Talk:Main Page/archive56

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Any President Other than a Christian One

Are there any solid reasons to oppose an atheist president (or a Muslim one, or a Jewish one, or a Buddhist one, or a Hindu one etc) other than either superficial reasons (they won't be able to say a pledge like they have in the past) or unsupported reasons (that Islamofacists will be automatically victorious)? Does a President's religion really matter as long as he or she can do the job that he or she is elected to do? Discrimination based on a person's religion (or lack thereof) has no justification in a multicultural society in which all are considered equal. TheGySom 07:14, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You ask as though a person's religion has no effect on them, how they act, etc. I would say that their religion has a great bearing on such things, and is therefore of great significance. Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Well I was very pleased that Blair didn't become catholic until after his term (scared of being labeled a religious freak, and whilst he was in power his spokesman stated that God didn't enter it politics. And even more liberating is the fact we now have a potential prime minister who is an atheist. Makes me pleased that faith doesn't seem to make much difference to the english, it means we can concentrate more on the winning smile and personality. Amusingly, now we have someone that's not worth looking at, boring as hell, and one of the top two qualified world leaders (only two with doctorates), he seems to be geniunely well at the politics side of things. Perhaps one day we'll have the sense to concentrate on the policies, though it will probably take an ugly atheist taking over from an ex-leader.Raggs 07:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I am not denying that religion will have no effect on them, however so will a number of factors, where they were raised, how they were raised, what type of social company they will keep, whether they shower in the morning or at night... Unless we want to start denying those raised in single parent families the right to be President or Prime Minister then what is the justification for doing the same based on religious grounds? There is the age old argument about their views on abortion, evolution being taught in schools etc, but really at the end of the day their job in a democracy (such as Australia or America) is to represent the views of the majority, not to impose their own morals onto society, and therefore the role that a person's religion or lack thereof should play is minimal. TheGySom 07:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to disagree with you there thegysom, a president (or prime minister), is not there in my mind to represent the views of the majority, but to lead the country well and successfully. Margaret Thatcher was exceptionally unpopular when she shut down the mines, and broke the power of the unions, but it sure as hell saved the country 10-20 years down the line. It had to be done, regardless of popularity. This is what I want in a conutry leader, someone willing to do what needs to be done to keep the country going. Not to follow the general ignorance of the population. But then in my mind most people shouldn't be eligable to vote, if you don't know how to run a country, then you don't know enough to be picking someone to do it for you.Raggs 07:54, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm afraid I must disagree with the disagreement above, inevitably a President or Prime Minister must represent the views of the majority, and if the majority are wrong then they will suffer for it. In a perfect democracy elected leaders would try to make changes that would benefit their state in the distant future, rather than just focusing on 3-4 year terms, and the general public would be well informed of all decisions. Sadly reality is anything but, due to the party system politicians generally take a reactive approach to issues, and the sensationalism of the media prevents any form of proper education. That said, if you want a democracy you have to have leaders performing the acts wished by the majority, even if they are potentially harmful in the long run. And we are also going ridiculously off topic, may I suggest a Debate:Should nation leaders always follow the views of the majority or something along those lines. TheGySom 08:03, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Well said, Raggs. But even if a President or Prime Minister should simply represent the wishes of the people, it's not what happens in practice, and no leader is going to do that perfectly anyway. Religion is different to whether they shower in the morning, because religion goes to the core of what we believe about the most fundamental matters. Philip J. Rayment 08:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Well gysom I believe a technocracy should be put in place, it can be long term, and it supposedly puts those that know about a subject in charge of it (don't ask me why, but that just makes sense to me). But with a democracy I believe at the very least there should be a questionaire in place to make sure voters know the policies of at least the major parties, before being eligable to vote. Phil, religion should go to their very core, but how often is that the case in truth? I'm afraid I don't see religion as a decent indicator of a person moral compass most the times. There is a common claim of atheists lack morals, and a truly unfounded one, perhaps they can point towards a humanist book to show people what they believe as opposed to using the bible? And a humanist position at least wouldn't suggest they believe in stoning adulterers and children who are rude to their parents etc etc (a fun little poke there).Raggs 08:15, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I guess it's true that one's stated religion isn't always a good guide to their actual beliefs, as there are many people around in the U.S. and Australia, for example, who are nominally Christian, but who often hold to unbiblical views. Perhaps some do claim that atheists lack morals, but the more accurate claim is that atheists have no absolute basis for morals. Christians can point to God/the Bible as the basis for their morals. Atheists can only point to their own opinions, and opinions vary enormously (e.g. Stalin). Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Is that true, Philip? Many atheists surely do have an absolute basis for their morals, such as the Golden Rule. Ajkgordon 09:31, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
The Golden Rule is not a requirement of atheism. Some choose to use it. That is, whether or not to use it as a basis is their opinion, and that opinion is not based on atheism, but on a residual Christian heritage. Philip J. Rayment 09:54, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
The Golden Rule was around before Christianity, it is a fundamental Jewish value, being described as "the essence of the whole Torah ---user:DLerner--- 09:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
That may be so, but it would still be true that most atheists who hold to the Golen Rule would have learned about it directly or indirectly via Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 09:59, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
No, it is not a requirement of atheism because there are no requirements of atheism. But surely many atheists use it (and other things) as an absolute basis for their morals. Ajkgordon 10:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
They might use it as a basis for their morals, but as long as it is not a requirement, as long as it is a matter of opinion to use it, it is not an absolute basis. An atheist who uses the Golden Rule as the basis for his morals could, at any time, decide to stop using the Golden Rule as his basis, and he would not in any way be going against his atheism to do so, because his basis is not absolute. Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
This country was founded on freedom of religion, and for some reason, people care what religion the leader is? Anyone can be a Christian (not nessicerally a good one), but not everyone can be president. You need skills, not nessicerally a certain religion. --Rocky
The U.S. was "founded on freedom of religion" because of the lack of freedom that they had back in Britain, where the King was the head of the church. They weren't after the right to be Muslim, Hindu, etc., but to practice their Christianity free of the King's control. Also, a Christian believes in freedom of religion (Christian or otherwise) because being a Christian means believing in Christ, not being forced to pay lip service to Him. Forcing someone to be a Christian does not make them a Christian, so people must be free to believe. Neither of these points means that one should not care about the beliefs of the president. Philip J. Rayment 04:00, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but, freedom of religion applies to the right to worship all religions (unless they will cause injury) freely. Who cares what the president worships. It does not matter if he (or she) is a Muslim (although most people would call it a conflict of interest). However, if they can get the job done, and they happen not to be a Christian, does that mean that they should not be voted in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky (talk)
"Who cares what the president worships"? A lot of people, I'm sure. If the President has a different religion than your own, he will likely run the country in a way that you don't agree with, as one's beliefs affect one's actions. Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but, our current president is a Christian, and I am a Christian. I think that he is an idiot and an awful president. This is because, now I believe that a lot of things have happened in this country since he has been elected in. For instance, when Clinton was president, at least we had a time of prosperaty. Now, we are in debt trillions of dollars. That is more than a couple of dollars overbudget. Also, Jesus Christ talked about peace, and loving for one's brother. However, since we have invaded Iraq, well, I don't quite know how to phrase it, but, that country has become a huge mess. What I find weird is that Saddam, who is an exteremly evil person, could keep that country under control. However, the most powerful (not the most prosperous, again, trillions of dollars overbudget) has been unable to control that area. Wow, what a compleatly random rant. Where was I? Ah, yes, the fact that many people in this country are Christian, including me, and the president is Christian, and yet, his approval rating is down the tubes. So, how would it be any different with a president that had different religious beliefs? --Rocky

(unindent) How "Christian" is Bush? In America particularly, most politicians would claim to be Christian simply because most of the population is. I'm not suggesting that he's not a Christian, but how real versus how nominal is his faith? I'm not really in a position to give an accurate answer on that, but I do recall reading American Christians not wanting to vote for him because he wasn't Christian enough.

Perhaps the prosperity enjoyed under Clinton was due to causes other than the competence of the president. Clinton wasn't waging wars, for example. God didn't just talk about peace, but also about justice, and justice sometimes has to be imposed with a big stick. There's nothing inherently unchristian in waging a war: it depends on the individual case.

Despite Hussein keeping the country "under control", I"d say that it was already "a huge mess", so it couldn't "become" one as a result of the war. And remember how Hussein kept the country under control: by the most brutal means. You can't expect America to use the same methods.

Philip J. Rayment 07:27, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that you are thinking of John McCain, who is questioned by conservatives on how conservative he was, however, I might be wrong.
All I am thinking about with this war was that, well, more people have hated America more since we have been in there (especially in that area), which signifies that the country has been in worse shape than when we originally started. Also, there was no reason to go into that area (that is present) except that he wanted to finish his father's work (which in fact was to take out Saddam). So, it sounds that he did it for personal reasons and his father did it for good reasons (however, I am not quite sure why he invaded, either).
America used the same methods on people at GitMo, for "suspected terroriests". Our country will not acknowledge that they exist, however, our solders will do it to people that have not been found guilt of any crime, or that might be innocent (we don't give them a trial or do anything for them. We don't give them respect for who they are). Now, does this mean that everyone in GitMo is innocent? No. However, we don't know without a trial. Sounds like we are using somewhat brutal methods on people.
I never said that his methods were pretty, the dude was a jerk (I am afraid that if I say another word, it would be blocked). However, I was just stating that he seemed to have kept the country under control. --Rocky
No, I was thinking of G.W. Bush. People are fickle (think of the Israelites longing for the slavery of Egypt whilst in the wilderness), so current loathing in Iraq for Americans, likely actually overstated by the media, doesn't indicate much about the country's shape. If Bush Jnr. wanted to finish his father's work, and his father had good reasons, doesn't that mean that junior had good reasons? No, even if America has used unacceptable methods at Guantanamo, they would be nothing like Saddam and his group used. Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Obama has communist ties?

I found this article about Barack Obama on David Duke's blog. If these information were true, then Obama would be a very dangerous threat. Thiudareiks 06:59, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Did it occur to you that a poorly sourced article about a Democrat, written by a Republican, may be less than reliable? Keep in mind that in the same time period Obama is accused of having associated with two people who later became terrorists (with no connection between Obama and the acts of terrorism established) Duke was happily playing with the KKK and spreading his views about racial segragation (something he retains to this day), which would appear to be a much greater threat to American society. TheGySom 07:06, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
David Duke is such an eminently reliable resource that it clearly must be true. I am going to ask him about it at the next meeting, when the hoods come off and we snack while talking about the Glorious White Race. It's my turn to bring the donuts.--TomMoore 21:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh brother...

Here we go again! People, evolution does not "naturally lead to atheism"—just ask Ken Miller. --transResident Transfanform! 17:10, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

You just relied on fallacious point 6 in liberal logic. It's absurd for liberals to pretend that a counterexample disproves a correlation and disproves causation. You'd make a good apologist for the tobacco industry: just advertise a 100-year-old lifelong smoker! And, by they way, you have not even presented a counterexample because there is no independent confirmation of Miller's actual religious beliefs.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Wait, so you're implying that Miller is lying about his faith? Also, you have just committed "fallacy fallacy" by assuming me to be wrong on the basis of me using a logical fallacy. --transResident Transfanform! 17:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
What's the evidence for a causal relationship? Murray 18:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
No, Aschlafly was not implying that Ken Miller is lying about his faith; merely that he could be. Are you claiming that he could not possibly be? He might even be indicating that Ken Miller is self-deluded on this, especially given the following observation: "And, all the while protesting belief in God, Miller himself is very much opposed to God even as an Intelligent Designer. It makes one wonder about the genuineness of his Roman Catholicism, because an essential dogma of that faith, as defined by the First Vatican Council is ‘the one true God our creator and lord can be known for certain through the creation by the natural light of human reason’, which was based on Romans 1:20 ff. The atheistic philosopher Antony Flew was certainly not impressed by people like Miller who denied their own doctrines"[1].
And he is right to point out that a single (or even several) counter-examples do not disprove the claim, which was not that evolution will inevitably or alway lead to atheism, just that it does. Charles Templeton is a good example (but by no means the only one).
Causal relationship? William Provine said, "belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism" (Ken Miller take note).
Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

That may be what William Provine had to say but is not exactly evidence of a causal relationship. It is at least equally plausible that some other construct causes individuals to both be atheists and to conclude that the ToE is the best available explanation for how current species came to be. Murray 13:55, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

What sort of evidence would you find acceptable? I recall reading about surveys showing that belief in Christianity dropped when students were taught evolution, but can't at present find that information. But if I did, would that satisfy you? And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of this too, but I guess you wouldn't be satisfied with that. Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Hi Philip. You're right, anecdotal evidence wouldn't be very convincing. A survey wouldn't work either - as I imagine you are aware, survey methodology can never indicate a causal relationship. That would, I would think, show a correlation. In that case, how do we know atheism didn't come first? Or that some other variable came before both and caused both? My guess is that it's more likely that atheism comes first, rather than vice versa. Murray 23:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually I just re-read your post and it is possible that you may not have meant "survey" as it's usually defined. If that's the case, then it would depend on the methodology. There are 3 criteria for showing causality, so a study that met those criteria would likely be at least somewhat convincing. Murray 23:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
If you want a rigorous study of causality, then no, I doubt that what I saw was that. Further, I doubt that such as study has been done. But I think that the idea that atheism came first is considerably less likely. Dawkins said that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", which indicates that without evolution, there's really not that much of an intellectual argument in favour of atheism. Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I would certainly want some meaningful evidence, yes. And that may be true for Dawkins, that doesn't make it universally true. I don't agree that there's "not that much of an intellectual argument" for atheism without evolution; in fact, in my experience the two are basically orthogonal. Atheism comes along with the assumption that the biblical creation account is wrong, but not that evolution has to be right. The argument against atheism is that there is a god, not that evolution didn't occur. In my opinion, it's the intellectual argument for god that leaves much to be desired. Murray 20:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservative links - Conservapedia

Conservative links - Conservapedia

Number 2 in Google!

See: http://www.google.com.mx/search?q=Conservative+links&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.google:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

and number 2 in Yahoo!

See:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Conservative+links&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fp_ip=MX&vc=

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:26, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Do any of those Conservative sites actually link to Conservapedia? It would be great to know who is linking to Conservapedia and how well Conservapedia is known in the Conservative community. RossArthur 06:26, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I went through those links to Conservapedia that RossArthur kindly provided but apart from a few Conservative blogs and the usual plethora of Liberal mockery I couldn't find any Conservative organisations or groups that recommend and link to Conservapedia. Are there any? NFlanders 07:18, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Patience, my friend. Prophets are rarely embraced immediately!--Aschlafly 09:12, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
I know there is church website which links to our atheism article plus there is a fairly high search engine ranked article on atheism website run by a Christian ministry which links to our atheism article (see Links at those websites)[2][3] And I wouldn't be suprised if other conservative religious groups like Traditional Values Coalition start linking to our atheism article. Conservative 22:06, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

congressional approval poll

OK. First of all, the poll cited by the "In the News" article said that 71% of respondents disapproved of Congress, not over 75% as reported by Conservapedia. Second, according to a current poll on the same website, congressional Democrats have a slightly higher approval rating than congressional Republicans. Finally, while George Bush's current approval rating is the lowest of any president in 70 years, the 110th Congress' current approval rating is the lowest since… the 109th Congress. BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Question: Do mainstream newspapers ever report Congress's approval rating? I've never seen it in a paper. Granted, I don't read the paper that much, but my question is still valid. My usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 08:27, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal and they do not typically report information embarrassing to the liberal cause. Congress's low approval rating is just one of many examples.--Aschlafly 08:14, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
My Google search for "congress approval rating" took less than one minute and the following liberal newspapers noted the low approval rating. [4] [5] [6] I'm sure a more comprehensive search would yield many more results. --Jimmy 20:24, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
If the USA Today is guilty of liberal bias when it reports only the President's approval rating and not Congress', what is Conservapedia guilty of when it reports only Congress' approval rating and not the ratings of congressional Democrats and Republicans? BlinkadyblinkRAGE 00:45, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

One example of liberal bias I see liberal professors is talk about how some famous liberal in class but never mention certain information, or never mention the bad things liberals have done, for example Hitler banned guns, was a vegetarian, supported animal rights, was an environmentalist, practiced eugenics, etc. I wonder why I never learned these fact in class, and the fact that Hitler cared more about animals then he did about Jews, is it because it shows you one of the worse people on the earth was a crazy liberal, they never tell you Roe is now against abortion just how good of a person she is, they never tell you Margaret Sanger was a racist-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

In the american sense of the word, none of those things mean Hitler is liberal. Taking them in order: (1)banning guns had nothing to do with being liberal. Fascist regimes often ban personal firearms to prevent armed uprisings. The British Government tried to ban guns in the colonies in repsonse to calls of independence. (2)Just because someone is a vegetarian and supports animal rights, that does not make them liberal. While I will concede that many vegetarians and vegans are liberal, it's not a prerequisite. (3) Hitler's version of Eugnenics was as twisted as everything else he did. He claimed that the Arion Ideal was blond haired, blue eyes. yet Hitler had brown hair and dark eyes. If he were practicing true Eugenics, he would've had to have himself executed. Hitler used Eugenics as a shield because "lets exterminate inferior people" is easier for people to buy into. This is the same justification for American Slavery. (4)I went through many years of school (obviously) and I never once heard a professor claim Hitler or Roe was a great liberal thinker. In fact, Hitler was Right wing. If he were a liberal, he would have been a Communist, not a Fascist. Lastly, people's personal racial beliefs often get lost to history. Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves, but some reports suggest he fathers children with them. George Washington even owned a slave, but no one would suggest they were not important men in history, nor would we dismiss everything else they did over such a point. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 01:25, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't miss Deborah's point. Hitler may be so blatantly evil that not even liberals will accept him (although I wonder about liberal icons like Che Guevera). But the point is about leaving out inconvenient truths. Al Gore has done us a favor by naming the very practice that liberals engage in the most, i.e., the suppression and censorship of any idea they don't want people to believe. I guess they realize they can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
At Conservapedia, we have no problem describing alternate POV. But liberals would rather throw stones.
Hitler did indeed have much in common with today's liberals, and history class should teach this, even if the political spectrum puts his brand of totalitarianism on what used to be called "the right". --Ed Poor Talk 12:15, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
By that logic, schools should also teach that Genghis Kahn, Attilla the Hun, and just about every other famous warlord has a lot in common with today's Conservatives. In my opinion, which is only my opinion, your preference on government has a lot more to do with your liberal/conservative position than social issues. But I don't see how you can argue that Liberals censor ideas and viewpoints they don't agree with. I think you're confusing censorship with relocation. Asking that Christians keep prayer a private or small group issue and not lead entire graduation ceremonies in prayer is not censorship, it's simply relocation. Also, please explain what you mean by "used to be the right." Has someone moved the political spectrum and not told me? Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:46, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Deborah has a valid point, which Ed Poor has drawn attention back to. However, how far should one take that? Doctor CB has pointed out the consequences of taking that to the extreme. I think what this really highlights is the propensity of people to whitewash people they like/agree-with, and blacken the memories of people they don't. One does need to be selective in what similarities and contrasts they draw, because it's simply not practicable to mention every similarity or difference. But one also needs to be fair about doing this, not whitewashing or blackening someone because of one's viewpoint. As I saw someone post in the last few days, Hitler's policies had the support of eugenicists in the U.S. prior to the full extent of his atrocities becoming apparent. It's likely only the stronger Christian heritage in the U.S. that prevented the U.S. going the way of the Nazis (Hitler wanted to eliminate Christianity, as he saw it as a major obstacle to implementing his ideas).
In my subjective opinion, non-Christians are worse at this than Christians, and I would put this down to several factors:
* The Bible puts a lot of emphasis on the truth, even describing Jesus as "the [embodiment of] truth". Christians therefore have an incentive to be truthful. Atheists, and followers of at least some other religions, do not have this incentive (or any absolute incentive; what incentive they have is generally one inherited from their own Christian heritage).
* Christians have no need to whitewash their heroes. Their prime "hero", God, has no faults, and they recognise that "all have sinned", so recognise that everyone will have faults.
* Christians have the precedent set by the biblical record of recording the faults of people. Even the great King David, a man "after God's own heart", is recorded in the Bible as lusting after another man's wife and arranging for the husband to be killed so that he could have the woman for himself.
So although we need, for practical reasons, to be selective about what factors we mention about people, we also need to be careful that we are being fair and balanced in doing so. This is an area where our biases can so easily influence what we do, often without realising it.
Philip J. Rayment 19:58, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Fix this please

El que se sieta como rey en los cielos se rie, El Senor se burla de ellos! (Translated to English: He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them!). It should read "El que se sienta.... I would just like a project that I'm going to work on to not have an error on the front page. --Die4Dixie 17:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Russia and Protestantism

A recent article that I thought Conservapedia might be interested in, possibly for its in the news section: Russia Embraces Its Church, Leaving Western Faiths in the Cold. In at least some parts of Russia, only the state-affiliated Russian Orthodox church is welcome. Conditions are still better than under communism, but things aren't looking good for Protestant churches. The discussion boards, which include some comments from actual Russians (where this article kicked up some fuss), are fairly scary, too.

As a serious comment (I will freely admit that Conservapedia would probably consider me a liberal from what I've read of it, though I'd call myself a moderate), this is exactly why being a Christian and also being extremely wary of religion in the government are entirely compatible. If we opened the door to more official Christianity in the government... whose Christianity would it be? The President's? The majority religion of a state? Utah would be rather interesting by that proposition. The news page at Conservapedia has complained about the "atheistic" nature of public schools and so on, but any public school will still let people organize their own religious groups; just no professor-run prayer or the like. It's probably better that way, since I can't imagine liking a different version of Christianity/whatever foisted upon me by the state. Obviously the editorial slant of your news section is ultimately up to you, but that's my take. -Elind

Evidence of creationism

Just out today - a biological link between tyrannosaurus and modern birds. I would say this is a major score for evolution, and puts the last nail in creationism's coffin.-Drdino 15:46, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

The article's publish date is the 25th. Today is the 24th.
This makes a confused CSGuy. No problem with the content, though. Usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 15:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Maybe it was published by a Honolulu branch of the NY Times. at 1:00 in the morning or something. He's wrong though, one animal changing its genetic structure to eventually grow into a completely different animal is a ludicrous joke, not science. I would say this puts the last nail in evolutionism's coffin. --Steve 18:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Uh... to quote Homer Simpson, "How do you figure, boy?" The evidence seems to bear it out. You may not like the conclusion, and think it comical, but your laughter doesn't drown out evidence, now, does it?-Drdino 18:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Steve, do you understand what evolution actually is, or are you just being dismissive out of hand? Individual animals do not change their own genetic structure or change into other animals - the changes being discussed take place over millions of years, in the small, incremental steps that take place every time two different parents combine DNA to create a unique and different child. The importance of the article is that the findings came from science, and can be verified or falsified by anyone applying the scientific method to the evidence. As DrDino says, you may not be comfortable with the conclusions, but neither did the die-hards when the earth was found to go around the sun instead of the opposite. If you have a true intellectual curiosity, set it loose on the world around you and draw your own conclusions. --User:DinsdaleP 20:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

SteveM may not have meant an individual changing, despite his wording appearing to say that. He's right about one type of animal changing into another being ridiculous, though, as the genetics says that this can't happen.

The latest news proves nothing about evolution. The article reports (a) the scientific, testable, observation that there is greater similarity between T-rex protein and protein from certain living birds than between T-rex and certain living reptiles, and (b) the untestable, unscientific opinion that this means that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And of course there is the scientifically-testable fact that biological material such as protein breaks down at a rate that would suggest that there is no possible way for the T-rex protein to be 68 million years old, from which one could reasonably conclude that T-rex lived a lot more recently than evolutionists claim.

Philip J. Rayment 21:49, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Do you have a source for that last statement?MikeKnuble 22:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree that the findings in the article don't prove anything other than what is claimed - that T-rex is genetically more similar to avians than reptiles. However, it doesn't disprove any aspect of evolutionary theory, and correlates with the theory of some dinosaur lines evolving into today's birds. Critics of evolution claim that unless there's an unbroken, gapless record to examine you can't paint the picture of natural selection as proposed. I like to think that findings like this one are "dots" of information that complement each other, and when you put enough of them together you do get a picture, it's just more like a Seurat.
Also, I'd check the details behind the testing being done and the underlying science before dismissing the ability to compare ancient proteins. I have a feeling they're comparing protein artifacts of some sort, that still allow for DNA comparison. --DinsdaleP 22:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
MikeKnuble, see here for some general comments.
PDinsdale, the article didn't just claim similarity, but relatedness, i.e. evolution. I agree that those findings themselves don't disprove evolution (as distinct from the fact that the material hadn't degraded too much to analyse). Critics don't claim that there has to be an "unbroken, gapless record"; merely that there has to be more than the odd similarity or common feature. And the disagreement is over evolution, not natural selection, which is not the same thing. Yes, put enough dots together and you can get a picture. But include all the dots, not just the ones that fit (i.e. don't ignore the ones like the lack of degradation), and the picture you get is not an evolutionary one. Mary Schweitzer (mentioned in the article as the source of the material tested) found red blood cells and still-stretchy blood vessels (see the link I gave to MikeKnuble).
Philip J. Rayment 00:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
The Journals report is incorrect. How do they determine that a protein of one species is genetically similar to that of another species protein? I'm pretty sure they study the amino acid sequence of the proteins and calculate the percentage difference between their DNA. But it has not been proven that if one protein is chemically similar to another, the species are related. Bacteria have been shown to have DNA that is, chemically, more similar to that of horses than the DNA of yeast. --Steve 09:18, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Common themes

Perhaps we could consolidate news items about racism & Planned Parenthood. If conservative blacks want to play the race card, let's show how long their suit is.

And we have several items about the liberal hypocrisy about extra scrutiny on ideas other than liberal ones. Maybe those could get scrunched together, too. --Ed Poor Talk 12:07, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Planned Parenthood

Ok, I have to ask this. Why is it that when Rev. Wright complains about some crazy conspiracy about the Aids virus, he's a walking joke, but a group of black pastors come out saying Planned Parenthood is targeting African Americans, it's front page news. As a black man, I see an incredible double standard here. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 21:11, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Those allegations are probably not true, but are supportable. The founder of PP suggested that birth control and abortion could be used primarily to limit the growth of minorities... Sanger was a bigoted woman, and that taint might have been passed on to her organization. Note I'm not saying it IS true, just saying it's a reasonable allegation. In fact, it's probably more reasonable than attacking Obama about Wright. As Obama pointed out, he worked far more closely with Sen. Lugar, who during his re-election campaign said that women who get abortions should get the death penalty, and yet no Democrats are calling on him to decry and disassociate himself from Lugar and his ludicrous statement. It's the media cycle self-perpetuating itself.--TomMoore 21:20, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
There are two ways to look at history: coincidental and conspiratorial. I think the black preachers may be right, were advocates like Margret Sanger lobbying for abortion out of the goodness of their heart? Someone must have made a profit somewhere or it would not be as widely accepted as it is today. Was it a coincidence, or was it a form of conspiracy? --Steve 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
I think it is a false dichotomy to suggest it must be either charity or profit. Sanger, I believe, advocated the process because she was a follower of the pseudoscience of eugenics. I admit to not being fully versed on the matter, but that is what it seems like to me.--TomMoore 13:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Responding to both comments at once, I have never claimed that Sanger wasn't a bigot, but does that mean that every company is forever in the shadow of the founder? Should all Jews refuse to buy Ford because Henry Ford was Anti-Semetic?(sp?) Should all African American people leave the United States because some of the founders were racist? How about Christians? Should we look through the personal feelings of every corporate founder and boycott their goods? Sometimes people start things with bad intentions, that doesn't mean that their feelings run the company for eternity. As to another point that was made, Sometimes bigoted people weren't really bigoted. As I constantly try to explain to friends. A lot of slave owners generally thought they were helping the African "Savages" to a better life. They provided them room, food and clothing for a little work. This view is incredibly wrong, but they really did have the best interests of the Africans at heart. Without knowing Sanger personally, but only having writings to repond to with no context or delivery, it's easy to decry her as a simple bigot, whereas we can't say sure whether she was only thinking of her hatred of minorities or whether she had what she thought were their best interests. As to the final point, I found the furor of Rev. Wright's comment ironic because Republicans have been seeking the endorsment of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson for years, and nobody ever condemned them for that. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 23:08, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
John McCain did, back when he had a spine, but your point is well taken. Well, by me at least. Aziraphale 13:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
DrCB, actually I think that yes, every company is touched a little by its founder, and bears that touch indefinitely. Assuredly, it will not have much to do with the running of the company: this touch is in the perception in the public eye, little more. Ford Motor Company has unusually scrupulous charitable works and care for anti-discrimination, in part because when awareness of affirmative action and similar initiatives arose during the 80s many people reminded them of their founder's atrocious and notorious bigotry, as an example.
Sanger wasn't a "simple bigot," she was a complex bigot who believed in the dominance of lesser races of man and in abortion and birth control as means to that end. Her company has to bear that and come under increased scrutiny because of that, which is unfortunate - but perhaps poetic, in the end.
Indeed, the furor over the Wright thing is ironic, especially in comparison with the comparable silence over McCain's acceptance of Rev. Hagee's endorsement in light of Hagee's unusual comments ("I think that Katrina was an answer to the immorality of that city").--TomMoore 13:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
TomMoore, it's very refreshing to have a nice debate again. I would argue that while perception is very powerful, it's only the perception we allow. I could go on forever listing issues with founders of modern companies. Henry Ford was not very bigoted toward the Jewish faith, but he actively complemented Hitler, Andrew Carnegie (sp?) was an infamous robber baron, The Coors family (very big here in Denver) have been involved with many less than reputable activities, and Walt Disney (aside from accusations of anti-semetism and racsism) was well known to be in opposition of younger trends such as hair length and facial hair but it doesn't matter in the present. We still drive Fords, we still treat Carnegie Hall as the highpoint of performing, we still drink Coors (I don't, Beer is disgusting) and we still give Disney money hand over fist. I think that modern companies bear the standard of their founder in a very limited light. Walt Disney wouldn't agree to half the things the company does today, but we still consider the company to be Disney's and don't hold his personal failings against the company. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 17:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Site name

Why does the site call itself the "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? I think that a better and more honest tone would be simply "The Conservative Encyclopedia". What reason would people have to assume that you're NOT trustworthy? When a person is looking for an encyclopedia, it's only natural to assume that the encyclopedia is trustworthy, so stating that your encyclopedia is trustworthy is stating what should already be obvious, and also makes people more like to suspect that you're not really that trustworthy, or else you would have no reason to state it.--Urban67 14:31, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

The lady might indeed protest overmuch. I think the assertion is necessary, in case people are confused by pages like liberal gullibility.--TomMoore 14:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
The sub-title makes the case, right up front, that Conservapedia considers other encyclopedias UN-trustworthy. Aziraphale 14:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Well people would probably take this site more seriously if it didn't purport to be more trustworthy than other encyclopedias (even if it is, which I've come to believe after reading some of Wikipedia's articles).--Urban67 16:52, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you saying that all encyclopedias are equally trustworthy? Surely everyone can agree that is not true, don't you think?
Liberal encyclopedias, like Wikipedia, care more about other goals than trustworthiness. Examples of other goals are: high traffic (as generated by gossip, which Wikipedia allows but we prohibit), maximizing entries (which Wikipedia boasts but it is not a goal for us), and majority or mob rule (true at Wikipedia, while principles rule here). Thanks for your comment and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:18, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
If high traffic is not a goal of Conservapedia, then why is the top entry of "In the News" a boast about how Alexa "has dramatically raised Conservapedia's daily traffic ranking since mid-February!" I'm interested in which principles rule at this encyclopedia, it certainly is not the commandments and guidelines; something that everyone is supposed to follow, yet for some reason certain people are allowed to ignore at their leisure.--Jimmy 23:00, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

If you guys want the truth, everything is baised. I agree with TomMoore because everything, Wikipedia, Conservapedia, an article in the newspaper, is going to have a bais. However, the fact that you are advertising yourselves as if you do not is really, well, a hypocracy. For instance, a lot of people are anti-Wikipedia because it had liberal bais. Fair enough (I haven't been able to spot it, but I am a liberal, and probabily agree with the bais that it has). However, when you guys dispise Wikipedia for bais, even though people go there like it is a trusted source, and then you guys advertise yourself as being trustworthy, don't you think that that is a liitle hypacritical? --Rocky

See my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. Philip J. Rayment 06:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Where does Wikipedia get it's sources on the Earth's age and related date estimates

Discussion moved to talk:Earth.

Daily traffic graph is wholly confusing

In the, uh, "Breaking" (read: broken, delapidated, in utter disrepair) news section, there is a graph from Alexa trafficking tracker which, not only shows signs of 1) being inverted, and 2) saturation. So, what exactly are these "events in the next three or four months", and did the person who wrote that think that this was "good news", due to the confusing nature of the graph, which on purely linear grounds, seems to show an increase in traffic, but actually shows the opposite. Can we get some clarification? Or is this (unforeseen?) event something that is at this point common knowledge, knowledge which might be addressed in a reliable, unambiguous, non-vague news format?? Any help is appreciated. LinusWilson 18:51, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Linus, the lower the Alexa ranking the better. A #1 site is better than a #40,000 in terms of web traffic. Think of #1 as first place. Secondly, there are some events planned in regards to raising Conservapedia's web traffic and they will be initiated as time allows and some steps require others to be done first. I like certain gentlemen to be in the dark in regards to Conservapedia's plans so they cannot possibly interfere so here is a rather uncommon knowledge list of events which are planned in regards to conservapedia raising its Alexa rankings. Conservative 20:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
What about the women at this other site that must not be named, can't they be let in on the secret? StatsMsn 21:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
OH! I thought it was a chart showing of daily unique visitors or something....my bad. I knew/know Alexa does Website listings in terms of rankings where they show where each site stands but I didn't think that <20,000th was something to brag about, but I guess I really was't grasping the concept. All('s) right then. LinusWilson 21:14, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

One of the news thingys.

Big Media and the liberals have lost control of the message. What's different now is that there are alternatives to the so-called "mainstream" media, such as the Internet, in general, and bloggers, in particular. And that's the way it's going to be, from here on out. Get used to it, liberals! [3]

This makes absolutely no sense. What message? Get used to what? This almost sounds threatening (in a somewhat threatening way. You know, when it makes absolutely no sense, but when you think about it, you're like "Wow, I think I just got threatened" even though there was no way that that was a threatening comment at all. That is what this article is like. Wow, I am making almost as much sense as that article.)

By the way, the article at the top was what was on the front page, verbatim.

Also, how do you make a conservapedia conservapedia page? -- Rocky

Dude, you spelled threatening wrong twice, and article wrong three times. I just fixed it for you, (it's easier with Firefox). --Steve 15:45, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I don't know if you can tell, but my spelling is absolutly terrible. --Rocky

Look, I found another one. Verbatim off the front page, it states, "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says 'I'm conservative, but not biased'". However, this is impossible. Nobody can be unbaised. It is impossible.

Rocky, you're welcome to that opinion. You may be right that "nobody can be unbiased." But I encourage you to distinguish between a disclosed "point of view" (the approach taken by Conservapedia) and an undisclosed, and even denied, bias (the approach taken by Wikipedia).--Aschlafly 17:58, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I see what you are saying, however, if you have a certain point of view, you are more likely to write on the side of your point of view. For instance, I am a liberal. And trust me, if I had written that artical on homosexuality, I wouldn't have even included that people chose to be homosexual because my point of view is that people do not chose it. --Rocky

This might interest some

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7368219.stm AdenJ 01:07, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Makes sense. The message isn't getting out to people, so, I can see where they are coming from. --Rocky

Help adding a comment

I tried adding this comment to the page about T-shirt wars and I got blocked by the spam filter for supposedly tying "a*** s**": Help would be appreciated.--Urban67 12:03, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a note, the spam filter is indeed malfunctioning, I was blocked for the same reason. If there is a more appropriate place to bring this to notice, please forgive my ignorance. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 12:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

T-shirt wars are so stupid

Discussion moved to talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School.

Bill Maher

Anyone besides me that watched that episode? (He discussed the controversy on the next weeks episode), It's nothing new, anyone that's followed the last few years of Bill Maher will know he attacks Christians, Muslims or just about anybody.

BTW, this story was on Fox News, since when are they not the media? (I thought they were the highest rated...) ---user:DLerner--- 13:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow! -- 57 Unique Benefits of Homeschooling

  • 1-16 Good solid points. But to be honest they could be summed up in a few sentences.
  • 17 Plenty of drugs everywhere, unless you lock your kids up.
  • 18 Like those happen every day... Don't drive you'll avoid accidents (I heard they're alot more common then school shootings).
  • 20 That's up to the parents, I hear alot of them are abusive monsters.

etc. etc.

Don't kids become a bit isolated from all other kids? And it today's economy what parent can afford to stay home and self -educate. What ever happened to getting on the school board?

---user:DLerner--- 14:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

All great points that are invaluable to families. That said, I do not think everyone can homeschool. As DLerner said, many parents are abusive. My parents have said they would not have been able to homeschool if they had not been saved; God led them to homeschool and helps them through it. It is not a cakewalk; every couple should pray for God's will for their child before undertaking such a difficult path. --Steve 15:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

In reply to DLerner, there is not "plenty of drugs everywhere." Try finding drugs in a church service or being pushed in one's home. You can't.

More generally, the list of 57 missed one reason: it's virtually essential to homeschool to attain the very best in many fields from mathematics to certain sports or music.

In reply to StevenM, I'd agree that not all families can homeschool, but I'd add that not all kids should be in public school either. In fact, I'd say that more kids are inappropriate for public school than homeschool.--Aschlafly 17:29, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

In reply to ASchlafly's comment about drugs not being in churchs, this is not true. Churches, just like schools, hospitals and every other gathering place have the same issues. There have been many times when we've had to remove young worshipers from our youth group services as they were intoxicated or high on one substance or another. I would also like to point out that several of the points outlined in the piece have major flaws. The largest is that public schools are not simply about education. They are also about socialization. Homeschooling kids often shelters them from the world, but when they leave the protection of the home, they can't handle the responsibility of independence. Do public schools have drug use? absoultely, no one could argue otherwise, but if the students are brought up correctly and given correct support, they can easily say no and go about their lives. Several points in the piece make a point of field trips whenever you want, or taking a break when you need it, but how many real world jobs allow this? I would love to tell a patient that I can't see them at the moment, as I need to take a break. I'd love to explain to the admin board that I was absent yesterday because I wanted to take a field trip to the medical museum, but life does not work this way. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 17:57, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Were not going to continue allow this claim of special authority by the anonymous "Dr" CB. Moreover, drug pushing is obviously a much bigger problem in some cultures (like public school cultures) than in others (such as conservative churches or homeschooling). "Dr." CB has been blocked for excessive talk and will need to pick a new name without claiming special authority if and when he returns.--Aschlafly 18:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
I see homeschooling as being as potentially effective or ineffective as the parents & teachers involved make it. It's not about the format as much as the execution of quality education under that format. That said, the main problem I have with the linked article is that it considers these 57 items as unique benefits of homeschooling. Even if your kids are in public or private school, I see no reason that at least 24 of these 57 items can't be shared between parents and their children regardless of how they're schooled (like numbers, 5, 8, 9, 22, 24, 25...).

Also, some of these pros can also be considered cons, depending on how one view them. A parent's ultimate responsibility is to raise happy, healthy individuals who will do well in life on their own, and the more they are isolated from the real world because of its perceived negatives, the less equipped they'll be to deal with it when they're finally on their own. I'd think a measure of the quality of a homeschool education is the degree to which it mixes in group projects (since many things in life are collaborative), and some frank engagement & discussion about the things you were sheltering them from when the parents think they can handle it. My father went through the draft back in the late 1950's, and while he was frustrated at the interruption in his life, he was grateful for the experience "because it taught you how to get along with people you wouldn't choose to be with, when there was a job you all had to get done together". --DinsdaleP 20:20, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
In Reply to Andy: I agree, in most places of worship you won't find drugs. (Though I hear Catholics use wine in church, and we Jews use wine while making Kiddush, but hey, we can use grape juice. And the Rastafarians, well you know.). As far as in the home, in wholesome homes you won't, but there is a lot of alcohol/prescription drug use in many homes. By everywhere I meant parks, grocery stores etc (depends on what part of town you live in). unless you monitor your child 24/7, they will, at some point in their childhood, be exposed to drugs.---user:DLerner--- 01:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, some places have *far* more drug pushing than others. It's silly and foolish to pretend otherwise. There's no credibility, frankly, in a claim that all places or cultures are equal in terms of drug pushing. They aren't.--Aschlafly 17:20, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Proposed addition to the main page

http://americanlifeleague.stores.yahoo.net/abishom.html

A link to the section where the American Life League sells those very T-shirts that they are now threatening to sue a school for prohibiting students from wearing. Pathetic - just pathetic.--Urban67 14:58, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Pathetic? Clever advertising and marketing, for free, and a fine example of free enterprise. FlowerpotMan 15:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Web Searches

Doesn't the fact that your website show up so high on search engines slightly undermine your thesis that critisim of the theory of evolution is being censored? Also doesn't this reflect well on Gates that he allows such free speech?

Anyway the main point I want to make is that search engines results a unique for example on MSN your page on mine does not come up 2nd it comes up 4th. If I used a computer which I have never visted Conservapedia on before I suspect that it would show up even later. It is because you are on Conservapedia everyday that it shows up so high in a search. The average search engine user who doesn't have your cookie laden computer will recieve a different result and Conservapeia won't be so high in their results and that is what is important. All you are advertising at the moment is how much time you spend on Conservapedia. DaBoss3 22:21, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Daboss3, my computer is cookie free and it showed the MSN search engine results on the main page. By the way, you spelled receive incorrectly. Conservative 22:41, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Correcting spelling? That's the genie's bottle you want to open, Conservative?
In any event, cookies don't paint the whole picture. I encourage you to conduct some google searches other than the ones you brag about to learn more about how your computer works; if you approach it with an open mind, you will learn a great deal. Aziraphale 22:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, why don't show us how much you know about the search engines and create a high search engine ranked article in a competitive category? Anyways, the search engines are fairly proprietary in nature but I do thank Bill for his assistance in the advancing of our young earth creationism in respect to public awareness. :) Conservative 22:55, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, I just searched "liberal" on Yahoo, which I've never done before, and Conservapedia came up #5 out of 307 million pages.--Aschlafly 23:07, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for supporting my point, Aschlafly. It's always gratifying when senior leadership takes the time to intervene; I know how busy you must be. Best Regards, Aziraphale 23:11, 27 April 2008 (EDT)


Wow, that was amazing. Show of hands, anyone who didn't actually notice that Conservative wants to turn this on me, rather than acknowledge that his understanding of the cookie issue is incomplete at best?
If I were to continue this conversation using the "tactics" that you think are appropriate, I would simply repeat that there's more to this than cookies and tell you to go look it up, but since that is repetitive and pointless (take note!) I'll do you enough of a favor to begin to explain the complexity of the issue to you: despite the fact that the precise code of each search engine is proprietary, search is a multi-billion dollar industry. As such, smart professionals have gone to great lengths to reverse engineer the results of search engines in order to better understand how to succeed in a given search environment.
Now, in anticipation of your likely next response (if we were having this conversation in person I'd write it in an envelope and seal it; it makes a great party trick. Alas...) let me say that you've got the affirmative case in this conversation (Conservapedia's results are <foo>), so telling me I need to prove something about myself via a challenge you construct is, again, pointless. Knock yourself out if it helps you, but it doesn't change anything. Aziraphale 23:04, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
PS For someone who wants to publicly criticize the copy-editing of others, I'm having an interesting number of edit conflicts as you get your public posts right.
Aschlafly and "Conservative" what was the website you were on before you conducted your search? Conservapedia right? Why do you think Conservapedia come up so high in your search then? DanielB 23:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
DanielB, I think you're a little off-base here. I doubt that, in particular, ASchlafly's search was that much lower than it would be on anyone else's computer, even that of a devout leftist. "Liberal" is a term much-discussed here, with many links back and forth and also a lot of traffic from other sites (pro or con makes no difference).
What I think is a waste of time is the thinking that Conservative puts forth that it's the exact same for everyone. If he's settle for "highly ranked" this would all go away. *shrug* Aziraphale 23:58, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

In Conservative's defence, I do think that he puts a lot of effort into understanding how the Google rankings work, although that doesn't mean that he necessarily fully understands it yet. For example, he became aware some time back of the the "duplicate content" penalty, and has removed a fair bit of duplication that he himself had put in some articles. Also, his comment about spelling was "by the way", and did not seem to be having a go at the poster, instead just politely pointing out an error to him. His repeated edits to get something right may indicate that his spelling and grammar are not right to start with, but at the same time shows that he puts in a fair bit of effort to get them right. The main problem is that he should learn to use the 'Show preview' button more. Philip J. Rayment 01:51, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi, Philip,
I accept your broader point that perhaps I'm being too hard on his every single foible. Conservative, I apologize for going overboard.
That being said, I think you're being too generous when saying he was only politely correcting someone's spelling. As a longtime observer of the Talk:Main Page yourself I'm sure you know what I mean, and I won't belabor the point. Maybe I'm wrong about this, too; I'm comfortable with the idea that this is possible. :D Regards, Aziraphale 11:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
If you are ascribing what others do, to Conservative, then the fallacy of that should be obvious. That said, though, it is hard to keep who does what straight in one's mind. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Hi again, Philip,
I am, indeed, ascribing what "others" do to Conservative. When you weigh the importance of "others" and the likelihood that imitating "others" is something that Conservative would do, my statement becomes less and less fallacious.
Really, do we need to go 12 rounds over the idea that certain others here try to score a quick point by calling out posters on spelling and grammar errors, and that Conservative is more likely to be imitating that behavior rather than suddenly discovering the brotherhood of man that exists between himself and a person he disagrees with? We've exchanged posts enough by now, I think, for you to know that I'm usually willing to let sleeping dogs lie, at least the most intractable dogs, but I'm not going to nod stupidly and say "uh huh, yup" to that. Regards, Aziraphale 12:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Lincoln-Douglas

The front page has a pretty absurd inaccuracy when it claims that Clinton asked for a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The reporter on CBS that the headline is drawing from is baldly wrong. Clinton called for debates "like" those of that duo, but neither she nor any television station would ever allow a Lincoln-Douglas debate, which have been abandoned in modern politics - they consist of an hour speech, an hour and a half rebuttal speech, and a half hour reaction rebuttal. Please change this front page error (not that a front page error isn't pointed out every week).--TomMoore 23:58, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

We just going to ignore this until the front page is archived? I know sysops read this all day, don't any of them care? Accuracy is supposed to be somewhere near the top of the priority list for an encylopedia.--TomMoore 13:53, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

What's the beef? The front page notice says "Lincoln Douglas style," you say she used the word "like." How fine does this hair need to be split? Aziraphale 14:19, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
A Lincoln-Douglas style debate is a specific format. She didn't call for that, she merely referenced them while proposing a freeform debate. It's a blatant error. I don't know, it bothers me to see a blatant error on the front of a purported encyclopedia... it doesn't bother you?--TomMoore 14:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Please propose a better wording; be as specific as you can.
Many people who propose useful changes to the main page see their ideas incorporated quickly; hint, hint! --Ed Poor Talk 14:31, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
I absolutely cannot in good conscience propose a new version of that little snippet. It's disrespectful to Senator Obama, referring to him as "'Professor' Obama," wholly inaccurate as to the objections to the ABC debate (which spent an hour on gaffes rather than actual issues), and absurd. I am helping out by pointing out a blatant flaw, but that's the greatest extent to which I could bring myself to help out on this matter. I have told you what is wrong, change it if having something that is boldfacedly inaccurate bothers you.--TomMoore 14:35, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Inaccuracies bother me. If you want to help, tell me (1) what was said and (2) what the truth is. That will help me to fix it. Otherwise, I can't let you hang around here. --Ed Poor Talk 14:37, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be threatening me, here and on my talk page, with being blocked unless I fulfill your command. You will note that I have been helping Conservapedia quite a bit. My user page contains links to numerous articles that I have improved a great deal, and I have engaged in other small helpful edits in many other places. I even bothered to point out an error on the front page, so that someone can fix it. If you don't feel like doing the work to fix it, that's fine. One of the other sysops could do it. That's how a wiki works. But I'm not your student, and I don't take your "writing assignment" as you called it on my talk. I am a steady and valuable contributor to the site, so don't pretend like this is me stonewalling and refusing to help out. I just refuse to help you out by fulfilling your assigned task. Block me and go get a graduate degree to edit the literature articles yourself, if you want.--TomMoore 14:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
My own response to the question is - no, it doesn't bother me. I guess it's the fact that I went to school in a state that had a whole "Lincoln-Douglas" debate season, along with the more popular one (I forget what it's called; the one where kids act like little lawyers and talk really really really fast). I don't think there's actually any confusion in people's minds as to whether Clinton was suggesting hour-long speeches, regardless of the reference used. As always, I acknowledge the posssibility that I am wrong. Aziraphale 14:40, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
I would suggest that you are unusual in knowing what the format actually is... most people probably do not. This is probably why you didn't think it was a problem. But it is weird that this would bother you less in such an instance, knowing what the format actually is and now knowing that she never proposed this. Still, not a huge issue.--TomMoore 14:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you familiar with stoicism? Aziraphale 15:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Real First Name and Last Initial

Is it a rule now, because it seems to have been enforced against a lot of new users. If so where can I request a name change? StatsMsn 09:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The Commandments don't specifically mention it, but do say that "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here...". The Guidelines don't mention it. The Login/create account page says, "Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred.". My observation is that users who pick inappropriate names are sometimes required by the blocking Administrator to use a version of their real name, but that this is not a requirement in the first instance. Users wanting to change their names should ask on Aschlafly's talk page. Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Wait, so my name, which is an old nickname, is ok? It isn't offensive, at least I think not. Bolly 21:01, 29 April 2008
This is something of a subjective matter, but I don't have a problem with your name. Philip J. Rayment 07:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Isn't it a bit of hypocrisy that Crocoite changed his name to DeanS and immediately started blocking any one with a nick name? Deceit?--Kajira 15:45, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
No, it would be hypocrisy if I left my username as Crocoite and then started blocking people with a nickname. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 15:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, it's absolutely not hypocrisy; let's not overuse the word. Now, using blocking as the means to communicate displeasure seems a bit extreme, but that's a question of brutality, not hypocrisy. Cheers, Aziraphale 17:04, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

We block users when they are working against the purpose of the project. In your case, I'm getting tired of reading your general criticisms of the site, which violate the 'no personal remarks' rule in spirit, if not in specifics.

If you disagree with the purpose of this site, you are welcome to join (or start) a debate; see Debate Topics. But inserting vague nasty remarks on article talk pages is not the way to communicate your displeasure. Knock it off, all of you, or your time here will be short. --Ed Poor Talk 07:29, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

What about Conservative, Karajou, Ed Poor and a whole load of others? --Nkurum 01:42, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To sum up: this site prefers use of a first name and last initial and enforces that requirement when there are rule violations, a lack of substance in the person's contributions, or other suspicious activity by the user. Rest assured that solid, proven contributors can call themselves whatever they like, but that privilege does not extend to vandal wannabees.--Aschlafly 09:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Cigarette smuggling

  • The news entry has a few extra brackets in it. Correct it if you want, don't if you don't. Usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 15:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Fixed. Thanks for the notice. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 15:55, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Better watch your sources

The blurb on William Gray links to a Fox News article. In the middle of that article is a link to the Fox Natural Sciences section. And on that page is a huge section on Evolution! Are they really a source that you want your children to be viewing? MAnderson 16:24, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, sure. I don't really care. Let the kid make up their mind about what is real. --Rocky
And now, less than 20 hours later, the William Gray article is gone without a trace. Like it was never there.--Frey 10:07, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Read this for an update. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 10:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
And here's the punchline, I originally posted my "warning" as a joke! I was being sarcastic. And yet, the article is still there, the link to Fox news is gone and the updated information about Prof. Gray is no where to be found! Good job Conservapedia! MAnderson 10:21, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

How do you suggest a featured article?

How do you suggest a featured artical. I have been on this site long enough to see that Young Earth Creationism has been on there twice, and that you should give someone else's artical a chance to get on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky (talk)

I've answered your question elsewhere (you've asked it in at least three places!), but this is a good place to answer it again: List it on Conservapedia:Featured articles. According to that list there, Young earth creationism has not been featured before, although I think some articles were featured before that list was started. However, that list dates back to 13th December, and you registered here on 13th April. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Sorry for putting it in so many places. Are you sure that it wasn't there, because I do remember seeing it. At least I think I do. --Rocky

Political correctness in Europe

I was wondering whether Conservapedia treats about law enforced political correctness in many countries of Europe, e.g. in France certain types of criticism toward Homosexuality may be punishable as a thought crimes, and so on. I think that such things should be well emphasized, to make people aware of the possibility of being punished for expressing one's opinion in various European countries.

I suggest to create a list of such cases, (unfortunately such sentences are often censored by the media) Thiudareiks 12:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I wrote this: Thought crime. Thiudareiks 11:00, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Unsourced additions which look like plagiarism

User RobbieFowler added this to a page: "The University of Bridgeport is a private university in Bridgeport, Connecticut, located in South Bridgeport on Long Island Sound. The university was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, part of the Unification Church. Its current president is Neil Albert Salonen." Ed Poor has deleted the entire page claiming it is plagiarized from here. The only reference to the university on that page states: "Before her new federal job, Hauer was the director of marriage education at the University of Bridgeport in Bridgeport, Conn. That school was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, a Moon-affiliated group, and its current president, Neil Salonen, is a former president of the Unification Church in America. After less than three days, attendees of the Sept. 23-25 seminar in Oakland were awarded a "Certified Marriage Education Professional Document of Completion," issued by Moon's University of Bridgeport. "Sixteen hours of training won't make you the best marriage educator," Hauer told her students. "But it takes all kinds of work to save marriage - people to run the sound system, write the press releases."

Can an admin please explain where the plagiarism is?? SangioveseDiRomagna 15:23, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

No. If you want the text restored, don't create another user account. Do what I told you, i.e., supply sources for the text you want inserted. This is not your website; it's a project to make a trustworthy encyclopedia, and uncredited passages which look very much like someone else's copyrighted text reduce reader confidence.
If you refuse to follow site policy, I can only assume you are working against the project's goals. --Ed Poor Talk 07:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
The project's goals are not to be a censored mouthpiece for the views of the Unification Church. Bugler 11:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Where do you get the brass to use a metaphor like that? Are we even on the same sheet of music? ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Antiamericanism in Europe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfywhiRbVaY --Gulik5 00:52, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Adelaide

I too am eagerly looking forward to this. Any new, Conservative? --FYI I AM A GENTLEMAN. 02:15, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Gas Prices

I think I'm going to have to create an article about this to be more complete, but here's the short version of why this is a misleading opinion piece (being posted as "news"). If we gave the approval to drill in ANWR today it would be about 7 years before the first steady production reaches the US. The most optimistic estimate is that there are 16 billion gallons of recoverable crude there (the realistic estimate is 6 billion), so given that the USA imports 20 million daily even the best-case scenario is that we'd be waiting 7 years to begin getting 800 days worth of oil, max. Refineries haven't been built because the oil companies are rational, and the economics don't justify the investment of billions on their part. They will not get a good ROI over a 50-year operating life because the supply will not be there to fully utilize the capital investment. The cost of crude today has more to do with free-market economics & futures trading than anything Congress is legislating. Since 2000 the national debt has soared and the value of the dollar dropped, and investors are buying into oil because it has better current and future returns, with worldwide demand is only expected to grow. Obama's right to criticize gas tax "holidays" and conservative economists agree with him - if you cut the taxes on gas to artificially lower the price, demand goes up and the revenues go to the supply chain. The actual drivers of the high prices stay unaffected, and highway infrastructure projects that rely on gas-tax income suffer. Finally, it's sad that Bush, at the end of his presidency, is trying to blame problems that have developed for years on the current Congress, when he had a Republican Congress to work with for most of his administration, and it was during those years that the economic drivers of today's problems (no spending discipline, tax-cuts raising the national debt, etc.) were set. --DinsdaleP 11:00, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

News: Conservative to win London mayoralty

Conservative MP Boris Johnson is set to win the election for Mayor of London, ousting leftist Ken Livingstone. Rejoice! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7378792.stm Bugler 13:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I've met Boris. He's incredibly short, ruder than most in Commons, and embroiled in various drug & sex scandals.
The MP I worked for got to call him a tax cheat on the floor; it was great. Boris started it, of course. Of course they're actually friends; that's just the way British politics works :-)
Maybe you had to be there.-RtHonMP 13:41, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Typical Liberal Style. Smears and slanders. Where - doing you the favour of supposing you might have any - are your proofs? Bugler 13:42, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
So refering to black people as "pickaninnies" with "watermelon smiles" is a good quality to have as a mayor? Yes I have Proof. Just google the aforementioned, actual slanders and a veritable slew of hits comes up. What's next? the NF in power?--Iconoclastbeggar 14:18, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
There's no "liberal style" going on here - anyone with any knowledge of the subject or living in London (as I do) knows about Johnson's large number of outright racist comments and the sex scandals that pepper his recent past. Boris is very funny (anyone who's seen Have I Got News For You knows this, although I guess most of you haven't), but I do not want a comedian to be the mayor of my city. Even the Conservatives shouldn't be happy about this. PeteSC 15:33, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I haven't followed London politics closely. Honestly, I haven't followed it at all. But I do object to any expectation that conservative candidates should be held to a higher standard than leftist candidates. I can't help but think that PeteSC would not be objecting to the scandals in the past of leftist candidates. For example, Gordon Brown came over to the U.S. and declared Ted Kennedy to have been the greatest senator in decades. Ever heard of Chappaquiddick??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:23, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry but if a leftist mayoral candidate said the things that Boris Johnson did, that leftist candidate would be just as unfit to serve as mayor as Johnson is. A racist shouldn't be running a major metropolitain centre like London, regardless of political affiliation.--Iconoclastbeggar 17:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Vilify Ted Kennedy. Vilify Boris Johnson. Honestly, I never understand why anyone argues the "oh yeah, well _____ is also bad / is worse" point. They're both a problem.
And I note that Chappaquiddick has its own article on Conservapedia, and is mentioned in the opening paragraph of Ted's article. So, we've got the vilification of Kennedy down already, we can move on to other politicians. Aziraphale 18:00, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

The morality and ethics of politicians is relevant, because they so frequently make a moral/ethical case for legislation or other initiatives. Kennedy lambasted the "contras" for supposed moral and ethical lapses. Well, should the pot call the kettle black?

It helps the electorate to decide whether to trust a politician, when his own life is held up to scrutiny.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the electorate is all imbeciles who vote against a man because of irrelevancies. But I thought the only good law is one which supports some moral or ethical value. If not, then what basis is there on which to judge any law? --Ed Poor Talk 18:06, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ed,
I'm not sure if I agree with what you just wrote or not. :p I will say that I'm fine with the pot calling the kettle black, if the pot is right. Just because I'm making a value judgment against pot, doesn't mean it's impossible for pot to make a point worth hearing. Aziraphale 18:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Boris Johnson may be a member of the "Conservative" party but as editor of The Spectator he denigrated the people of Liverpool by ridiculing their sense of community and calling their concern for the fate of be-headed Iraqi hostage Ken Bigley, "mawkish". Liverpudlians are generally more religious than the liberal elite in London and he insulted those who prayed for the Ken Bigley as well as the 96 spectators who died at a football match owing to dereliction of duty by South Yorkshire police. The man is a disgrace. LilyTP 18:29, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Very sorry, I just wrote a long response to ASchafly with which I was very pleased, only to have it deleted because, supposedly, I hadn't logged in. Surely being able to write anything at all means that I was, in fact, logged in? I hate computers. PeteSC 18:41, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Short version: Livingstone is far from perfect, but is the only person who has held the post and has done a good job so far and so shouldn't go. The swing in favour of Johnson arises from distrust of Brown's government being unfairly taken out on Livingstone. Johnson seems a friendly chap and can appeal slightly even to me (he attended the same Brussels 1 European School as I did), but amiability is not a reason to vote for someone. Brown is an interesting choice - a large portion of those of us on the left (in the UK sense) regard Labour, of which Brown is the ultimate representative, to have abandoned its left-wing, democratic socialist heritage and so no longer see the government as representative of the left that put them there in the first place. Brown's comments about Kennedy sound bizarre, but I wonder if a statement of opinion regarding the significance of the contribution of particular politician is really on a level with the uninhibited sexuality and and offensive remarks regarding race and skin colour that have characterised Johnson's career so far, and which reveal a deep and worrying insight into his morality and worldview.

Trust me, it sounded better in the full version.PeteSC 18:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh well, it's all over now. PeteSC 19:02, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I've learned something already: perhaps the conservative victory in London portends a bigger conservative nationwide in the U.K. In other words, perhaps the London election was a referendum on the leftist Gordon Brown. Thanks for leading us to that cheerful insight. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
He's a racist drug abuser and fan of sex scandals. Yep, he's a poster child for conservatives everywhere. RtHonMP

I would like to know why you removed Johnson from the Deceit page Aschlafly. He obviously has commited deceit (a quick google search shows it) also his mistress had an abortion. Something I know you detest. AdenJ 23:16, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives in the UK generally support:
Boris also supports taxpayer funded public transport, cycle lanes and charges for and other restrictions on using private cars in London. He also opposes economic growth by objecting to a third runway at Heathrow airport. He also supports Income redistribution by having taxpayers pay for pensioners and veterans to use public transport for free. He also wants to build houses with gardens for poor people at the taxpayers' expense.
That sounds very Liberal to me. Those people may call themselves Conservatives but deep down inside they are pro-evolution and pro-abortion Liberals. HStrobell 07:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Words like "conservative" and "liberal" have completely different meanings in UK politics. Over here, everyone supports "government-rationed" healthcare, because it works. Not even the most staunchly right-wing from amongst the Tories oppose the NHS. A third runway at Heathrow is likely to lead to hundreds of homes in the surrounding area being demolished, which seems a good enough reason to oppose it. Actually, it is the most conservative sections of the public (not so much politicians themselves) who want to reinstate the death penalty. Without meaning to sound aggressive (I do hope I don't) and purely out of interest, I'm wondering where conservatives (in the US sense) find a problem with things like cycle lanes, free public transport for the elderly and homes for the poor? PeteSC 08:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
The U.K. is far more liberal or leftist than the U.S.. That's all. Everything is shifted left in the U.K. There are plenty of true conservatives there but the politics is so leftist that there is nowhere near a majority for it in elections. But judging by the London election, it appears that times are a-changing, to coin Bob Dylan.--Aschlafly 09:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The only thing that's changed is that a lot of voters feel that the Conservative party will deliver the Liberal goodies and freebies better than the Labour party can. There is no indication of a rise in support for limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. Instead the Conservative party has embraced, and now promotes, Liberal values such as gay marriage[7], global warming[8], taxpayer-funded abortion[9] and Evolution [10]. HStrobell 11:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

You may be right about the U.K., where faith continues to decline, gun control has grown, and evolution indoctrination is universal. It's tough for progress to occur in such an inhospitable environment. That said, it's a stretch to claim that the victory of a conservative mayor in a big city (London) is anything other than voters getting fed up with dead-end leftist policies. I suspect that the loss of British sovereignty is playing a big role with disgruntled voters.--Aschlafly 12:31, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
In his victory speech Boris Johnson said "he hoped to discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from his [Ken Livingstone's] transparent love of London". Describing Ken Livingstone as "a very considerable public servant". He then continued to say "Where there have been mistakes we will rectify them, where there are achievements we will build on them, where there are neglected opportunities we will seize on them." Which is Boris Johnson's way of saying that he will be delivering more of the same (leftist policies). Its just that Boris Johnson feels he can deliver them better, apparently offering Ken Livingstone a possible role in his new administration. That is no victory for Conservatism. HStrobell 12:55, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Dude, the leftists were defeated in their stronghold of London. Enough said. The victorious conservative candidate was gracious in his win. Fine. Gordon Brown will the next leftist to be defeated in the U.K. and you can reuse your excuses then too, if you insist.--Aschlafly 13:04, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

What Conservative policies do the British Conservative party have? The electorate's rejection of one bunch of liberals in favor of another is unfortunately not a reflection of the electorate's desire for Conservative values such as limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. HStrobell 13:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to learn more about British politics and don't pretend to be informed about it. But I am confident that the British Conservative party takes positions to the right of the Labour Party on all major issues, though obviously not as much to the right as the American conservative movement. For example, I recall discussing here how British conservatives opposed extending the (absurd) gun control in England to disarmed weapons!--Aschlafly 13:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
A lot of the leftist-liberal hogwash presented here has the strong taint of inverted snobbery. Much of the opposition to Johnson is motivated by class envy: they think that because he comes from an upper-middle class family and was educated at public school (in the UK sense - what Americans would call private school) and Oxford, he is somehow unfit to play a role in public life. His critics probably also think that the shocking fact that he is married to the mother of his children means he isn't 'street' enough. Bugler 14:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that's a fascinating and insight analysis. Thank you.--Aschlafly 14:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
It's true that the Conservative Party here does generally take a position further to the right than Labour, but over the last 10 years Labour seems to have been desperate to close the gap. HStrobell has a point - I think a large part (not the biggest part, but large nonetheless) of the opposition to Livingstone came from people who over the disastrous last few weeks have decided they want to humiliate Brown (not unfairly) and, since the parties are becoming less and less distinguishable as time goes by, voters felt that a handover of power to Johnson wouldn't actually have much of an impact and so voted for him. ASchlafly is again right about the "loss of British sovereignty". The interesting thing there, however, is that this percieved loss has been vastly exaggerated (if not invented) by the two best-selling newspapers in the UK (which, I am very much ashamed to say, are the The Sun and The Daily Mail), which adopt such staunchly nationalist positions that any involvement by a supranational organisation in UK politics, however slight and however beneficial, is turned into an intolerable threat to British sovereignty. Supposed EU regulations have even been made up (straight bananas, anyone?) to maintain this atmosphere of distrust. In my view, the EC/EU has been one of the most beneficial things to have arisen from the ashes of post-WWII Europe (alongside the NHS, but that's another story), and I really do think that Britain is missing out on a lot by keeping its distance. I also agree that controlling disarmed weapons is a bad idea. Not because I oppose gun control (I don't), but because it would be a waste of money.

Bugler - I think the fact that Johnson is married to the father of his children is a great thing (as would most other Brits). I suppose you think it's a good thing that his mistress had an abortion, just to keep his record clean? (sarcasm, there - I don't support abortion). But hey, I guess that's just my "class envy" speaking, eh? I went to the same school Johnson once attended in Brussels, but I guess I must be of a lower class anyway, just because I oppose him?

Any thoughts about the questions I asked earlier? I'd just be really interested to hear what you think. PeteSC 14:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, for starters, I'm curious why you're so adamant about past scandals concerning conservatives but seem to have no problem with past scandals of leftists. Do you really think anyone is going to fall for that double standard here???
As to your questions whether "conservatives (in the US sense) find a problem with things like cycle lanes, free public transport for the elderly and homes for the poor," the short answer is that free enterprise and charity are better at providing services than government is. By supplanting charity with government, Britain has lowered the quality of the services, bankrupted its economy, and displaced churches. The net result is everyone wallowing in a lack of faith and relatively worse off than before. Britain went from being the number one nation in the world in the 19th century to being unable to defend itself during World War II to what will probably be no meaningful country at all by midway through the 21st century. Is that what the British really want?--Aschlafly 14:58, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I was under the impression this debate was about Boris Johnson? His scandals are the only scandals relevant to a discussion solely about him, surely? Can I really have given you a reason to believe I'm applying double standards when you've only seen me apply one set of standards to one single case? If this conversation had been about, say, Lord Levy, I'd have condemned his interesting financial activity for the Labour party just as vociferously. But it wasn't - it was about Johnson, so I spoke about Johnson's scandals. Is that really "double standards"? Feel free, if you like, to name a "leftist" scandal that I have no problem about? I have a problem with all kinds scandals, but (for example) it would be no use complaining about Hu Jin Tao in a conversation about Mugabe, would it? PeteSC 15:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Boris Johnson is a Liberal Tory. Anyone who follows British politics knows this. Its the only way a Tory can win in London (One of the most depraved, decadent and hideously Liberal cities on the planet) In London, it is unfair to call for free guns for all; despite the fact the vile Liberals brought immigrants over here who kill us. We need guns, and we need the government to get out of the way. Liberals have killed over six million babies here in the UK and the Conservative movement is now unabashedly pro-death, as Johnson's (The Murdurous Mayor) election proves. He personally murdured thousands of babies in his constituency by not making a stand when he was an MP. The vile Liberals want to take our sovreignty and give it to the European communists in Strasbourg. Furthermore, they call my beloved British National Party 'fascist' despite the fact we stand up for the rights of all Britishmen, be they black, brown or white. We just know the detestable Liberal agenda needs to be stopped, and we will stop it. HoraceM 18:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Quakers discriminated against in UC system

A Quaker teacher suffers religious discrimination over her appointment. ArnieS 20:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

That's not religious discrimination. The required loyalty oath that the teacher refused to sign (unchanged) does not discriminate.--Aschlafly 21:56, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
But when a creationist fails to follow the required processes of his profession - not an issue of loyalty, an issue of competence - and is fired, that IS religious discrimination. Is that right?-RtHonMP 21:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Of course it is religious intolerance - a Quaker, a Jehovah's Witness and a Methodist have all lost their jobs over the matter, because none of them were comfortable signing the declaration. The Quaker teacher is quoted as saying "The way it's laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker," she said. This is clearly religious discrimination. ArnieS 22:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
The quote is absurd. The oath merely requires defending the Constitution. The case reminds me of the attempt to claim a right to take drugs based on a claim of religious freedom, see Employment Div. v. Smith. Laws against hallucinatory drugs do not amount to religious discrimination. Neither does an oath to defend the Constitution.--Aschlafly 23:00, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Sir, your intolerance for those of faith is clear, but I can assure you that we Friends hold fast and dear to the long established tradition of our Peace Testimony, and we hold that all faiths are equal in the eyes of God, and all should have the right to choose nonviolence. I'm surprised by your attitude, I had expected a more gracious welcome to those of fatih at a conservative site like this.ArnieS 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
An impostor could say the same thing you did. What you didn't tell us is why one should be entitled to a government job while refusing to promise to defend the Constitution. Liberals are as good in using deceit in religion as in other ways. Even if the job applicant is sincere, there is no entitlement to a government job.--Aschlafly 21:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see how "defending the Constitution" means you have to participate in war. Rockthecasbah 19:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The oath is not intended to be religiously discriminatory, but it appears that it does have that affect in cases, such as this. The fact that other institutions allow for people signing to qualify their agreement, but this was not allowed in this case, also makes one wonder if some discrimination was involved.
Ames (RtHonMP), creationists are not discriminated against for failing to "follow the required processes", but for failing to agree to the dominant ideology. It has nothing to do with competency. See here for an example.
Rockthecasbah, signing to say that you are willing to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." does at least imply that one is willing to go to war. I think the other Quaker teacher mentioned, Marianne Kearney-Brown, had a sensible approach of inserting "nonviolently" into it. This allowed her to sign the statement in such a way as to not negate the meaning.
Philip J. Rayment 21:41, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
The oath does not say how the defense of the Constitution would be undertaken. One could mean only nonviolent defense and still sign it.
But if someone is uncomfortable with that, then they have no right to the job. All sorts of laws might place theoretical burdens on relatively rare religious beliefs, such as bans on hallucinatory drugs. Those laws do not discriminate against religion.
The bigger concern is the possible misuse of religion to advance a deeper ideological view, such as someone not willing (even nonviolently) to defend the Constitution.--Aschlafly 22:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree with you, ASchlafly. Clearly if someone isn't willing to take a loyalty oath, then their patriotism has to be called into question. She certainly doesn't give Quakers a good name. BryonRichards 23:04, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Operation Port Adelaide

Is it possible to have an update on what this was and how it went? Apparently it happened about 5 hours ago (from the deletion log) so there must be some indication as to whether it was successful or not. Also, was there a connection to Port Adelaide or was it just an interesting name, because if the second case was true there could have been more inspiring names (if only because the Swans are much, much better than the Magpies :P). StatsMsn 06:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, Port Adelaide were successful in their match against Essendon, so does that answer your question?  :-) (p.s. my wife, a former Sydney-sider, would agree with you about the Swans.) Philip J. Rayment 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

The whole Europe thing

How do you want to deal with the Europe thing. Turn to Africa instead, or save Europe, make it less decadent, get rid of it's hate speech laws, and let the the white race survive? I'd go with the second one, it's far better. CaptainRoemer 10:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

to user: Conservative

Conservative - I don't know where else to put this, because you locked your talk page. Anyways, I have sent you a very important e-mail. Please read it as soon as possible. --DeanSa 17:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Another left-wing liar

Marty Parrish, the self-proclaimed "Baptist minister" who asked John McCain if he called his wife a vulgar name, is just another left-wing liar. He claimed to be from the West Memphis First Baptist Church, but this is what the church has to say about Mr. Parrish:

"Response to the John McCain Town Hall Meeting involving "Baptist minister Marty Parrish." Marty Parrish is an inactive member of our church. He is not a minister of this church or any other church."[11]

Unsurprisingly, the left-stream media is completely ignoring this inconvenient truth.[12] Jinxmchue 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, he worked for Joe Biden as a campaign office manager in Iowa, signed in to the town meeting as a reporter, and collaborated with MoveOn before the event.[13]--RossC 07:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
I know that this really doesn't pertain too much to this, but are all left-winged people lairs? Just wondering because the way that the title is stated makes it sound like all left-winged people are lairs.
As a Christian, I've no doubt that everyone has lied at some time or another (including myself), so that would mean that yes, all left-wing people are liars. But the obvious context of my comment is that this is yet another example of someone from the left lying about who they are in order to give themselves phony credibility. Add this to the list that includes Jesse Macbeth, Jeb Eddy, Jim Ronca, and a slew of people on Democratic Underground. Jinxmchue 11:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Illegal Immigrants

Funnily enough I actually support the message that the story is promoting (tougher boarder restrictions), however the passage is a work of fiction based off the perceived profile of an illegal immigrant, not a true story written by an illegal immigrant, as our current headline proclaims. StatsMsn 05:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools