other side does it is silly when evidence to the contrary is easily presented. SharonW 09:47, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I agree, these boycotts against people or companies that have different beliefs are getting out of hand. Give it a rest for goodness sake. Both sides. --DamianJohn 13:18, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Ten Commandments monument removed from zoo

could a mod put [184] up on the main page? As a resident of Oakland, otherwise an excellent place to live, I feel ashamed of my hometown for taking action like this.--DTSavage 10:44, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

As a godless heathen myself, I have to admit that little annoys me more than other atheists. Our bad. That being said, it always confused me why commandments six, seven and eight aren't one two and three. Sambiam
It would appear there's been a mix-up. A local pastor was baffled by the "Please don't feed the animals" sign recently installed in his church. -- Esseph 10:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Missy Franklin

It is true that few articles mention the fact she went to Catholic school, but surely this is only relevant if articles about other athletes mentioned that they went to public school or something?

I mean, I can't find any newspaper articles that promote the fact that Michael Phelps went to a public school. Sambiam
Articles would mention the public school if any Olympic gold medal winners were attending one.
Michael Phelps does not attend a public school, and has not for many years. He swam for a private club.--Andy Schlafly 13:04, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure if that's true, Andy. I imagine any article about a gold medallist still attending school, regardless of whether it was publicly or privately funded, , would mention where they were educated. The only reference to public schools and olympic athletes is that public school students or alumni are overrepresented in the Olympic games, though this only applies to Team GB, and 'public' school here rather ridiculously means private. Sambiam
But the articles about Missy Franklin typically do not say she is attending a Catholic high school. That's the point.--Andy Schlafly 13:21, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Agreed, none of the articles that I've read make mention of where she goes to school, only that she is indeed still in high school. However, this seems to be true of most, if not all, olympic athletes who are still in full time education, regardless of whether they go to a school with religious affiliations. For example, I haven't read any articles about athletes who attend what you would call a public school, what I would call a grammar school. Sambiam

"Michael Phelps does not attend a public school, and has not for many years." He's 27--a little old for school. The last educational institution he attended was the University of Michigan. Public, of course. RayM 15:13, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

RayM is right. And before that he went to Towson High School in Maryland. Publicly educated throughout his entire education. He also happens to be the most decorated Olympian of all time, and has the world record in world records! Sambiam

Question

I'm running the risk of being kicked for breaking the 90/10 rule for this... but I was curious if anyone knows whether there are any laws regarding what a person can consume, or put into their body? Sambiam

There are many such laws. A minor cannot drink alcohol, nobody is allowed to consume illegal drugs, etc.--Rad7 00:32, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Ah yes, but this was the point of my question. As far as I know it's only illegal for a minor to purchase alcohol. And again, with regards to drugs, it's only illegal to sell, possess or cultivate drugs, I've never heard of any law regarding the consumption of drugs, or anything for that matter. If there were it would be a slippery slope towards making it illegal to eat foods with a high fat content or something. It would strike me as deeply wrong if there were to be laws telling us what we can put into our own bodies Sambiam
Most countries, as you say, criminalize possession, trafficking etc. I'm aware of only one country that criminalizes consumption, and that, believe it or not, is Sweden (this was the case during the 1990s; I'm not sure if it is still). One perverse consequence of this was that drug users were unwilling to seek medical help in cases of overdose, since they could be prosecuted for having taken drugs. -- Esseph 08:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Ah, finally a straight answer! Thank you Esseph. I think I remember reading an article on Sweden's drug laws. To my understanding they consider a positive drugs test to be possession of a controlled substance, which would make the consumption of drugs de-facto illegal, as opposed to there being a law that specifically prohibits ingesting drugs. Though it's entirely plausible I'm talking absolute rubbish...Sambiam

French evolutionism and atheism heading for the guillotine!

French flag.jpg

French scholars say evangelicalism is likely the fastest growing religion in France. Every 10 days a new evangelical church is opened in France. [185]

It certainly appears as if evolutionism could be headed for the guillotine in France - especially if it is aided by French and European debt crises which jar people's atheism, agnosticism, general spiritual complacency and other errant belief systems.

France is burdened with an enormous amount of debt.[186] In addition, Reuters just reported "French economy stumbles as business morale dips". [187] Conservative 18:09, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Unbalanced

Why is so much of the main page devoted to anti-atheism but very little to anti-semitic and anti-muslim causes? Shouldn't we be attacking all misguided beliefs? AlanA 09:01, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Because that would be needlessly inflammatory. And because any belief in god is better than none. Sambiam
AlanA, please show that atheism does not contribute to anti-semitism. Start with the Soviet Union. See: Militant atheism. Second, material about evolutionism is more prominent than material about atheism on the main page. Also, since atheism helps spawn evolutionism and vice versa, please show that evolutionism does not spawn other harmful beliefs. See: Social effects of the theory of evolution Conservative 13:23, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Anti-Semitism was pervasive in Europe and Russia for centuries before atheism became remotely significant. -- Esseph 13:32, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
"atheism helps spawn evolutionism and vice versa" Could you please elaborate on this statement? GregG 13:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
There's a very high correlation between strong belief in evolution and atheism. Does anyone seriously doubt the correlation?--Andy Schlafly 14:03, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I, as a Catholic who believes that both creation (in the sense that God created everything, including human souls) and evolution are true, do. GregG 14:22, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
GregG, is the Catholic theistic evolutionists Kenneth R. Miller willing to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists with a scientist who is a creationists? What was the response to the email you sent him? Also, did he provide you with the countless expected millions of transition fossils.[188] Where are those millions of missing fossils? [189] Conservative 14:38, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I have not received any response from Dr. Miller. I will, of course, let you know if he does respond. In the meantime, you might be able to find answers in his book Finding Darwin's God, especially in Chapter 2. GregG 14:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
When it comes to Darwin's God, I am still waiting for Godot. By the way, Darwin was an atheist/ agnostic (He was a weak atheist. See: Weak atheism). Conservative 04:15, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Irrelevant. GregG 10:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
To clarify, the religious beliefs of people who posited or research evolution is irrelevant to whether evolution is true. This is for the same reason the fact that Euclid did not believe in God does not affect the truth of Euclidean geometry, and the fact that algebra originated in the Arab world does not make algebra false. GregG 10:57, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
By the way, towards the end of his life, Darwin became agnostic (not sure whether there is a God), not atheistic (believing that there is no God). [190] GregG 11:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
I misread your point above. I don't think it is correct to refer to agnostics as any kind of atheist, since the two philosophical positions are distinct. GregG 11:03, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

At a tangent, is the link to the "American Christian confounds atheists" correct? The current link takes us to a page where someone posts a link to the CMI blog and 44 people laugh at him. Where is the correct page? Rafael 07:54, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

"False flag operation: what would it look like?"

Quote from the article: "Naturally most people find [the proposition that Barack Obama is staging a false assassination attempt] outrageous. Nor can anyone possibly confirm it." Again, I must ask, why is this speculation being featured on the main page of a trustworthy encyclopedia? GregG 14:25, 3 August 2012 (EDT) EDIT: Our first commandment reads "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." It would be a different matter if we were simply commenting on the lack of verifiability of the article, as with the mainstream media's baseless attacks on arbitration. The instant situation is another matter, which appears to me to be completely out of line with our first commandment. GregG 14:39, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

First, this site can promote conservative opinions, whether by syndicated columnists or by ourselves.
Second, over two years ago I was listening to Michael Savage when he was speculating how Obama could hold onto power continually; a caller gave him the perfect answer: stage a Reichstag fire. That event happened in 1934, giving Hitler the excuse he need to gain dictatorial powers. The results of that fire: restrictions on personal freedoms; the burning of books; the persecution of non-German minorities, especially Jews; the Holocaust; and World War II.
Cut forward to 2012. We have Obama in power; government size and spending is at an all-time high; the rank and file who are jobless are increasing; the rank and file of people on government handouts is increasing; personal freedoms are disappearing (Chick-fil-A, anyone?); the DOH is stockpiling weapons and ammo by the millions (why, when it is not military?); allegations of voter fraud are increasing; and the Democrats are sweating that they would lose big in the next election...if that election were held normally, and legally. The signs - and you can call it speculation, but they are there nonetheless - are that he's becoming dictatorial.
The absolute facts are these: we have in the White House a man of whom no one outside his circle knows his past; a man who hid everything about him, from his birth, his real father, his college records, everything; a man who held friendships and partnerships with known communists, radicals, and domestic terrorists, all of which are deeply anti-American; a man who studied and implemented the works of Saul Alinsky. He calls himself "Christian", yet he sat in the pew of a racist, hate-filled preacher for over twenty years, believes in the killing of unborn children, and finds the image of the Cross so offensive that he's got to have it covered up when it's near him. And the Constitution? He's proven he will side-step the document he has sworn to protect and defend if it's convenient for him to do so. His beliefs stand for everything we are against...and we must have him again for another four years?
NO. Karajou 14:55, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Although it's irrelevant to this discussion (which is whether it is appropriate to add a mainpage link to an article filled with complete speculation that by the author's own admission is "outrageous" and impossible to confirm), I'm not a fan of Obama either. But there is an election coming up this November where Americans will decide who will be our nation's chief executive these next four years. God willing, they will choose someone who respects religious and personal liberty more than Obama and his executive branch have. But, in my opinion, the best way to go about this is to sell to the American people what we as conservatives stand for, instead of making accusations, comparisons, and personal attacks that harm conservatives' credibility, not Obama's. GregG 16:18, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I agree, the elections are the key to restoring America. Unfortunately the presumptive nominee for the GOP is barely less of a liberal than Obama, and not even close to being a real conservative despite constantly repeating conservative slogans. Dark times are approaching. Nine 16:33, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Oh, c'mon, where's our American optimism? Obama may be more liberal than we'd like, but the conservativeness of the House has increased dramatically, and the Senate is likely to pick up some seats. Not too mention that our Court leans conservative. Yes, Obama is liberal, and Romney isn't a conservative as we would like, but that's why we have a divided government and a populous that has grown up with an distrust of our leaders.
I see bright days ahead, in spite of who holds the White House. Because we're America, darn it! PaulRP 16:42, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry that I'm bit gloomy today. I do agree with you that America will prevail in spite of what happens in the White House, no doubt there. But I do feel that people are going to vote for Romney mostly because he's not Obama. The erosion of the American conservative values have left two sides: "us" and "them". People will vote for someone they've been told is one of "us", regardless of what that person really believes in. Does Romney believe in small government? He says yes, his track record no so much. He says Obamacare is the worst thing that happened in the US, yet his track record shows the opposite, and he continues to avoid renouncing Romneycare. He claims to be pro-life, but he has flip flopped before to please his voters. Sorry for the rant. Nine 16:57, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Given the current government debt levels in Europe/America and the global economic slowdown, the next president could be like Herbert Hoover who has a big mess explode on his watch (Hoover was not an economic conservative). Winning the next election might not be great for a political parties long term reputation. We might even see a third party emerge down the pike if the two parties do not reform themselves - constitutional party or libertarian party or even a party left of the democrats. Some are even predicting succession of various states down the pike. Economic instability breeds political instability and WWII and the rise of Nazism is a testimony to this fact. Reforming the two parties would be the better option, but this may not happen in a very divided country. Conservative 20:39, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Government size and spending are not at an all time high. Where do you get this stuff? Democratic presidents for all their faults reduce spending. Nate 10:10, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
"Some are even predicting succession of various states ..." Do you mean secession? Which states? And who do you mean by 'some'? -- Esseph 08:02, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Grammatical error on main page...

