Talk:Main Page/archive9

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Well done for recommending Firefox, may I in turn recommend an add-on called Bible Server? It lets you search for any text in all the most popular versions of the Bible from a toolbar in the browser, it's a tiny download and really easy to use: [[1]]Exclaimer

Thanks! Exclaimer

Special Pages

Any chance we could get a list of all templates into the special pages section? Or is there some other way I can find them? Fantomas 13:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Go to special pages, then All Pages, then change namespace to Template. JustineA --sysop--talk 13:27, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Excellent. Thanks! Fantomas 13:57, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thank goodness I found this post! Major editing of all templates will begin soon. Way, way too many! Here we like concise! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

remove silly link, and suggest another addition

There is a link in the "Quick Links" section to Conservapedia Talk, which is a redirect to Conservapedia:Deletedpage. It seems silly to suggest visitors can discuss the site at a locked and deleted page.

I also suggested a month ago at Conservapedia talk:About#Edit request: copyright link that a link to the copyright information be added to the page linked from the bottom of every page, but it appears nobody who could do anything saw the request. --Scott 06:39, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Treatment of Indigenous Inhabitants - Why the scare quotes?

I think Hugo Chavez is a buffon, and he is using the controversy for his own political ends, but what happened to the native peoples of the Americas--a demographic decrease of 90%--can only be described as a holocaust.--McIntyre 13:04, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't a "holocaust" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, the Europeans ended the horrendous practice of child sacrifice by the Central Americans.--Aschlafly 15:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget that Cortez witnessed the sacrifice of thousands of people on the Aztec temple in 1519. That wasn't very nice either. Karajou 15:46, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Does anyone have proper historical figures comparing human sacrifice by the natives to deaths committed by European conquest?
Keep in mind that etymologically, "Holocaust" is olon "completely" and kauston "burnt". So in that sense of the word, then no, a holocaust did not happen. Having said that, 90% of the indigenous population dieing due to starvation, murder, and mostly disease (the beloved "smallpox blankets", which were intentionally distributed) is definitely some sort of humanitarian crisis. --Hojimachongtalk 16:42, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps the appropriate word would be "genocide".--WJThomas 19:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm….thousands compared to a population decline of ninety percent is not a holocaust. It must be nice to go through life so historically (and morally) ignorant. I thought conservatives opposed moral equivocation? --McIntyre 17:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I seems the Europeans could have stopped child sacrifice without the whole killing the men and raping the women thing. Also, North American Indians didn't perform child sacrifice. Pachuca 18:53, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

This should be an article and also one of our Debate topics. I suggest Colonization of the Americas and Was the European colonization of America justified? or Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people? --Ed Poor 05:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

9,800 articles?

Special:Statistics seems to say otherwise. