Talk:Main Page/archive78

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Potential inaccuracies concerning Dec 7th, 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor, HI article on main page

Let me preface this with the facts that I am a 6 year Navy veteran and a military history buff, especially World War II. I was recently skimming over the page and saw the blurb mentioning the attacks as a rememberance. In which, the time of 6:00am was given as the commencement of the attack. Is this time local to Pearl Harbor, or local to the Japanese forces whom launched the attack? Also, are you referring to the launch of the first wave of aircraft from the Japanese aircraft carriers, or the time that the first shots were fired on NAS Ford Island? As seen in all the actions reports from that day listed in the database located on the website for the Naval History and Heritage Command, http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm, the first shots of the air raid portion of the military action by the Japanese were taken at targets on Ford Island during the playing of revielle (08:00hrs L (HST)), as well at various other targets in and around the harbor. Although, there are disputes that a US frigate actually fired the first shots shortly after 02:00hrs L (HST) at what was believed to be a Japanese mini-submarine trying to infiltrate the harbor. We just need to be mindful of the facts when talking about any subject. But this also lead me to look at the article concerning WWII itself and I found a glaring innacuracy on an image in that article concerning the timeline of the war in the Pacfic Theater. "1941 - Japanese invade Pearl Harbor, 7 Dec" --- correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Japanese ever landed troops on any of the Hawai'ian islands. How does a coordinated air and undersea attack constitute an invasion with no landing troops? Yes, the American forces readied themselves for an invasion, but one never came. --Jrbuetow 14:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If you please, you are welcome to make the needed corrections. Karajou 14:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Unclear news item

I just saw the news item about the CBP report, and the quote associated with it. I got the impression that it was the article writer who actually said the thing about the public being better than experts. However, upon reading the article I saw the the writer was just quoting the originator of the CBP. Could this be changed to make it clearer e.g. adding 'said Andy Schlafly' (though someone can probably come up with something better). --SeanK 15:31, 3 December 2009 (EST)

  • It is an exact quote from the article, and there is a link. That seems perfect fair to me.--Wuhao1911 15:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I think SeanK has a point. Normally when a quote is posted on the main page it is what was actually said by the person writing the article in question. Without actually reading the article it may appear that it was the reporter who actually said that line, rather than the interviewee. DWiggins 17:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)
No, I don't agree. The reporter had many quotes, but selected this one in particular. The quote is obviously one that would be attributed to someone else, but to add all that detail is unnecessary for a headline. In this case, to add it would appear to be self-aggrandizing and would detract from the important substance of the point being made by the quote.--Andy Schlafly 18:01, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Well the arguments over its display aside, I was wondering whether I might challenge the quotation itself in a way. Surely an 'expert' is someone who possesses a great deal of knowledge or skill with regards to a particular topic or activity. If someone is an expert in something then don't they by definition have the attributes suitable for the task? It just appears rather contradictory to have used the term expert there. If you are referring to the 'liberal professors' responsible for previous translations then surely your argument is that they are not actually experts? DWiggins 20:47, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I think "expert" in this context really means someone who claims to know a lot about a topic, but really doesn't. Much like the meteorological "experts" who allege man-made global warming for example. --FatherJoseph 20:51, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Great point, Father Joseph.
An "expert" is someone who is "accepted" as an authority on something. That means he has a track record of formal degrees, politically correct statements, and may be vulnerable to politically pressure. Even if he is the brightest and most knowledgeable guy in the world, and often he isn't, he cannot speak as freely as a random member of the public.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not so sure of your definition, Andy. I believe that an expert is usually a third party individual who is very knowledgeable in his field. While there may be some pressure on him to be politically correct, I don't think that it would make him say something that wasn't the truth (Global Warming being an exception). If I'm wrong and you can show me multiple examples (other than Climategate) of when experts have given into political pressure and been afraid to speak the truth because of political correctness, please tell me so that I can become more informed.--Jvasile 21:47, 3 December 2009 (EST)
A great example of this is "expert witnesses" in trials. Often both the defense and the prosecution will summon their own "expert witnesses" to testify about the same aspect of the case, as clearly each side's "expert" is biased towards their respective party. --FatherJoseph 22:28, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Excellent point. Each side's "expert" in a trial completely contradict each other, yet both are "accepted" as "experts". The correct answer is then determined, not by experts, but by members of the public.--Andy Schlafly 22:52, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I have to agree with SeanK and DWiggins, the news article on the main page is written in such a manner as to suggest the writer of the article is the one who made the quote, instead of the originator of the CBP, who was being interviewed. It gives the impressive the article is in support of the project, when in reality, it is neutral. --BMcP 21:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
And let us not forget what a 'doctored version of the Bible' seems to mean in this context. In the AP version of the article, which also quotes Professor Jenkins, has the following quote: "Ironically, there's a long tradition of the liberal twisting of scripture," Jones said. "Scholars have rightly deemed those translations illegitimate, and this conservative Bible is every bit as illegitimate.". It think that it is important to point out that 'doctoring', in this case, can come from 'both sides' as it were. --Tuffskin 22:32, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Except obviously this is not symmetric. The conservative approach is to find and abide by original intent. The liberal approach is to ignore and change it.--Andy Schlafly 23:39, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Ok, your point with regards to symmetry is taken. But I must ask - how can anyone be certain of the "original intent" of the Bible, especially as we view it through the prism of 2000 years of human history? I personally believe that there is a lot of value contained within the Bible, but is not every person's relationship with God personal and unique? How can any one group (political or otherwise) lay claim to "original intent"? My apologies - I do not mean to be inflammatory, argumentative, or to begin a theological debate. I do, however, wish to understand in more detail your ability to lay claim to "original intent". I believe that to be worthy of some thought and reflection.--Tuffskin 02:43, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Just a quick point for Joseph: The branch of study relevant to climate change is climatology, not meteorology, although there are of course strong links between the two disciplines. DWiggins 22:17, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Colbert

I am wondering why on Earth we are going to allow ourselves to be humiliated in front of millions by being put on the Colbert report? It is a show meant for comedic purposes and will undoubtedly simply result is a proverbial "roast" which will delight adversaries all around. Is this the best idea? --Matthew2208 22:41, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Why do you assume it's going to be humiliating? Getting our views out there can only be a good thing. It will bring plenty of attention to the site, and some of those people will stick around. I'm some of them will help those of us who are already here do what we're already doing, but even better and more of it. DanielPulido 22:58, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Why the fear of liberals? We reach a young audience that may be attracted to the truth only Conservapedia provides. Will Colbert get the best of us? Will a Colbert mocking be the end of Conservapedia? The answer to both is a resounding no. We'll get brand recognition, we'll get higher search engine results, we'll pick-up a few good contributors in the process. It's a win-win with nearly zero downside. The liberals maybe in delight for the moment but they will sob as we grow bigger and stronger. --Jpatt 22:59, 8 December 2009 (EST)
I found the Colbert Report Viewers wiki news section to be helpful for, at the very least, directing some of the new audience to a place where they can vent/speak/play/etc. without disrupting other areas of the encyclopedia. DerekE 14:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Jpatt- Liberals currently rule the American media, thats why they should be feared. --Jvasile 20:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

The Colbert Report *did* get some of us on your site. I, personally, find it wierd and disturbing. I'm not left or right. Somewhere in the between. Conservative on some issues, Liberal on others. Why limit yourself to one way of thinking? Why not just use common sense? We all just want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, right? Isn't that how this all started? We fought a major war on our territory against the British just to say what we want to say. Why be so mean?

Is your comment directed at liberals? A fair-minded analysis would likely conclude that liberals are more "mean" than conservatives.

~ My comment is directed at this site. It seems very one-sided. Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart can make fun of an incumbant Democrat, being Liberal themselves, but it seems to me that the Right takes things far too seriously. And, in my humble opinion, Liberals have a much better sense of humor. But, like I said, I'm neither. I am a registered Independent. Which doesn't get me into parties.

Our public education system needs to be fixed. I agree. And this system has been broken for many years and through many administrations -- Left and Right. I think it's the major downfall of our economy that we didn't teach these kids. The problem with our economy, our country, and our war(s), is that people just don't think. Or know.

And I don't see how a fair-minded analysis would lead me to believe that Liberals are more mean. Seems to me, watching Fox News, that those folks are far more critical, mean-spirited and one-sided, where the other guys just laugh it off. Again. Not taking sides. You can stick to your guns... it's your Second Amendment right... Or you can think for yourselves. ~

Common sense is great, but agreeing simply to get along is obviously not helping anyone. Over 30 million Americans never learned to read in American public schools, which are undeniably run by liberals. Is that something to be quiet and "nice" about?--Andy Schlafly 07:11, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Logic prevails. That's why American voters continue to move to the right.--Andy Schlafly 20:59, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Al Gore's statement on Climategate emails

I think the irony of the statement needs to be noted. Gore and other global warming believers have taken both little and big things from the past and present out of context in order to push their earth-worshiping claptrap. Jinx McHue 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)

It should be noted that the topic title and discussion relevancy for "Al Gore's statement on Climategate emails" ends here. The following is a continuation of the discussion above.DaveGBx 09:40, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Is your comment directed at liberals? A fair-minded analysis would likely conclude that liberals are more "mean" than conservatives. Common sense is great, but agreeing simply to get along is obviously not helping anyone. Over 30 million Americans never learned to read in American public schools, which are undeniably run by liberals. Is that something to be quiet and "nice" about?--Andy Schlafly 07:11, 13 December 2009 (EST)


Nobody here is taking Jon Stewart "far too seriously." Nobody here even notices him much. Take a look at our "Recent changes" page and you'll see that it's liberals, not conservatives, who obsess most with the media.
No, it's not due to the economy that over 30 million Americans went through our public schools, at an expense of over $10,000 per student per year, and can't read. It takes only two dozen weeks and a pittance in expense to teach a youngster how to read. You're in denial about the harm liberal ideology causes.
You seemed determined not to take sides. The trouble is that such a position doesn't help anyone. I guess it's possible to go through life saying and doing nothing to help the victims of harmful ideologies, but why would anyone want to make that a goal?--Andy Schlafly 08:13, 13 December 2009 (EST)


I think it's clear that I *am* taking sides, and I also think it's clear what side I'm on. ~P

The only thing that's clear is that you're not opposing the harm caused by the ideological left, an example of which I mentioned above. So be it, but I wouldn't brag about that.--Andy Schlafly 14:30, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I oppose harm caused by left *or* right. This is the reason for the "Can't we all just get along?" attitude. Left fights Right, Right fights Left yet we all have to live here. This is certainly not the dream of the Founding Fathers. They engaged in critical debate. Now it's all about the $. ~P

Really? So do tell us, what harm by the left are you opposing? I gave you a specific example: liberals run the public schools with a ton of money, and they produce over 30 million illiterates (not to mention many other problems). Do you even speak out against this harm, let alone do anything about it?--Andy Schlafly 14:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Eduation is compulsory in the United States. It has nothing to do with Left or Right -- it's just being done poorly. We pay our educators too little and don't have a high enough standard for them. We're all in this together, Mr Schlafly. I'm on your side. The education of the children today will have everything to do with our futures, good or bad. Liberals do *not* run the public school systems. There should be a ton more money poured into the public education system. And what I do about it is teach. I teach music to people who don't know how to play and I lead by example with good grammar, spelling and thought-provoking ideas. I hope. I love my country and I want it to succeed.

phillipsand@hotmail.com

Obama accepts his sloppy-wet kiss from Socialists

aka his Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize

A greater and more humble man would've turned it down. Obama, however, is neither great nor humble. I'm almost expecting to see him wearing the medallion during all his future television appearances. Jinx McHue 14:19, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Well the only person to ever decline the Nobel Peace Prize was Vietnamese communist general and politician, Lê Ðức Thọ in 1973 (Henry Kissinger who also won, accepted). I am not surprised he accepted, every other president who won has. --BMcP 15:08, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Climate change

Can we please settle this matter. On numerous occasions stories have been posted on the main page claiming to disprove global warming because such and such a place is experiencing record low temperatures. This is in no way proof for or against global warming. Global warming concerns long term changes, if the theory is true or not then you can still have extremes of temperature either way. Areas of my country were experiencing heat waves and record high temperatures last summer, that no more proves global warming than record lows disprove it. Trying to pass cases like this off as evidence against global warming simply undermines your argument. I'm not saying your argument is wrong, only that this is not evidence to back it up. DWiggins 16:27, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I must agree. Single day, week, month, year, or one can argue, even decade of temperature readings isn't enough to prove or disprove either global cooling or warming as long term trend. In the terms or year to year changes the greater source is El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific. Here in Wisconsin, November was above normal in temperature and dry after a cool, wet October. We even had one day in the Seventies, some twenty degrees over the average. Now in December we are in the grip of a cold air mass. Yesterday it was in the single digits, more then 20 degrees below normal. However such ranges are normal and indicate nothing. --BMcP 17:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Your comments illustrate classic liberal flip-flopping. If global warming really were science -- as liberals claim -- then it is testable and falsifiable. The liberal scientists claim that the crisis is so dire, so urgent, and so compelling that Congress must act IMMEDIATELY to avert the doom of significantly higher temperatures.
When, in fact, the evidence is of lower temperatures, and even record low temperatures, liberals pretend that such facts are irrelevant. Sorry, that illogic doesn't fly here.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I don't see how it is 'liberal' anything. It's science. Global warming theory is falsifiable but temperature records from very specific places and very short periods of time are not the means through which the theory can be falsified. The main difference between the definitions of 'weather' and 'climate' concerns the time period. The temperature data you cite is directly relevant to the former but less so to the latter. Of course it is related to climate but is much less significant as part of a long-term average. If you are to argue that a new record low temperature in a certain area logically means that global warming is falsified, then logically the opposite must also be take to be true, that a higher record temperature in a certain place supports the theory. If we look across the world then such records, of both highs and lows occur often, and some places may well experience a record high at the same time that another experiences a record low. This means that neither argument is logical.

This is not me arguing that global warming is or isn't true, only that these examples are not evidence for or against it. DWiggins 17:59, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Your argument is utter gibberish, I'm sorry to say. Were global warming true, local record colds would be impossible, as the normal climatic range would be elevated. The fact that there are such record colds shows that the range of climatic variance is unchanged, or perhaps cooling as per the usual cycle. DouglasA 18:03, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Actually, Vienna has been going through the second mildest winter in history (the mildest was in 2002). Ski resorts have had a hard time, as the mountains weren't ready for the first month's-worth of reservations. But that was after a first snow that happened one month earlier than usual. There's obviously something odd going on this year; I happen to agree with the climatologists that blame it on El Nino, which typically causes colder winters in northern Europe and the USA's eastern seabord, and warmer winters in central and southern Europe. JDWpianist 18:05, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Douglas I'm afraid my argument makes perfect sense, whereas there is no logic to your statement that "Were global warming true, local record colds would be impossible". How do record lows show that variance is unchanged? Surely, if anything it shows the opposite, at least so far as one extreme has been further extended, especially when it is occuring at the same time as record highs in other areas. Temperatures and other variables related to the climate vary greatly both spatially and temporally. Extreme highs and lows are to be expected no matter what the overall trend.

No one has really addressed my point about record high temperatures yet. These have also occurred in places recently, so using the same reasoning being applied to the record lows, why is it not argued that these cases prove global warming? I believe it undermines your argument concerning the credibility of global warming theory when data such as this is cited as 'evidence'...whether you are arguing for or against it. DWiggins 18:15, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Record low temperatures before winter even starts does contradict the claim of global warming hucksters that the world temperatures are rising so fast that it is a crisis requiring immediate restrictions on energy. Even if there were record warm temperatures OF A COMPARABLY striking amount, the claim of the global warmists would still be discredited. The evidence, by the way, is that the cold temperatures are more striking and more prevalent than the warm ones, and overall temperatures are cooling. DWiggins, this is basic logic and I urge to be more logical, a habit that develops from reading or translating the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 11 December 2009 (EST)
May I begin by enquiring what the Bible has to do with this? Can we please try and stick to the issue at hand, that of climatology rather than theology.
The data that has been cited are merely one-off extremes. No extreme in either direction which is so strictly limited in time and space provides any evidence for or against global warming. Climate change by its very definition requires the change to be long term, not simply a very short term one extreme as is the case. Look up the definition of 'climate' and you will see this for yourself. The data as it is can only be relevant to 'weather', it only becomes relevant to the issue of climate change in terms of evidence when it becomes part of the long-term temperature record in the attempt to establish a trend. I merely mention the warm extremes given that these no more prove the theory than the cool ones disprove it. It is not logical that these extremes translate into any sort of disproof of global warming. The logical argument is that since climate concerns long-term conditions, such short-term and localised extremes cannot be used as evidence on their own as you have tried to do here. DWiggins 19:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
DWiggins isn't arguing for global warming, he is arguing that local extremes in temperature neither prove or disprove the theory, and he is right. Just because there is a record low during meteorological winter (versus astronomical winter, which starts on the solstice)[1], it doesn't disprove the theory. What would you say if in meteorological summer, the same area experiences record highs? That's is the point, because by the logic of whomever posted the claim that record low kills the idea of global warming is essentially admitting any record high is tantamount to proof of the theory, even though it would not. --BMcP 20:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Folks, you're arguing against logic now. You have free will to be illogical. You have free will to avoid reading or translating the Bible, and spend your time on illogical pursuits. And I have free will not to waste more time begging you to be logical.
For the last time, examples of shifts in temperature extremes are suggestive of shifts in the entire distribution. The global warmists claim the distribution is rapidly shifting to significantly higher temperatures. Observed shifts in the extremes to lower temperatures do contradict the claim. You have free will to reject this logic, but you lose credibility when you do.--Andy Schlafly 20:31, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I will add that every climate scientist predicted nothing but warming. None of their calculations included cooling. Also, nearly all of them expected horrible hurricane seasons, pin drop.--Jpatt 20:35, 11 December 2009 (EST)
The question of temperature distribution was not the point originally being argued, and indeed global warming is a theory stating that the mean temperature is increasing. Any trends in distribution are related, but not the focus. The claims regarding more extreme weather conditions are the effects of an average temperature increase, as such they follow the warming. You appear to be mixing the theory itself, that the average surface temperature is increasing, with the projected effects of such an increase.
You have also mixed up mean temperature with extremes. Extremes are given that name because they deviate significantly from the mean. You can have two systems, one with huge temperature fluctuations and one with tiny fluctuations, yet both can still have the same long-term average and the same overall trend. Single cases alone, such as those you cite do not even provide evidence of any trend in the temperature distribution, let alone the mean temperature. I am not going to back down on this because what I am saying is the truth, and citing these examples as disproving global warming only serves to undermine your actual argument. Both I and BMcP have tried to get across what is a relatively simple matter of scientific reasoning, and I ask that you trust our knowledge in these matters and heed our advice. DWiggins 20:51, 11 December 2009 (EST)
In answer to Jpatt: whether or not the predictions of the climatologists were right or absolute rubbish this does nothing to undermine what I am saying. To show that their predictions have not been fulfilled is not a question of taking instances of record low temperatures as is the case here. In order to refute predictions long-term averages in the mean surface temperature are taken. Each of these record lows provide but a single piece of data amongst countless others. DWiggins 20:51, 11 December 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, you're babbling nonsense in defense of proven fraudsters, and I'm not going to waste any more time on this. A shift in extremes is typically indicative of a shift in the mean. Your convoluted attempt to claim that the mean is increasing but the lower extremes are decreasing is implausible.
More generally, I'm certainly not going to rely on the judgment of those who irrationally refuse to read logical books such as the Bible. The essence of liberal ideology is to reject logic, as global warming hucksters do. And, by the way, the data show directly that the mean temperature is decreasing, in complete confirmation of what logic predicts.--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 11 December 2009 (EST)

DWiggins, you are an idiot and your denials of the global warming fraud are insane. Watch this with an open mind and maybe you will learn to stop worshiping scientists. JacobB 21:15, 11 December 2009 (EST)


Mr Schlafly. I am not defending any side of the debate. At no point have I actually said whether I believe the global warming theory or not, I am simply arguing for the use of proper evidence on both sides. Whilst a shift in extremes may often be indicative of a shift in the mean it is not always so and thus we cannot assume it to be the case. I have not stated that the mean IS increasing or that lower extremes ARE decreasing. I have simply provided hypothetical scenarios to illustrate my point that a shift in temperature range does not conclusively indicate a similar change in the mean.

And forgive me but I am struggling to understand the numerous references to the Bible, and more particularly to my reading habits regarding it, which I have at no point actually stated but you appear to have assumed. Whilst I do not wish to divert this debate to a theological one, I feel the need to correct a few mistaken assumptions. I HAVE read the Bible, but I do not see the need to reference it when discussing temperature data.

I'm glad you at least finished on a point directly related to climatology. If the observed data does indeed show a decrease in the mean temperature then fine, that is evidence to support a cooling trend. My argument boils down to this, the cited cases of record low temperatures does not provide such evidence whilst an observed change in the means does. I only ask that the they do not get mixed up. DWiggins 21:17, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Why you are responding is beyond me - Andy already told you he has no interest in listening to your stupidity, and it surprises nobody that you are "struggling to understand the numerous references to the Bible". Go make yourself useful for a change and make some constructive edits. JacobB 21:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)
JacobB. Even if you disagree with what I am saying I hope we can at least agree that I have been civil throughout this entire exchange and have not seen the need to resort to personal insults, nor will I do so now.
I have at no point actually defended any sort of fraud, nor even stated that global warming is true. I have only said that whether the theory is true or false, the record lows are not scientific evidence on the matter and do not help in proving things one way or the other. DWiggins 21:21, 11 December 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, I'm going to move on to more productive edits on this site, but let me correct two aspects of your comments. You emphasize that you "have read the Bible," but I'm confident that the fuller truth is that you "stopped reading the Bible" once you were taught an atheistic view of science. I'm also confident the same is true for BMcP. I don't say that to insult either of you, but to beg both of you to wake up and recognize what you have allowed to happen in your own reading habits. Benefit from giving the Bible, the most logical book ever written, merely 5% of your spare time, and you'll be amazed by the positive results.
The second point is what I've said before: it's implausible that the mean temperature has increased when the lower extreme has decreased, and it is factually false based on recent, direct observations of both.--Andy Schlafly 21:38, 11 December 2009 (EST)

'Climategate' headline inaccuracy

"For three years NASA has been stonewalling the release of climate data in Freedom of Information requests. It is the same exact stunt the British CRU played before their data was released without permission." The CRU's data wasn't released without their permission. E-mails stored on the CRU's servers were released without their permission and it came out later that some of their temperature data had gone missing (either lost or intentionally deleted). EJHall 07:10, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Great catch. We strive to be precise here. I've corrected it per your suggestion. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 07:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Moronic rant by a troll

How exactly is a professor at Butler University a liberal? You may not agree with the point he made, but that doesn't make him a liberal, and neither does it make him wrong, especially in the points he made. Indeed, attempting to state that any professional at Butler University as being a liberal is derisible. Presumably you are now accusing OneNewsNow of being a liberal news outlet as they have now produced three articles, all of which slate the CBP. As does the dangerously liberal American Family Association and the incredibly liberal members of the Rapture Ready site.

Once already I have provided warning about the necessity of humility, but instead you have chosen to throw such words back in the faces of those who seek to save you. So be it, the time for hints is over. I will say bluntly what should have been immediately obvious. Your misguided attempt at rewriting the Bible to suit your own view remains unsupported by any reputable or major conservative organisation of any kind, not even the Eagle Forum has come out in support for this 'project'. And there is a reason for this. What you are doing is blasphemy. No ifs. No buts. No maybes. You may attempt any kind of sophistry you wish to in a vain attempt to justify your behaviour, but all such 'justifications' are easily seen through, especially by God, and the blasphemy found at the heart of such words.

So I will say this to each and every person engaged in this 'project'. Learn the Lesson of Adam. God gave you freewill, but did not give you permission to use that to sin. Do not do as Adam did, and be led or tempted into behaviour that leads only to the eternal damnation of your soul. This blasphemy that is the Conservapedia Bible Project will damn your immortal soul to an eternity in Hell unless you turn aside now and truly repent of your hubris and sin.

And, of course, we come to the final nub. I have put these words here to save the souls present at this site from the eternal grip of Hell. Remove these words and you do the work of the Devil, for he is truly rubbing his hands with glee at the fine crop of damned souls that seem to be heading his way.--DanHutchin 12:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)

My patience is at an end. Once, I carefully refuted these kinds of claims, but after being accused of blasphemy so many times it gets old. Your idiocy really knows no bounds, does it, Dan? Obviously, you have no idea what the CBP is about, since you claim it is an "attempt at rewriting the Bible to suit your own view."
THIS IS FALSE.
The CBP is about translating the Bible to reflect views which were ORIGINALLY PRESENT, and then REMOVED in the English by liberal translators. Can you not bother to read what the project is before criticizing it? JacobB 16:33, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Dan, I also find your rant to be unjustified. It wouldn't take your 394 words above for you to say this: have liberal professors translate the Bible behind closed doors. You could say that in less than ten words.
But those days are gone. The Bible belongs to the public, and the best of the public is far better than your best collection of professors. Moreover, our process is open to public scrutiny, while the alternative is not. Rant all you like, but the future belongs to the process we're using here.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, I'm concerned that some liberal, atheistic, and communist groups are going to try and change the Bible translation for the worse. If we open the translation to the public the liberals could infiltrate it. What precautions are we taking about that? Svincent 23:02, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Vincent, we know of a group of liberals who are bent on vandalism. We revert their edits. While I applaud your enthusiasm, I also encourage you to better Conservapedia by making substantive edits to our articles, and not just talk pages. Welcome to Conservapedia. JacobB 23:15, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Well put, Jacob. Vincent, your concern seems a bit shallow given your edit pattern to talk pages. As many realize, liberals already are mistranslating the Bible without public scrutiny or participation, and then the liberals will predictably claim to have the best new version.--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 12 December 2009 (EST)

A "not particulary intelligent" troll pretends to care about our image

I am young christian and i come from conservative family. I am perhaps most conservative persons you meet, but i follow the Word and try always to do the right thing. I recently found Conservapedia, and i was suprised how negative image everybody have about it, even fellow conservatives. I was few minutes ago chatting in one of the chats that young people like me use, and found direct attack against Conservapedia (see link, might contain strong language) http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/7114675/ It is nothing new, all people do not like us. So, now i am asking, how could we promote Conservapedia and try to improve our public image. I mean, even those people i saw chatting, who are about my age (16 or so) already have negative image about us. What could we do about it? I am not particulary intelligent, but i would love to help if any one you has an idea. Sincerely your, Youngster 10:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)

First section contains much inside talk, but it turns more political Youngster 10:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Don't let the mainstream media and children with a warped liberal view get you down, especially anti-social children who solely seek pleasure in stirring trouble with people they can't see. I've found the best way to at least try to change this site is by contributing and making it's truthful conservative message much more clear. Of course the liberals hate the Conservative Bible Project, only because the truth will come out, and all of their liberal immorality will be exposed. -MadShell 10:31, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I agree. But i also kinda undestand the original posters distaste, as i have also played role playing games. I really cant regret having good time with my friends, nor do i feel urge to sacrifice babies to Leviathan. I see that outsider might find playing RPGs weird if they have never played any.

When we come to serial killers or other madmen, pretty much everything from games to rap music (or gospel, it is not the point), can trigger destructive behavior. Youngster 11:11, 13 December 2009 (EST)

That is an obscene lie. Why don't you show me the serial killers who were set off by gospel music, or by reading the Bible? Because you can't; there have never been any. Immoral media corrupts minds and souls, not Godly work. DouglasA 11:18, 13 December 2009 (EST)
DouglasA, did you do a Google search for "serial killers and the Bible" before posting that? Hit number 1 is this summary of the FBI's profile of a typical serial killer. Included in the profile: "Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists." And, you may or may not have heard about Bible John, who quotes the Bible before killing. To blame the Bible for these sickos doing what they do would not be fair, but your point is not true.
Just dropped by to keep you honest. Have a blessed day. :) JDWpianist 15:58, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I beg your pardon, my point was that what causes such behavior is not always the thing people would like to blame and often first do so. Youngster 11:23, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Suggestion

There have been many vandals trolling this site, and I think I may have found a solution to this. A MediaWiki extension, ConfirmAccount, requires a user with a certain user right to approve an account before it is created. Thoughts? NP 13:18, 13 December 2009 (EST)

We've considered and rejected that extension because it is incompatible with our commitment to full and easy public access and contributions to this site, as summarized in our concept of the best of the public. But thanks for your suggestion. Any chance you can contribute substantively to some entries, as others are? Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 13:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Apologies for not contributing to the mainspace enough, I will try to make some more meaningful contributions in the future. NP 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Obama administration weeds out republicans from government jobs

Obama administration "make[s] a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and... attempt[s] to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers."" [2] JacobB 17:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Good find! Weren't the liberals all up in arms when George W. Bush appointed the most qualified candidates for U.S. attorneys, saying they were "political appointments" because they didn't adhere to the PC atheistic worldview? Strange we don't hear them complaining about this obvious abuse of power. AngusT 00:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Woods

There should probably be a news story up about the liberal values that led to Tiger Woods' (The "Obama" of golf) recent implosion. Aroth 18:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Other than a mention in the Tiger Woods article I don't really see what place this has on the site. Tiger Woods is not a political figure, he's apparently a registered independent, and besides, there are high profile figures from all across the political spectrum who have engaged in similar behaviour. DWiggins 12:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)
There's that "everyone's the same" mindset again. No, it's not symmetric. Liberals accept and engage in such behavior to a far greater extent than conservatives do, just as liberal deceit is far more pervasive than conservative deceit is. Claiming there are no differences is as silly as claiming that smokers are just as healthy as non-smokers. In fact, tobacco companies have long made that very claim!
The real reason we don't waste time on Woods is because so much of the story has been gossipy, and our site has avoided gossip from the very beginning for educational reasons and as a way of reducing bias.--Andy Schlafly 18:21, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I think Andy is right. This "scandal" is not really indicative of any greater malaise in golf. Indeed, professional golfers tend to be quite religious folk. I speak as a fan. Jdixon 07:13, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Obama's approval rating

The -19 is actually Rassmussen's "approval index," not Obama's approval rating. This should be clarified. Jinx McHue 14:05, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Debt, anyone?

In the news, the section covering The US federal deficit is currently experiencing explosive exponential growth is excellent... I'm not sure how many of you have seen this, but here's a great real-time "clock" showing the US National Debt, along with all the intangibles that go with it. DerekE 14:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Internal contradictions in the Bible

I would post this question on the Bible talk page but it's locked at the moment.

I've been thinking about getting involved in the translation project but I'm puzzled by the fact that there are often several different versions of the same story which contradict each another. I would be genuinely interested in knowing how people who believe the Bible is literally true and inerrant reconcile them.

For example, there are three accounts of Jesus' trial involving different people, different timings and different events in the Gospels of John, Luke and Matthew (Mark is consistent with Matthew but lacks some details). The three accounts are quite simply inconsistent with one another. Then there are the two completely different, contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. And then there are the many ways in which Chronicles contradicts Samuel and Kings...

You don't need higher criticism or liberal scholarship to see the contradictions, you just need to read the Bible. How do Biblical literalists deal with them? JosephMac 16:38, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Real contradictions in accounts in the Bible are exceedingly rare. Real, meaningful contradictions are non-existent. The Bible has far greater consistency than any other historical accounts.
It's a bit odd, isn't it, that contradictions by multiple eyewitnesses to the same event are routinely accepted but then become someone's objection to the Bible. At most such an objection would be to one type of interpretation of the Bible, not to the Bible itself. We could interview three different people about something they saw yesterday and they would contradict each other more than the Bible does, and no one would find fault with that.--Andy Schlafly 18:14, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I understand what you're saying but you haven't answered the question. How does someone who takes the Bible literally and believes that everything it says is true deal with the fact - and it is a fact - that there are three mutually incompatible accounts of Jesus's trial and two incompatible accounts of the Creation? JosephMac 18:34, 14 December 2009 (EST)
The accounts aren't incompatible, as you'd notice if you opened your mind or read some unbiased material about the issue. The Gospel accounts present different viewpoints of Jesus ministry and life, with different focuses and details. They complement eachother. DouglasA 18:38, 14 December 2009 (EST)
The different accounts of Jesus's trial are certainly NOT "incompatible". Quite the contrary, they are more consistent than the descriptions of any other complex event that had multiple eyewitnesses. Have you recently even read the accounts of Jesus's trial???--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Andy: Yes. JosephMac 19:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)
DouglasA: In the first creation story, from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, dry land is created on Day 3 (1:9) followed by plants on the same day, which start growing straightaway (1:12). Animals are created on Day 6 then later that day, people are created, men and women at the same time (1:27). In the second creation story, starting at Genesis 2:4, dry land is created containing seeds (2:5) then man - but not woman - is created (2:7) then plants start growing (2:9) then animals are created (2:19) then woman is created (2:22).
I am keen to know how biblical literalists decide which of these two clearly contradictory stories to accept and why. Or do they create their own mish-mash from the two stories - which would imply that neither is correct? JosephMac 19:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Joseph, I have no time to waste on you if you insist on pitiful ignorance. This has been explained to liberals thousands of times, but closed minds are closed minds. Go here if you really care. DouglasA 19:11, 14 December 2009 (EST)
DouglasA, mind your manners please. In the reference you pointed me to, it says, "The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2." Now that's the kind of thing that puzzles me. How can someone assert that the Bible is literally true and inerrant yet when two chapters contradict one another, they wave it aside by saying "it's not of major concern"? Please could you explain to me how literalists decide which parts of the Bible are literally true and which needn't be considered to be true because they're not "major concerns". If you could help me with that, I think I would have a better insight into the problem. JosephMac 19:17, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Joseph, perhaps if you spent a bit more time actually reading the Bible rather than atheists' little screeds, you'd understand a bit about how we Christians come to know the will of God. I hope one day you will be able to feel the Holy Spirit's presence and know a relationship with God, but if you're seeking to find problems that aren't there, you will never be content. DouglasA 19:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)
It's precisely because I have read it that I see the problems in taking the text literally. JosephMac 19:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Joseph, saying you "have read it" is very different from saying you "read it." Which is it? I suspect that in the distant past you read the Bible, or parts of it, and for a long time since you have not spent any significant percentage of your time reading it. As an illustration of that, your edits to the Bible translation here have been few and typically in need of reversion. And I'm still wondering what differences in the account of the trial of Jesus that you claim are so troubling.--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)

What is troubling here is that the original poster has a legitimate question and instead of directly addressing it all that has happened is that he has had is beliefs and reading habits questioned. Whether the user has read or is currently reading the Bible is irrelevant to the question he has asked. If this question has indeed been answered here previously then surely the most sensible thing would be to post the link to the answer. DWiggins 20:54, 14 December 2009 (EST)

DWiggins, making up false claims about God's word is not a "legitimate question." Conservapedia is not a site for teaching each and every liberal who happens to come along the history of Biblical exegesis when they have no interest in actually learning from our answers. DouglasA 21:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I appreciate your position but it appears that the question was legitimate. The best way to answer the critics is to specifically address the issues they raise. Anyway, that's just my view for what it's worth and I'll leave it there. DWiggins 21:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)
(EC) The "legitimate question" was in fact based on a doubtful assertion that the person wanted to participate in the Bible translation project, and then he claimed that he "recently" read the accounts of Jesus's trial, but later that assertion moved to the past tense, and through it all he never backed up his claim with substantive examples from the trial. A quick look at his edits here are, shall we say, unimpressive. The bottom line is that literalness is no obstacle here, and the question was possibly an example of provocateur activity that has wasted our time.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 14 December 2009 (EST)
There's an interesting school of thought that holds that the "contradiction" posed by the different hours of the Crucifixion is a simple transcription error--the conventions of the time employed letter abbreviations to represent numbers, and the abbreviations for "three" and "six" are similar-looking. It would be entirely possible for a scribe to mistake one for the other, and this would be entirely in keeping with the idea that only the autographic texts are guaranteed to be free of minor transcription errors. I'll see if I can locate the article I read on the subject. --Benp 21:23, 14 December 2009 (EST)

No, Andy, I'm not being provocative. I'm trying to understand the basis on which you want the Bible translation to proceed before I participate further. My first attempt to get involved became quite frustrating because I had to revert repeated attempts to change my (accurate) translation of άνθρωπος as /person/ (gender-neutral) to /man/. That raised the question in my mind of whether Conservapedia editors want an accurate translation or simply a translation which happens to suit USA Conservative ideology.

Benp has come closest to giving the sort of answer I was looking for, so thanks Benp. Two points in your answer need further consideration. One is that, while your answer seems reasonable on the face of it, it's actually quite unlikely that John would have used Roman numerals. He seems to have been a native Aramaic speaker with an adequate knowledge of Greek. There's no evidence at all that he knew any Latin. He might have used Roman numerals but it's much more likely that he'd have used Greek ones (α=1, etc) or written out the words in full. I really don't know because I don't have the original texts (nor do you). If, speculatively, John had written III to mean 3, Luke and Mark/Matthew might have misread it as VI. Or, given the numerous other variations between John and the three synoptic gospels, Luke and Mark (and thence Matthew) might have been working from different traditions recounting Jesus' trial.

Secondly, Benp's answer, despite the fact that it might explain the discrepancies between the surviving texts, doesn't answer my question about literal truth. Should we accept John's account of the trial because it was the first to be written? If so, does that mean that Luke, Mark and Matthew's reports of the trial are not literally true and inerrant? Or vice-versa, taking some criterion or other to favour Luke or Mark/Matthew? I accept that the discrepancies in accounts of the trial of Jesus are small compared to those between the two Creation stories or between Chronicles and Kings, but this is the central event of Christianity and we have three mutually incompatible accounts of it. So, please could Biblical literalists explain how they cope with this?

This matters for the translation because I want to know if you want a literalist account - in which case, which exact choice of words should be translated and why? - or do you want a translation which reflects the broad sense of the text rather than word-by-word accuracy? In my view, the latter would be appropriate. I was brought up in a Calvinist tradition which believed in the literal truth of the Bible but the simple fact of reading the Bible closely (that answers your question, Andy) means I realise it's impossible that the entire text of the Bible as it has come down to us is literally true.

Moreover, each successive translation takes us further away from the original. No translation from one language to another ever represents the original text precisely simply because there aren't simple one-to-one correspondences between words in different languages. Variation has inevitably crept in as the Bible has been translated from Greek to English and English to, say, Zulu. Do literalists accept only the original Greek text (if it can ever be reconstructed) as literally true and inerrant and if so, I repeat, how do they reconcile contradictory accounts of the same event? Or do they accept the essential, rather than literal, truth of variant Greek texts and translations?

DouglasA, my question has nothing to do with a liberal point of view. You don't need to be a liberal to realise that many important parts of the Bible contradict each other, you just need to be able to read.

I'm disappointed that no-one has yet provided a proper explanation of how the two Creation stories can be regarded as a coherent, literal account of a single event. JosephMac 19:51, 15 December 2009 (EST)

So when logic fails, you resort to an long-winded rant? You're certainly convincing no one of your sincerity through the use of liberal wordiness. DouglasA 19:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Er... Who's being illogical? Me, in the reasoned argument and reasonable questions I've presented above? Or the author of the article you referred me to, who dismisses major (MAJOR!!!) contradictions between the two creation stories as "the order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2."
Joseph, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting Roman numerals at all, but rather Greek. The Greeks used letters to designate the letters of the alphabet. Three was "Gamma," or "g." In fact, a number of early manuscripts feature a "g" in place of the number "three" in Mark 15:25. Six, on the other hand, was "z"--and in the script of the time, it would be easy to mistake one for the other. I'm still trying to track down the article in question, but to my memory the author was Albert Barnes, if you care to search for yourself. --Benp 20:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Interesting. Thanks, Ben. That answers my first question. That still leaves us with the second one, about how literalists reconcile the truth of the three mutually incompatible accounts as they've come down to us today. JosephMac 20:04, 15 December 2009 (EST)


My approach to this issue if you are interested

With repect Joseph, I have thought about this very issue myself and having studied a little bit of philosophy at University I answer your questions in the following way. I think perhaps you don't really understand why people are telling you to read the bible regularly. Perhaps this explanation will assist. A philosopher that has always intrigued me is the misunderstood Nietzsche. Now although I reject almost all of his conclusions because I don't believe his original premises I am forever impressed at his ability to express his logic in ways that only become apparent after a full and complete study of his full works. Thus I believe it is not only hubris (though he was certainly arrogant) that caused him to say (sorry I cannot find the exact quote) that those who doubt him, have simply misunderstood him. In my extensive study of Nietzsche's work I that the more I read, the more his arguments become logical.

Now a superficial reading of Nietzsche goes along the lines of 'believes in the concept of superman - therefore he's a racist - I don't like bigot's - therefore I'll ignore everything he has to say.

In actual fact his pronouncement of the superman, when understood as intended, has much to do with the empowerment of the individual and the advancement of society that occurs when individuals achieve their personal will to power. We should not fall into the trap of superficially reading what Nietzsche says by not taking examining the totality of his work and focussing merely on particular phrases and chapters that by themselves are unintelligible.

Similarly, the problems that you feel with contradictions in the Bible can only be resolved by reading it in its entirety and not piecemeal as you are doing. Once you read the bible as a whole, and with proper respect given to context, you WILL see that it's apparent ,logical fallacies are merely illusions.

Now I understand that you may not be able to accept this right now. But please at least try to understand where we are coming from. --PThomson 20:37, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Why should juvenile deviants get presents

Kind of puts a dent in that whole "if you're naughty or nice" thing. This is just another offensive in the War on Christmas! RichardHertz 17:07, 14 December 2009 (EST)

For one thing these children are not 'deviants', they are the children of asylum seekers. The centre in question is an immigration detention centre. DWiggins 20:57, 14 December 2009 (EST)
User is blocked for trolling. Poorly. Jinx McHue 11:17, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Automated stub template deletion?

Surely it would be easy to write a bot to do this? I don't know exactly how hard it is to make a bot edit the site, but deleting all the stub markers by hand seems like a colossal waste of everyone's time -- there are hundreds of them! Anybody have experience in this area? --JimR 18:35, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Salvation Army

Now liberals are attacking one of the largest and most generous charitable organizations, the Salvation Army, for not providing domestic partner benefits to its homosexual employees and for "discriminating against illegal immigrants." [3] JacobB 00:54, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Article about Democrats believing in the supernatural more than Republicans

Be sure to read the reader comments at the bottom of the article. There are a lot of very wise, intelligent and astute people out there. Here's a sampling:

JustAReader
Dec 13, 2009
Or maybe it's just the radical secularist, um, I mean democrats will believe whatever nonsense is around them.

I had a friend who as an astrologer and he said that all other astrologers were democrats. He also told me that they all, to a man, predicted that John Kerry would beat Bush in 2004. I mean, how hard can it be to predict an election? You've got a 50-50 chance if you do it blind.

This astrologer friend told me that among other astrologer and their followers is the common belief that "God is a liberal democrat."

Another more serious explanation is that we're seeing the birth of a new secular religion. It's sacraments are abortion and homosexuality. It's god is the earth. One of its main tenets is the myth of man-made global warming. The chief value of the new religion is tolerance, which means tolerance of anything that is anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-family.

Oldest & Wisest
Dec 13, 2009
G. K. Chesterton once said, "When people stop believing in God, it's easy for them to start believing in anything."

Burke
Dec 13, 2009
We shouldn't be surprised that when someone's foundational political belief is that you can cure the world's ills by sprinkling government pixie dust on them, he will also fall for other kinds of superstitious nonsense.

Shanghaied
Dec 13, 2009
Most Democrats are Humanists. The lack of faith in God sends them skittering all over the map looking for comforting snake oil to fill the emptiness.

Jinx McHue 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)

As per that last comment, I am a Humanist and I can tell you that I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, talking with the dead, Tarot Cards, or fortunetellers. Just a FYI ;) --BMcP 11:54, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Well sure, and there are smokers who have lived to 100. The fact that a few exceptions exist doesn't disprove the rule that in general smoking is harmful, does it? DanielPulido 14:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Most Humanists, at least secular Humanists don't believe in ghosts, spirits, talking with the dead, Tarot Cards, or fortunetellers actually, and are you comparing a philosophy to inhaling a carcinogen? --BMcP 15:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I do not think the smoking analogy fits in, the amount of people believing in such things as ghosts and what not were usually ranging from 10-20% if I remember correctly. Its not just "one or two" democrats here and there that don't believe in such preposterous ideas, its the majority. What was interesting about this article was that it showed that, on average, more democrats believing in such things than republicans, it didn't even imply that most of them do. Sol1221


Certain philosophies are every bit as destructive and detrimental as smoking. Not all damage is physical. --Benp 18:17, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I do not believe you have understood what I have said. I didn't even mention if any philosophies and detrimental to scoeity or health, I simply said the analogy did not fit because it (essentially) stated "out of all the smokers, some may live to 100, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't harmful", which is true, but doesn't fit in because only around 20% (from what I saw) of Democrats believed in ghosts and what not, not a majority. BMcP has it right, the vast majority of humanists and Democrats don't believe in Ghosts, its not just a small minority that doesn't. Sol1221 19:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)


BMcp, your crack about comparing a philosophy to carcinogens is actually right on the money, though you probably didn't mean it to be - philosophies can be just as harmful as cigarette smoking, and none more so than liberalism and humanism and secularism (if they even could be described as coherent philosophy). Ghosts and all that stuff fits right in with the New Age nonsense liberals love, and though you want to deny that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts, we don't censor the truth. JacobB 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

If you are arguing that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts from the posted link we are actually (supposed) to be talking about, then you would also have to argue that Republicans tend to believe in ghosts, but to a lesser extent. In my eyes, saying that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts implies that the majority of Democrats believe in ghosts, or did you mean this in a different way? If you argue that 36% of Democrats claiming to have been in touch with the dead constitutes saying "Democrats tend to..." then I believe you should also say it for Republicans, where 21% of people believe the same thing. The amount of people may be less, but not by a huge amount. Eh, I've lost track. What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't get out of this article that Democrats tend to believe in crazy supernatural occurrences, but that Democrats are MORE LIKELY to believe in such things. Sol1221 19:43, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I don't know if you noticed this, but that's exactly what the post said. So it's clear that you're just here to cause arguments and dissent. JacobB 19:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)


That's cute, it is like you didn't even read what I said. Note until now, I never used the word Democrat or Liberal, so I denied nothing. And what is this about censorship? No one called for the article to be removed. Did you follow the thread? My reply was to a comment from the link re-posted in this talk page, not even to the article itself.
So a larger percentage of Democrats believe in ghosts or what not, sad but true. To me, the idea of ghosts is ridiculous, but the idea of believing in angels and demons are just as ridiculous, and just as difficult for me to take seriously. What if Republicans are more likely to believe the latter? Is that any better? No to me, they are all equally preposterous, without a shred of scientific evidence. Yet again if people want to believe in such things, that is their business, as long as they do not attempt to push it on me, there is no issue. --BMcP 20:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)
What about school prayer? Do you also think that's just other people's business as long as they don't push it on you, or are you actively trying to censor it? DanielPulido 20:56, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Salvation Army

Now liberals are attacking one of the largest and most generous charitable organizations, the Salvation Army, for not providing domestic partner benefits to its homosexual employees and for "discriminating against illegal immigrants." [4] JacobB 00:54, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Why, that's terrible! those homosexuals and illegal immigrants are people too! Salvation Army will pay! Jab5000

Article about Dems believing in supernatural more than GOP'ers

Be sure to read the reader comments at the bottom of the article. There are a lot of very wise, intelligent and astute people out there. Here's a sampling:

JustAReader
Dec 13, 2009
Or maybe it's just the radical secularist, um, I mean democrats will believe whatever nonsense is around them.

I had a friend who as an astrologer and he said that all other astrologers were democrats. He also told me that they all, to a man, predicted that John Kerry would beat Bush in 2004. I mean, how hard can it be to predict an election? You've got a 50-50 chance if you do it blind.

This astrologer friend told me that among other astrologer and their followers is the common belief that "God is a liberal democrat."

Another more serious explanation is that we're seeing the birth of a new secular religion. It's sacraments are abortion and homosexuality. It's god is the earth. One of its main tenets is the myth of man-made global warming. The chief value of the new religion is tolerance, which means tolerance of anything that is anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-family.

Oldest & Wisest
Dec 13, 2009
G. K. Chesterton once said, "When people stop believing in God, it's easy for them to start believing in anything."

Burke
Dec 13, 2009
We shouldn't be surprised that when someone's foundational political belief is that you can cure the world's ills by sprinkling government pixie dust on them, he will also fall for other kinds of superstitious nonsense.

Shanghaied
Dec 13, 2009
Most Democrats are Humanists. The lack of faith in God sends them skittering all over the map looking for comforting snake oil to fill the emptiness.

Jinx McHue 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)

As per that last comment, I am a Humanist and I can tell you that I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, talking with the dead, Tarot Cards, or fortunetellers. Just a FYI ;) --BMcP 11:54, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Well sure, and there are smokers who have lived to 100. The fact that a few exceptions exist doesn't disprove the rule that in general smoking is harmful, does it? DanielPulido 14:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Most Humanists, at least secular Humanists don't believe in ghosts, spirits, talking with the dead, Tarot Cards, or fortunetellers actually, and are you comparing a philosophy to inhaling a carcinogen? --BMcP 15:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I do not think the smoking analogy fits in, the amount of people believing in such things as ghosts and what not were usually ranging from 10-20% if I remember correctly. Its not just "one or two" democrats here and there that don't believe in such preposterous ideas, its the majority. What was interesting about this article was that it showed that, on average, more democrats believing in such things than republicans, it didn't even imply that most of them do. Sol1221


Certain philosophies are every bit as destructive and detrimental as smoking. Not all damage is physical. --Benp 18:17, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I do not believe you have understood what I have said. I didn't even mention if any philosophies and detrimental to scoeity or health, I simply said the analogy did not fit because it (essentially) stated "out of all the smokers, some may live to 100, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't harmful", which is true, but doesn't fit in because only around 20% (from what I saw) of Democrats believed in ghosts and what not, not a majority. BMcP has it right, the vast majority of humanists and Democrats don't believe in Ghosts, its not just a small minority that doesn't. Sol1221 19:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)


BMcp, your crack about comparing a philosophy to carcinogens is actually right on the money, though you probably didn't mean it to be - philosophies can be just as harmful as cigarette smoking, and none more so than liberalism and humanism and secularism (if they even could be described as coherent philosophy). Ghosts and all that stuff fits right in with the New Age nonsense liberals love, and though you want to deny that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts, we don't censor the truth. JacobB 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

If you are arguing that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts from the posted link we are actually (supposed) to be talking about, then you would also have to argue that Republicans tend to believe in ghosts, but to a lesser extent. In my eyes, saying that Democrats tend to believe in ghosts implies that the majority of Democrats believe in ghosts, or did you mean this in a different way? If you argue that 36% of Democrats claiming to have been in touch with the dead constitutes saying "Democrats tend to..." then I believe you should also say it for Republicans, where 21% of people believe the same thing. The amount of people may be less, but not by a huge amount. Eh, I've lost track. What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't get out of this article that Democrats tend to believe in crazy supernatural occurrences, but that Democrats are MORE LIKELY to believe in such things. Sol1221 19:43, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I don't know if you noticed this, but that's exactly what the post said. So it's clear that you're just here to cause arguments and dissent. JacobB 19:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)


That's cute, it is like you didn't even read what I said. Note until now, I never used the word Democrat or Liberal, so I denied nothing. And what is this about censorship? No one called for the article to be removed. Did you follow the thread? My reply was to a comment from the link re-posted in this talk page, not even to the article itself.
So a larger percentage of Democrats believe in ghosts or what not, sad but true. To me, the idea of ghosts is ridiculous, but the idea of believing in angels and demons are just as ridiculous, and just as difficult for me to take seriously. What if Republicans are more likely to believe the latter? Is that any better? Not to me, they are all equally preposterous, without a shred of scientific evidence. Yet again if people want to believe in such things, that is their business, as long as they do not attempt to push it on me, there is no issue. --BMcP 20:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)
What about school prayer? Do you also think that's just other people's business as long as they don't push it on you, or are you actively trying to censor it? DanielPulido 20:56, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I debated answering this because really, it is off topic. Of course it depends on what you mean by "school prayer". If you are talking about some child (or children) who on their own volition decides to pray for a test, or a game, or whatever in school, then fine. They should be able to do that and as far as I know, they can. If you are talking about an officially sanctioned by the school, set aside time during class-time for class lead prayer by a school official (be it teacher, principle, or someone else of authority), then no, because it's a government endorsement of a particular religion (or denomination), and something being pushed on those not part of that religion and/or denomination. Ask yourself this, would you want it to happen to you if you didn't believe in the religion that prayer was being offered in? --BMcP 08:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly, I am for NON SANCTIONED school prayer. And we have that. Like stated above. If a child prayes before a test or a meal, he/she can. I do not want school santioned prayer. The reasons stated above. What if the teacher in the room is muslim? Do you want your child to pray to Allah? What if the teacher is athiest and instead of prayer tells the kids there is no God? I believe that everyone has a right to their belief system and I have nothing against any of them, however I would not want my child forced to pray in a manner that is against our beliefs.

BMcP, more than half of your recent edits have been to talk pages. Instead of trying to censor Christianity, why don't you spend your time more constructively by making substantive edits to this encyclopedia, as I'm going to do now? DanielPulido 14:30, 16 December 2009 (EST)
If you didn't want me to answer, why did you ask the question? P.S. That unsigned, unintended paragraph isn't mine. --BMcP 15:41, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Let me guess. You're a liberal, right? Belief in paranormal phenomena is so prevalent among liberals that no further talk page debates are necessary. There's no point in trying to debate with a person whose mind is already closed. Come back when you learn out to spell "unindented." DanielPulido 21:10, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Just because Internet space doesn't really cost anything, that doesn't mean people should have license to indulge in the clap-trap I just read above. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:08, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Maybe I should post an AIM address and let people hurl their insults at me there instead. ;) --BMcP 22:28, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Perhaps you should refrain from needing to respond to everything, eh? Are you through editing at CP, BMcP? If so, I am certainly the person who can ensure you are finished. FYI, if I had intended to single out only you, I would have. Since I did not, one can safely infer my comment was all-inclusive. One of the few things I agreed with above was a suggestion that users make substantive contributions, and not on talk pages. Now enough of these silly, never-ending talk page arguments! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:43, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Oh that certainly wasn't intended at you, it was just a silly joke to lighten the mood, sorry about that. Besides we have each others AIM names, so if you ever want to ask or chat about stuff, just say hello. --BMcP 22:56, 16 December 2009 (EST)
I think the fact that liberals are prepared to spend time denying or even defending the fact that so many of them do not limit their nonsensical beliefs to politics and ideology, says more than the original story! TrondE 23:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)

A little help from a programmer?

I've been taking KJV online texts and converting them manually into these wiki tables we use to translate for the CBP. If it would be easy and simple for somebody to code up a program that could do this, that'd be just great.

Sure, I can do it. It's getting late, so it'd have to wait until tomorrow, but maybe someone else can do it sooner.
On the other side of things, DouglasA, I'm not sure what program you're using to format the final version, but if there's any way you'd want the formatting done, it's easy enough to pull out the translation too. If it's in LaTeX or something like it, it ought to be simple to dump the finished translations straight into the file. Otherwise I guess some manual work is still needed. --JimR 01:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
P.S.: Could you email me a sample input file I can test it on (I think I have email enabled)? Alternatively, it won't be hard to just grab the KJV off the web automatically. Let me know what you prefer. --JimR 01:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I sent you a this sample link: [5] I just save them as text documents (I'm running Vista) and edit them in there. JacobB 01:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)
The script is now running and parsing the entire Bible (including apocrypha) into this format. So far it's up to Numbers and seems to be working correctly. It'll take awhile, because I'm holding it to a chapter every ten seconds so I don't overwhelm the server (I'm using the one you linked). When finished I will send it to you, Jacob. If anyone else wants a copy let me know. --JimR 12:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Update: Had to restart because there was a bug in processing books with a space in the name (1 Samuel etc.). It's now up to Hosea and ought to be done sometime this afternoon... --JimR 14:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Jacob, check your email. I just sent you the complete, formatted KJV. --JimR 15:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

That's awesome, Jim, there's just one little thing that needs changing. Thank you so much!! JacobB 17:15, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Oops, my error, Jim, it's perfect! You've been a huge help to the project today! JacobB 17:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Just sent you the corrected version of Psalms. The issue was that the headings are "Psalm #" instead of "Chapter #" so it didn't parse right. --JimR 22:28, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Perfect. Thanks so much, Jim! JacobB 22:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Man Marries Video Game Character

[6]

Remember when the liberals scoffed at predictions that liberalizing the definition of "marriage" would lead to things like this?

--Benp 14:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Oh, come on! When I was a kid, magazines were full of "woman marries horse" and "couple marry dangling from helicopter" nonsense, and that was in the 70s and 80s. AdeleM 16:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Ahhh, remember the days when marriage was between a man and a (real!) woman? Why do liberals take such delight in destroying all that is sacred? TrondE 18:16, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Lack of logic, AdeleM. Apples and Oranges. Being married dangling from a helicopter degrades marriage how, exactly? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I'm just pointing out that strange ideas about marriage are not *new*. AdeleM 19:31, 17 December 2009 (EST)
That depends on your definition of "new." The fact that people were doing insane things in the 70's and 80's hardly surprises me. On the other hand, I doubt very much that there were "woman marries horse" stories that resulted in television coverage and were recognized as valid marriages, as this video-game marriage apparently is. If you really want to convince people that traditional marriage should NOT be protected, offering up examples of people wanting to marry horses really isn't the best way to go about it. --Benp 19:35, 17 December 2009 (EST)

(undent) I don't see where any authority is recognising this "marriage" as valid. AdeleM 20:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

You should not make judgments from this. This story is from Japan, and Japan is deviant culture. This sort of thing does not surprise me. But America is different. Do not compare American politics or tradition to Japanese spectacle. It is not accurate.--Wuhao1911 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Ok AdeleM, but this is not a fake National Enquirer story, this actually happened. --Jvasile 20:08, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Man sues Wikipedia

Here's an interesting article about a man who has sued Wikipedia for being a tax-exempt anti-Republican smear operation: pr-inside.com story. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. --JimR 18:21, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Well we all know Wikipedia isn't biased, and is based on fact. Therefore a liberal judge will dismiss the suit. ;-) - --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:28, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Crude and insulting Virgin Mary poster

How can these people call themselves Christians? TrondE 20:28, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Indeed. My church was planning a protest against this but it seems that someone has already removed the poster from its very prominent position. To be honest it is just a sign of the times; calling oneself a Christian these days is not necesarily evidence that one is a Christian. Sad but true. --PThomson 20:56, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Liberal hatred against Christianity on MainPage

I was just watching O'Reilly, and he had a segment on the kid who drew Jesus on a cross and was suspended. Apparently, the kid drew himself on the cross with Xs on his eyes and his own name where INRI should be, and he wasn't suspended, he was given a psychological evaluation because they thought he was going to kill himself. That's a little more understandable than kicking a kid out of school for drawing Jesus - when I heard it and thought that was what was happening I was shocked. JacobB 20:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

News Item

Regarding the news item that was posted recently, should it really be here, as mockery is a decidedly liberal tactic? --DrewDice 18:26, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Are you suggesting a double standard by liberals: they can use mockery, but conservatives cannot???
Liberals overrely on mockery. Occasional use of mockery by conservatives can be educational, effective and appropriate.--Andy Schlafly 19:37, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Additionally, conservative mockery is actually humorous, whereas liberal mockery is frequently just crude and mean-spirited. --Benp 22:24, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Beck on Leno

For those of you who didn't know, Glenn Beck was a guest on the Jay Leno Show last night. You can watch the interview (part 1) here: [7]and part 2 here: [8]. Glenn made some good points and got a very positive reaction from the crowd the entire time. He also took the time to plug the Tea Party Movement and the 9/12 Project. The crowd also cheered when he criticized Barack Obama for being an elitist, which could indicate that even extremely liberal areas of the country like Los Angeles have begun to turn against the President for his poor decisions. --Jvasile 11:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting column by Garrison Keillor

[9]

I'm not really sure how to take this. Is he sincerely defending Christmas? Is this liberal mockery? It certainly doesn't strike me as very funny, and I'm a little uncomfortable with the anti-Semitic tone. --Benp 13:26, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Font Size on the Main Page

I noticed some time ago that the font size in the navigation bar and some other links on the main page is now very small, smaller than on other pages. After a bit of sleuthing I think this may be due to an accidental deletion of some code at the end of Template:Mainpageright, which in old versions read:

<!-- =========== PAGE CONTENT ENDS HERE ================ -->
</div><noinclude>
</div></noinclude>

I can't actually edit it to test this, but perhaps an administrator would be interested in trying? It could just be that something changed so this was no longer necessary, and the problem is elsewhere. My apologies for the awkward formatting of my comment -- not sure the right way to dispay HTML on a Wiki page. See here, for example, to see the original. --JimR 19:32, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I emailed Andy about this a while ago. You know, if you want to test that, you could always copy the entire source of the main page to another page, add this thing in, and then hit preview to see if it fixes the problem. Maybe you can find a solution? JacobB 19:37, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I tried this: create a page by pasting in Mainpageright, but stick it all in a table (as Mainpage displays it; this appears to be essential to reproduce the problem). The font is small. Add in those tags, and problem solved. I have a hunch that this is the fix... could you let Andy know, if he doesn't read this? --JimR 19:42, 20 December 2009 (EST)
He'll read this. JacobB 19:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)
It appears that this was the offending edit. This also did something weird to the apostrophes in Mainpageright, looks like some issue with foreign characters? In any case I think the fix is just to paste those three lines back to the end of the template. --JimR 22:51, 20 December 2009 (EST)
I'll try to fix this now.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Did my edit fix it? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 23:50, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Yep, problem solved! JacobB 23:51, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Indeed, the main page now displays correctly and is producing valid HTML. Thanks! --JimR 23:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I brought this up to TK via email a couple days ago. I saw the missing closing tags and tracked down the same problem edit Jim did. (What is with that edit anyway? Andy?) *shrug* Whatever. It's fixed now. Jinx McHue 23:40, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Obama's numbers continue to fall

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17

Obama's mindless, uncritical base is about the only thing that's keeping his numbers alive right now. Jinx McHue 23:36, 21 December 2009 (EST)


Continuing to drop:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21

Jinx McHue 13:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

First they wanted to take away our cars. Now it's our pets.

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

Is there any aspect of our lives that these radicals won't intrude upon? Jinx McHue 11:48, 22 December 2009 (EST)

No. Take a look at this wherein a new book hitting the U.S., which claims income redistribution, Socialism, makes us healthier! Of course the authors haven't bothered to release their hard data, to show how they reached their silly "conclusions", but the MSM doesn't, of course, care. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:58, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Merry Christmas All!

Just want to wish everyone here A Merry Christmas, or if you don't celebrate Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, Yule, or whatever your holiday may be. I hope the day brings you all cheer and joy in your celebrations and see you all on the 'morrow. Cheers! --BMcP 13:17, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Yet another medical breakthrough provided by adult stem cells

Great news. But why is adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells presented as an either/or proposition? Research on both can be pursued simultaneously. ChrisFV 18:31, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Because embryonic stem cell research destroys embryos, which consequently destroys potential human life. A lot of people take issue with that. HarryG 22:14, 26 December 2009 (EST)
Right, Harry, and also note that embryonic stem cell research is motivated by an attempt to legitimize abortion, and such deceit inevitably results in more harm. At least one child who received an embryonic stem cell implant was injured by a hideous tumor that grew from it. But don't expect the pro-abortion types to care about the harm.--Andy Schlafly 22:57, 26 December 2009 (EST)

If you follow the Michelle Obama racism story

You'll find several opinions that make very good points. If Google really agreed that some of their search results can be offensive, then why did it take them this long to post a notice about it? I can't tell you how many times I've searched for the most innocuous thing with their "Safe Search" on and been presented with offensive images. And the hypocrisy is disgusting. Michelle Obama as a monkey is offensive, but not over eight years of George W. Bush as a monkey or as Hitler? Google apparently didn't have a problem with those. No surprise there as Google is a far-left company. Jinx McHue 00:44, 28 December 2009 (EST)

I usually don't get involved in these types of debates and this is the only response I'll give. Portraying a black person as a monkey is racist. Portraying a white person as a monkey or Hitler, eh, isn't that bad. Besides, this website tries to link as many liberals as possible to Hitler. HarryG 08:05, 28 December 2009 (EST)
Why isn't portraying a white person as a monkey offensive? I thought we were all equal. Jinx McHue 10:53, 28 December 2009 (EST)
I think what HarryG was attempting to point out is the historical context of portraying a black individual as a monkey. Sadly there is a history of that going back a couple centuries where people routinely caricatured blacks in such a racist manner publicly. When it came to Bush, it was an attempted swipe at his intelligence, when it comes to Michelle (and blacks in general) it is typically a sick racist attempt to dehumanize the entire ethic group as "just animals".--BMcP 11:54, 28 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah, perhaps I should have made my point clearer. I was in a rush to go to work. HarryG 17:03, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Judicial Watch study

Nine out of the ten most corrupt politicians were Democrats? Not so shocking!

Note that the name of Judicial Watch is misspelled on the front page, so could someone who can edit Main Page Right please correct that? DanielPulido 01:11, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks for fixing that, Chippeterson. DanielPulido 01:27, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Rush Limbaugh in hospital

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh has been taken to a hospital in Hawaii with chest pains, and is in serious condition. Prayers for his well-being are certainly in order. --Benp 23:06, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the alert! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:32, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Execution of Akmal Shaikh

Sorry, this might be a bit late as I have been out of country, but I didn't see anything posted about it here.

China recently executed the very likely bipolar Akmal Shaikh over smuggling heroine into the country. While there is no doubt he had indeed smuggled the heroine, he was likely tricked into doing it, as he was not mentally stable. The most terrifying part of the story is that Shaikh was executed without even a psychological exam of any sort, even though China has a law where they won't execute the mentally unstable. Link:[10] Its a good article to expose the horrors of Communist China. Sol1221 17:10, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Thank you Sol, for bringing it up. One of us will feature it in the News section or in the China article, after our Conservatives of the Decade celebration is over tonight. I think its a good example of the left's so-called "compassion", don't you? Why do liberals, the left, no matter if calling themselves Nazi's, Communists or Pro-Choice, always pick on kids or the mentally challenged? What is the root of their need to bully? Could it be their lack of Faith in Jesus Christ? Hmmmmm..... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:20, 31 December 2009 (EST)
I will add this to the China article. From my experience, the PRC is very bad in their treatment of the mentally unwell, so this does not surprise me. It happened before, but this got more attention because the man was from Europe.--Wuhao1911 17:29, 31 December 2009 (EST)

I'm confused. My understanding of liberalism is that it is opposed to the death penalty. Amnesty International (A liberal organization) has made extensive criticisms of China and death penalty laws and is heavily critical of the US. My impression and understanding of the story is that this is a government which identifies as being to the left which is not acting accordingly in the same way as some conservative politicians might vote to raise taxes.

"With liberal loser Jon Corzine"

I love the description Andy. :) -Chippeterson January 1, 2010

A simple question

I just have a very simple question that I am very eager to find an answer to. I would like to know why some people or groups in America are so scared of universal health care or socialized medicine. Does it stem from an indoctrination created during the Cold War to fear a Communist Threat? Universal health care isn’t communism. Canada has universal health care and I think Canadians can’t understand why some Americans are so against it. I know some people on this site have said that Canadian health care isn’t free, that it is paid for by taxes. So what is wrong with that? If everyone is contributing to the system and everyone benefits from it, why should people be scared of that? Does that not sound like a good way for a society to function? Or is the fear of universal health care a fear of government taking too much control? When I think of government, I think of what they are there to provide the public, and health care is one of those services, actually, I think health care is a right and should be provided by the government. So could someone please, just simply and plainly tell me why socialized medicine is like a bad word for some people in America. Thank you.--Smclean 21:19, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Your question is loaded with terms like "so scared" and "indoctrination" and "bad word." I could likewise ask, why are Canadians "so scared" of the free market?
I've met Canadian doctors who have fled to the United States because they were so disgusted by the interference by the Canadian government with care of their patients. Survival rate for cancer in the U.S. is far better than the rest of the world, even nearby Canada. Is this what Americans want in a health care system, high survival rates? You bet. It's not a matter of "fear", but one of informed decision-making. When you buy something, I bet you try to make the best decisions also.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 1 January 2010 (EST)


"Freedom incurs responsibility. That is why many men fear it." George Bernard Shaw

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:59, 2 January 2010 (EST)

The objection to socialized medicine is not a phobia, as you imply. Rather the objection is taking the American system, in which everyone benefits from, and turning it into a system devoid of incentives which brings everyone down to a common denominator.
One of the many false premises on which socialism advocacy is based, is that it's the only way to have a safety net. On the contrary, it is because of the abundance enjoyed in the American free market economy that a typical hospital gives free medical care, even to undocumented aliens. Just say, "I can't pay", and many hospitals (such as my former employer Huntington Hospital) will simply treat you anyway. --Ed Poor Talk 17:26, 2 January 2010 (EST)
Hi Mr. Mclean, I'm Glenn, an American living in Germany, and I think my insights might be of use to a Canadian. In Germany there is a mixed system of both private and public providers; this sounds great right? People get to go to a government option if they have no money, people can go to a private option to get the most efficient care of they have the resources to do so. But actually, there is a lot of problems. Canadians and pretty much every Euro-liberal (which means pretty much everyone over here) quickly go to the idea of "commoditization of health", as if us "free market fascists" want to turn your well being into a dollar figure... but I've discovered that your health is always dollarized no matter which system you are utilizing. In the private system your health is dollarized according to the free market, and the free market can at least provide you the security of utility maximization, an economics term ,meaning for the layman; more money paid = equals better quality.

In the public system your health is dollarized according to the government budget. In my experience reading about the German public option, the government provides each lande (equivalent to a state I think) with a fixed budget for public healthcare, when this budget is overran, which it usually is due to government inefficiency,the patients will generally be required to postpone extensive treatment until the next budgetary period. So for us Americans it comes down to an issue of private freedom, do you get to fix the dollar value to your person, or does the government? After all, isn't a fixed public monopoly itself a form of "fascism", we are not in a state of war, why should I be subjected to rationing of services, which always happens in a public option... anyways, that's my two sense. So in a sense, Mr.Schlafly is correct ,in asking you why Canadians fear the public market so much,because that seems to be the core issue - Glenn.

No disrespect intended to the original poster but the question seems out of place here. Conservapedia contains numerous articles and talkpages specifically dealing with the conservative view of socialized medicine and the various objections to it. To ask for it to be explained here seems a little silly. - Mike

Personal tools