There are a couple of errors in "...then why is there current evangelism efforts so thoughtless and lackluster?" It should read, "...then why are their current evangelism efforts so thoughtless and lackluster?" --Benp 19:16, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Thanks, one of these days I will use the preview button and be a more diligent editor on the main page. :) Don't count on the former, but I intend to do the latter. :) Conservative 20:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Another: "Make no mistake: based on recent incidents - such as the Chick-fil-A fiasco, Ten Commandments monuments, or the mere site [sic] of the Cross...." Also, I'm not sure that Ten Commandments monuments or the sight of the Cross qualify as "incidents." CasparRH 08:08, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Voting Law Changes for Service Men and Women in Ohio

It's pretty obvious this move is intended to reduce turnout of Republican-leaning military voters. It's not disenfranchisement because they can still vote by the same rules as everybody else, and it only applies to early in-person voting, but it might make things inconvenient enough to prevent some military personnel from casting their votes.

But the much more outrageous part of that headline on Main Page Right is the numerous instances of voter fraud reportedly committed by Obama. I would love to see more information about that because it doesn't seem to be widely reported at all. --Randall7 21:07, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Erm ... that would be because the voter fraud reportedly committed by Obama is a myth. See this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/gop-fictional-voter-fraud-charges-aim-to-keeping-democrats-from-voting/ -- Esseph 08:05, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Calling all Administrators!

Could someone unlock the LSD article please? I think it needs some work done, the words on the page keep moving around! Sambiam

Thank you Sambiam

Does militant evolutionism and militant atheism cause weirdness?

Conservative, where would you put, say, snake-handling and speaking in tongues on the spectrum of "weirdness." RayM 09:40, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I am guessing snake handling is performed by a very small fraction of Christendom as it violates Luke 4:12. As far the latter, are you claiming that the Apostle Paul was weird and that Kim Jong Il was not (see: I Corinthians 14:18)? If so, please defend your position. Also, are the 25,000,000 people of North Korea weird? Is North Korea the weirdest country on earth? Also, which country is weirder - South Korea or North Korea? Conservative 11:59, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Eastwood

Eastwood endorsed McCain in 2008, so Obama hasn't "lost" his support. SharonW 16:20, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Agreed, Clint is well known as one of the few true conservatives in Hollywood Sambiam
Eastwood is not a conservative. Some of his movies are quite liberal.--Andy Schlafly 16:54, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that actors choose which movies they will star in on the basis of the political message those movies intend to send? If not, then I don't see how that's relevant. GregG 18:02, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Many of the movies he directed are liberal. Some of his social positions, such as gay marriage, are liberal as well. --Jpatt 18:10, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Eastwood was a longtime friend of McCain, and hence the endorsement in 2008. Since then Eastwood has become increasingly libertarian, so his endorsement of Romney is a sign (along with less impressive fundraising by Hollywood liberals) that Obama's support by Hollywood is not as strong as expected.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

(from earlier thread) Also, Hollywood is not raising a big money advantage for Obama as it did in 2008, so Obama has lost support there.--Andy Schlafly 16:55, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin

I noticed that there hasn't been a news item about today's shooting in Wisconsin.[191]--Ard67 19:22, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia is saddened by the news and are praying for all the families affected. We will not be calling for stricter gun laws. --Jpatt 21:08, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
Right. Also, "Ard67", note that we not trying to be a news service. If there is an underreported aspect to the tragedy that has special significance, then we're more likely to post it.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
How about that this ignorant, gun-toting, piece of garbage former soldier thought he was attacking muslims? Is that getting reported? Sambiam
Actually, I can only find one article claiming him to be a former soldier. Seems to be little information on the ground right now, so I retract that. Ignorant, gun-toting and piece of garbage still apply though. Sambiam

Swimming is "obscure"?

America produces the undisputed greatest Olympian in history, and you want to argue that his sport--practiced wherever in the world there is water--is somehow "obscure"? That's crazy. RayM 23:17, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Phelps is not "the undisputed greatest Olympian in history." Phelps competed in an upper-middle class sport inaccessible to most Americans, let alone most of the world. The swimming events (and medals) are repetitious to the point of being absurd.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
This post is amazing, just for the sheer wonder of seeing a man with degrees from Princeton and Harvard railing about "an upper-middle class sport inaccessible to most Americans." RayM 23:58, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm just stating facts, as anyone can observe. Competitive swimming is a good sport, but Phelps is not competing against the finest American athletes, let alone the finest athletes in the world.--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy is entirely correct. Being born into wealth gives certain individuals a head start, while not having access to these advantages means that others' talent is wasted. A more equal distribution of resources and a culture that recognizes the benefits of some being born luck is necessary to end such inefficiencies. --MRend 00:19, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
This is a good point, and I think you're getting at what I'm thinking of with your last phrase, but I'd just like to note that being successful in competitive swimming at that level to the degree Mr. Phelps has also requires a particular set of bodily proportions that are far from common. Much the same way that, no matter how hard you work, if you're 5'6", the likelihood of you playing in the NBA is negligible at best. --DTSavage 02:27, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
So why does Missy, all 6ft one of her with size 13 feet, so praised by Conservapedia, who also competes in "an upper-middle class sport inaccessible to most Americans", not compete in a sport deemed to to be obscure? Phelps competes against others of his ilk as does Missy Franklin. If most Americans cannot hope to be given the chance to do what Phelps has been able to do then that is America's problem, not Phelps'. My real problem, though, is the word "obscure". Perhaps Andy, you can give us your meaning of this word, seeing as swimming is one of the most popular disciplines in the games world wide. AlanE 03:01, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
An American takes a record long held by the USSR. Arguably one of the best athletes of history, and unarguably the athlete with the most medals in Olympic games. Who are America's finest athletes ? The world finest athletes? We should be proud of American accomplishments. Bashing him, at least to me, seems hateful and anti patriotic. Go USA! Nine 09:12, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

So let me get this straight.

1. Michael Phelps, who has won more medals than anyone in Olympic history, is over-promoted.

2. Michael Phelps doesn't compete against the finest athletes in America or the world.

3. Swimming is an upper middle class sport inaccessible to most Americans.

4. Olympic swimming events are repetitious to the point of being absurd.

Reality:

1. Michael Phelps is promoted because he's won more medals than anyone Olympic history, not because he fails to "give thanks to god" or because he went to public schools. His achievements are a story. People want to read/hear about him. That's why the media focuses on him.


2. Whether he competes against the finest athletes in the world or America is moot. The fact is he competes against the finest swimmers in the world and has shown that he is the best.

3. How is swimming inaccessible? Swimming is more inaccessible than gymnastics? Anyone can go to a local PUBLIC pool and swim. Lakes, ponds, oceans... Can anyone just walk into a gym and hop on a balance beam?

4. I'm no expert on Olympic swimming events but it seems to me that regardless of whether they are repetitious, Michael Phelps has dominated most of them. Other swimmers have had the same opportunity but he's defeated them. He's American, and if he's not the greatest Olympian of all time, there's no question he's the greatest swimmer. Maybe the ideology should be put aside and that fact should be celebrated. And by the way Andy, what you said were not facts. They were opinions.

-chicagotony

Just as an aside, there are more Track & Field events than swimming events. If someone won the 4x100m relay, the 100m dash, the 200m dash, the 110m hurdles, the 400m dash, the long-jump, the triple-jump, and the high-jump, you wouldn't say "Well, they are all basically derivatives of running, and thus repetitious." The common refrain would be "Wow, this person is obviously one of the greatest athletes in Olympics history!"
Can't you just be happy for a hard working American who came from a lower middle class upbringing to become the greatest in his sport? PaulRP 10:31, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Let's have separate events and gold medals for a 200m butterfly, 210m butterfly, 220m butterfly, 230m butterfly, and then 4-man relays in each event also!--Andy Schlafly 11:13, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
How would you measure and time those races? Seems a strange suggestion to me.--CGrande 11:28, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
In this Olympics, Phelps received a medal in the 100m and 200m butterfly, the 200m IM, and 4x100m medley. This is pretty comparable to the 100m dash, the 200m dash, the heptathalon (or maybe the 110m hurdles), and the 4x100m relay. Are you suggesting we combing these four events in Track as well? Maybe we can have just the 100m dash, and the one mile run? PaulRP 11:27, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Guys, if Phelps were a republican sportsman who incessantly mentioned God, Mr. Schafly wouldn't be whining and calling swimming obscure. For people like him, the truth is there to bend or ignore. Baobab 12:31, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Chicagotony (and other swimming apologists), it's pretty obvious that swimming does have too many events at the Olympics, and is greatly over-rewarded. Look at the individual medal winners table here - the top 11 medal winners are all swimmers. Sure, they all train hard and are great competitors, but it would be absurd to suggest that they were the 11 best sportspeople competing at these games.
Swimming has always greatly distorted the medals table. This year, for instance, over 50% of the USA's gold medals have come from that one sport - again, no-one can possibly suggest that the American swim team is better than all the rest of the American Olympic team put together, can they??? If you ignore swimming, the US comes in its rightful place in the medals table, below Great Britain, which has had a great Games in a wide variety of sports and disciplines that are actually different from each other.--CPalmer 06:49, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
You're right, and you make the point well. The inflated number of swimming medals is absurd. Britain has done remarkably well in the past week, and some of its gold medals (e.g., Andy Murray in tennis) were nothing short of spectacular.
Conservatives accept the real facts, even when (in this case) it is contrary to American bravado.--Andy Schlafly 11:19, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Cleverly, you have changed the subject. The topic, if you recall, was whether swimming is obscure and Michael Phelps and his so-called over-promotion by the media, not swimming (events) in general. I wasn't apologizing for swimming. As I said, I'm no swimming expert. The FACTS are that regardless of how many events there are in swimming, Michael Phelps has dominated. Everyone has had the same opportunity to win, including Great Britain's swimmers. I also said it's debatable whether he is the best athlete, in contrast to the best swimmer, of which there is no doubt. To debate the number of events in swimming and its effect on the medal count is a different topic altogether. BTW, to reemphasize the point about accessibility to swimming, take a moment to read the second paragraph of the British swim team's website. http://www.teamgb.com/summer-sports/swimming - chicagotony

Ah, right. Well, no, swimming isn't obscure. With the media ramming it down everybody's throats, it's the opposite of obscure - it's undeservedly well-known. Phelps is a super swimmer, an all-time great, and I don't want to take anything away from him, but his pail-load of gold medals does not necessarily make him "the greatest ever Olympian" like a lot of people want to make out. I'd say the superior achievement is winning gold at many different Olympics - Steve Redgrave achieved five in a row (no pun intended), Birgit Fischer won at six separate Games over a long period. This year, the fencer Valentina Vezzali has won gold at her fifth consecutive Olympics, so why aren't the lamestream media talking about her?.--CPalmer 04:19, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
How do you mean they're not talking about her? The Guardian, The Times of India, The Washington Times, Vogue, The BBC - and that was with a one minute quick Google search. SharonW 16:36, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
They report her, but they don't bang on about her like they do about Michael Phelps, and her coverage receives much less prominence.--CPalmer 06:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Liberal media smear the army

WHERE in the Yahoo article is the army smeared? He was enlisted. It's part of his past and they mentioned it. I'm sure if he went to public school twenty years ago and they DIDN'T mention it, you'd be complaining. By the logic you are using, the liberal media is also smearing white, bald, heavy-set people. -chicagotony

No, I agree with Andy. It's definitely a smear if someone trained by the United States Army cannot tell a Sikh from a Muslim. Sambiam
I'd also note that the article doesn't mention video games at all. Unless my computer's ctrl-f just doesn't work. If we're assuming that any instance where large numbers of people get killed by a single person in a tragic shooting to be video-game like, can we at least put that down as official written policy, or find credible sources that make that comparison?--DTSavage 12:09, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
The liberal media won't report on how mass murderers were obsessed with role-playing video games before going on their killing sprees. The British press might - as it did in connection with James Eagan Holmes.--Andy Schlafly 12:32, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Of course, there's always the possibility that video games were not involved. This website is the only place where the insinuation has been made, unless someone can correct me with a citation. -- Esseph 13:25, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
TMZ reported that Mr. Holmes was addicted to Guitar Hero, which I don't think is an RPG nor violent.[192] GregG 14:09, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
The term "role-playing" in the context of video games tends to refer to a very specific subset of games as a whole, much like "superhero movie", "epic poem" or "romantic comedy". The most commonly cited games in people discussing tragedies like this one--Halo, Call of Duty, etc--are all first-person shooters. Not roleplaying games. Recent mainstream examples of the RPG genre include Mass Effect, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and others. I haven't seen these games cited in reports about shootings of any sort. That'd be like trying to discuss violence in movies like The Dark Knight Rises, but actually using The Lion King as an example.--DTSavage 00:48, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

"Sikh gunman"?????

Wade Michael Page in front of the Nazi flag

The News column says, "The Sikh gunman was a Nazi". He wasn't a Sikh gunman, he has a gunman who murdered six Sikhs in place of worship. Please correct this because the current wording is pretty offensive to Sikhs. StaceyT 16:23, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

It's also inaccurate to say he was a Nazi, even if the Daily Mail did. He appears to have been a white supremacist, which might also be described as a neo-Nazi. --Esseph 16:26, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
"Inaccurate" to say he was a Nazi, when you call him a "neo-Nazi"? If the jackboot fits... Karajou 23:16, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
There are important differences between a Nazi and a neo-Nazi. If a Nazi were to shoot people this week in Wisconsin, he would probably be an 80 or 90 year old man who had been hiding in Argentina. A neo-Nazi is someone who wasn't a member of the German group during World War II. Clear and precise wording is important. Thanks, Wschact 09:51, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks, Wschact. -- Esseph 09:54, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
And you're still trying to make out a difference between the two, as if one is better than the other. This thug murdered innocent people in cold blood, just like his "heroes" in Germany did before and during World War II; this thug read the same material; preached the same philosophy; spouted the same garbage; hated the same non-white people; and stood posing in front of the same flag. There's no difference here, kids, and it's high time that you learn it. Karajou 15:33, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Not as if one is better than the other, simply as an aid to clear thinking, kid. --Esseph 16:43, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
What a weird, completely nonsensical comment from Karajou. Nobody is suggesting -- or even implying -- that one is better or worse than the other. Wschact is simply raising a semantic distinction. The only person to have introduced any moral hierarchy between Nazis and neo-Nazis is Karajou. Bizarre. --Jdixon 10:09, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
I didn't introduce any moral hierarchy between Nazis and neo-Nazis, nor did I imply it. They are cut from the same cloth. If anything, it's yourself, Wschact, and Esseph that's trying to push a bizarre difference. And you, Jdixon, I'm sure you didn't come here to contribute anything but talk. Karajou 12:01, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
No, hang on. You ARE implying a moral distinction between Nazis and Neo-Nazis. You brought in the phrase ""as if one is better than the other". Nobody apart from you said that. Your point -- as I understand it -- is that Wscacht is suggesting that the gunman is less culpable because he is a neo-Nazi rather than a Nazi. He's not. He's merely saying that the phrases mean slightly different things. What is this "bizarre difference" we are arguing for? We are saying that the prefix "neo-" implies contemporary, rather than contemporaneous, followers of Hitler. --Jdixon 11:49, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
Ach, what the heck, it's semantics anyway. You're right Karajou, there isn't a cigarette paper between the beliefs of a Nazi and a neo-Nazi.--Esseph 22:47, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
EXACTLY! That's the point we are making. It is a semantic, rather than a moral, distinction. But is a distinction nonetheless. --Jdixon 11:49, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Phelps vs Franklin

Mr Schafly, please could you explain why Conservapedia regards Michael Phelps as overpromoted and obscure while Missy Franklin is underreported. They're both swimmers after all... And both very successful athletes. StaceyT 16:29, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

They are both successful athletes, yes, but Phelps is promoted far more by the lamestream media than Franklin is. That's what overpromoted and underreported refers to.--Andy Schlafly 16:37, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Hmm... I'll have a think about that one. Thanks for taking the time to reply. StaceyT 17:21, 6 August 2012 (EDT) X

Most scientists are Democrats

This is surely not a surprise. Republicans are biased against science; conservatives are fundamentally opposed to science. As far as inferring causation, I think it's more likely that being a scientist makes you sympathetic to the Democrats, than the other way round. --Esseph 08:52, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Two words: Global cooling. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20–21, KJV).[193][194] Conservative 09:10, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Try Daniel I. The wonderful thing about science is that it learns from its mistakes. Five words: E=mc2, relativity, global warming, evolution. Conservative hostility to science. -- Esseph 09:43, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Many areas of human endeavor have some degree of learning from mistakes. Even freethoughtblogs canned Thunderf00t after he embarrassed himself by excessively using all caps in his first post![195] :) Conservative 13:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Islam and Obamacare

Snopes covers this claim well: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp. My understanding is that Muslims do not have an absolute bar on buying insurance. I'm also not aware of any exemption having been granted to Muslims from the individual mandate. GregG 12:01, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Like some Christians, some Muslims believe that you should not charge or pay interest (the sin of usury, strictly interpreted) or invest in a fund that makes money from interest. There are many banks around the world already offering Sharia compliant financial products and investments. I would be surprised if someone isn't already offering compliant health insurance. Once again, a Main Page item is from an op-ed blog...Rafael 13:36, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
The funny thing is that the source material used by the linked article states that Muslims might not be covered by the exception, but that Christian Scientist, Amish, and Native Americans most likely are. This seems like cherry picking facts to further some type of conspiracy. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the health care law as it stands, but not based on some far fetched conspiracy theories. Nine 13:47, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

I've never understood things like this. It would be so easy for us to debate Obama on his policies, but yet our side seems to spend so much time accusing Barack Hussein Obama (and, may I emphasize, his middle name is Hussein) of being Muslim and giving his Muslim friends insurance exemptions...or something...
Rather than debating legitimate issues about the size and scope of our government, we seem all too eager to call him a Muslim and assume that it will be enough to win the election for us.
Please, if you don't like the Health Care law, tell me about why the higher taxes will hurt business growth in a recession, or about how it surpresses free market innovation, or how it introduces a level of government that we think is unsustainable. Don't just call Obama a Muslim. Because it makes our entire side sound childish and out of ideas. PaulRP 14:13, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

26 USC 1402(g)(1), the statute cited in the religious exemption from the individual mandate, requires religions to have continuously existed since December 31, 1950. GregG 14:58, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Bah, scientology was this close! PaulRP 15:03, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Yorkshire Gold

Apparently the northern county of Yorkshire (population around 4 million) has accounted for 25% of medals for team GB - in fact they would rank ahead of Australia and Japan on Olympics medals table (Japan has a population of around 128 million). How does that compare to individual states in the U.S? What's the most conservative and Bible-believing state and how have they performed? EJamesW 15:52, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Ey By Gum!! GO Team GB - in your face Australia!! (I guess until we play you in cricket or rugby again) Nikroberts 18:56, 7 August 2012 (BST)

As the states go, there are 27 of them represented by US Olympic medalists (as of now). The breakdown is as follows:
  • 22 - California
  • 9 - New York
  • 6 - Pennsylvania
  • 5 - Illinois, Ohio, and those born outside the USA
  • 4 - Virginia, Arizona, North Carolina
  • 3 - New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Tennessee, Washington, Maryland
  • 2 - Texas, Kentucky, Hawaii, Georgia
  • 1 - Massachusetts, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, Kansas, Iowa, Florida

WesleySHello! 19:55, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

22 from California? Wow, that's a lot of medals for such a liberal state. I find that surprising. RayM 20:44, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Keep in mind that this is where the athletes were born. I'd expect Summer Olympics athletes (at least for the outdoor events) to reside in warmer climates so they can practice their craft year-round. WesleySHello! 21:04, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Yorkshire has much the same climate as California :-)--DHouser 08:56, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Olympic News Suggestion

May I suggest posting something about Galen Rupp or Leo Manzano? They are the first American`s to win medals in the 10000m and 1500m (respectively) in nearly 50 years. I can even get appropriate news articles if an admin would like. --SLionelSay "hi!" 23:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Katie Taylor for the front page?

I am disappointed we have not seen the fabulous Katie Taylor on the front page. Easily the best female boxer in the world, a sensation in her native Ireland, she is a committed Christian and always thanks God after her fights. She is a marvel and should win gold on Thursday. http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=10613 --Jdixon 09:58, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Science proves that atheists can't jump

Do we need another "atheists are fat, ha, ha" article in an encyclopedia? Rafael 11:02, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

I don't think calling something "satire" merits an exemption from our first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Of course, this page has been permanently protected by its author in a clear abuse of the privilege to protect pages. GregG 11:22, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
You forgot the unwritten rule that admins can do whatever they want and that one can clutter up the site with any unhelpful nonsense he wishes as long as it's labeled "essay".CasparRH 11:47, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
Are there any NBA basketball players are atheists?[196] :) See also: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism and Essay: Science proves that atheists can't jump (updated version) Conservative 14:20, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
Interestingly, I found in the terms of use for the site you linked the following passage: " ChaCha does not guarantee that the information will (a) be accurate, complete or useful in any way whatsoever." It also doesn't appear that there is any sort of verification with regards to the answers, and we don't even know who wrote them, much less what the answerer's knowledge is. GregG 14:25, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

GregG, give me the name of an atheist NBA player. :) Once again, you responded with a Washington Generals like comment. Your comments are so easy to respond to. :) Conservative 15:56, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Don't know why the YouTube link was there. I can't find anything about any NBA players being atheist that I can post here under our First Commandment (which requires verifiability) or our rule against gossip. Generally, with few exceptions (Tebow, Durant, etc.), athletes do not air their religious or political beliefs in public, especially when they are against societal norms (such as Christianity in the United States). I did find a source indicating that Kristin Turk, a player in Sweden's top basketball league, is openly atheist. This says nothing about any correlation, much less causation, between religious beliefs and ability to jump athletically.
Regardless, the statement "Science proves that atheists can't jump" has absolutely no citations and is ridiculously false. The "gallery" is completely unsourced and irrelevant: one could just as easily ask "Could Ronald Reagan have slam-dunked a basketball as an NBA player?". Likewise, the statement "Generally speaking, when scrawny atheist nerds are allowed to play in neighborhood sports teams, they will be the last person picked for the team" is completely unsourced and unverifiable, and is patently ridiculous, too. I would say more, but, as the internet adage goes: DFTT. (P.S. I hate edit conflicts.) GregG 16:14, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
There will never be a Swedish basketball Dream Team. As far as I know, there country is being taken over by Muslims due the low fertility rate of native Swedes. I know soccer is popular among Arabs, but I am guessing basketball is not. Conservative 17:47, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

So Muslim = Arab; and 5% of the population = being taken over? Objective, perceptive and classy.Rafael 08:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

That is not saying much since basketball is primarily an American sport. Sort of like saying "There will never be an American cricket dream team although I know baseball is popular with Communist Cubans and Shintoist Japanese" and then holding that out as some failing of Christianity and Americanism. --Dduckworth 23:14, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
Rafael, what do demographic scholars say about the future of Islam and evangelical Christianity in Sweden based on fertility rates, immigration and evangelism in terms of the next 40 years? Is my comment very unreasonable? If so, why? Conservative 16:07, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Rafael, when I made my Arab/Sweden comment, I was giving undue influence to the Muslims I personally know from Middle East. Upon further reflection, given the recent history of Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am guessing that Sweden has received large influxes of Muslim immigrants from those countries as well. Here is what the UK experienced in terms of immigration in 2010 broken down by various countries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics Anyways, it is largely a moot point as I am guessing there are not many Muslim countries where basketball is extremely popular. Please feel free to show Muslim countries which have done well in Olympic basketball in recent years. Conservative 16:37, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

For the record, many (perhaps most) Swedish Muslims are non-Arab, from Iran, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, and Albania. Also, a large proportion are non-practicing. CasparRH 16:58, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

I am not saying this to be argumentative: 1) What percentage of Swedish Muslims are non-practicing? 2) Do you have any sources for your two claims above? I thought you may have bookmarked them or be able to readily recall the web article or articles. Conservative 22:24, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
http://www.euro-islam.info/2010/02/24/islam-in-sweden/ CasparRH 14:40, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

What will 2049 look like in Sweden? Christian or Muslim creationist majority?

Flag of Sweden.png

Will Sweden have a Christian creationist majority or a Muslim creationist majority by 2049?[197] Root for the Christian creationists![198] We know the Swedish Darwinists don't have a chance![199] Conservative 20:40, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

That's a tough target. Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in Europe. See http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf, the graph on page 9. What's more, over 80 percent of Swedes believe in evolution, a fact you can easily check.

Will Swedish evolutionism be a tough target as time passes if: Swedish evolutionists have sub replacement birth rates and creationist/religious Swedes have replacement level plus birth rates[200], immigration continues and Sweden encounters aggressive online/offline evangelism and online/offline creationism evangelism?[201] 2049 is a little over a generation away. Already, UK evangelical immigrants are challenging the UK establishment church.[202]

Rome and her native gods were a tough target. Yet, Christianity prevailed. When is the last time you met a Zeus worshiper? Biblical Christianity has a habit of being victorious over false religions such as paganism, atheism, agnosticism and evolutionism. Conservative 04:17, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Atheism is not a religion--not having a religion is not a religion. By such a definition, it would be impossible for any individual to not have a religion, which is untenable. "Evolutionism" is not a religion. It is a scientific viewpoint. It is very possible to be both a committed Christian and a believer in evolution, in a way that it is not possible to be, say, a Christian and a Jew or a Muslim. RayM 08:32, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
The UK has "UK evangelical immigrants" but Sweden is being "taken over by Muslims" Rafael 09:01, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Are you defaming the Catholic Church again, "Conservative"? "Native gods"? What hateful nonsense. Nate 17:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Why the obsession with Sweden? CasparRH 09:09, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Rafael, Muslims in Sweden receive press due to protests, unemployment and raping women not wearing veils[203][204], but what is happening within the evangelical Christian community in Sweden? In times of declining profits to news organizations, if you want to better understand the world, I think it is a mistake to be overly dependent press for your information. It is easy to do internet research once you learn some skills. Poke around the internet and let me know what you find. Conservative 13:45, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Poking around the sources you've provided, I can't find any evidence of Muslims raping women for not wearing veils. What I read is "Unemployment in Rosengaard is reported to be 70 percent. An immigrant-fueled crime wave affects one of every three Malmö families each year. The number of rapes has tripled in 20 years". A clever juxtaposition of facts and assertions expressed in emotive language, but no smoking gun. Areas with high unemployment have more crime and social problems, as you've already proved with your contributions on the Protestant Work Ethic. There is plenty of evidence that the children of evangelical immigrants to the UK are leaving the Church [205]and, from my own and my wife's youth work, getting involved in gang crime and violence, so my point stands.Rafael 15:21, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Caspar, please elaborate.Conservative 13:47, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Here and in other places you seem unduly concerned about the future religious/philosophical character of the people of Sweden. In Western Europe, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland all have a larger proportion of Muslims than Sweden. CasparRH 16:30, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Rafael, I am going to be attending to something else for 2-3 hours, but I did skim your source and it appears to say nothing about UK evangelical immigrants and gives very limited information on evangelical Protestantism in the UK. I do think it is important to differentiate between conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants as far as what is happening in bona fide Christianity. A so-called liberal Christian might not even believe in the deity of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Conservative 15:57, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Its from the Evangelical Alliance website.[206][207]. Given your posts about evangelism and Question Evolution in the UK, I'm surprised you haven't come across them before.Rafael 17:05, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Rafael, Swedish rapists and foreigners: http://europenews.dk/en/node/22631 Thanks for letting me know about that website, but your article still lacks the deficiencies I mentioned in terms of your claim. Conservative 18:03, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
No offence, but I'll take the Evangelical Alliance - part of the World Evangelical Alliance - over a blog by someone who calls himself The Opinionator and cites other blogs as sources. Rafael 08:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

CasperRH, on the main page I have mentioned Germany, France and Switzerland. If memory serves, I mentioned their religious affairs in some of those posts. Conservative 18:03, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

I may have missed them, but I have seen 2 or 3 other instances (not necessarily on the main page) where you've singled out Sweden. CasparRH 14:37, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Casper, you wrote: "In Western Europe, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland all have a larger proportion of Muslims than Sweden". Do you readily have at your disposal any web articles you may have read about this matter? Conservative 22:28, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
CIA World Factbook. CasparRH 14:37, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Lolo Jones attacked by the NYT

An American athlete denigrated? Who would do such a thing? PaulRP 23:20, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Clever response. But your examples are not comparable to a scathing article by the New York Times a mere two days before the final race.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
Yes Andy but your 'liberals hate LoloJones' narrative would work better if the exceedingly liberal and hedonstic Gawker website Deadspin didn't [ http://deadspin.com/5931911/what-did-lolo-jones-ever-do-to-the-new-york-times excoriate] the New York Times for its article. --Dduckworth 00:22, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Yes, ASchlafly, but print media is dead, so why should Jones have cared what the Times said? With Conservapedia's ever-increasing record monthly views, do you not worry that this site's own scathing comments on Phelps and the US basketball team may have had a larger effect? RayM 08:29, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools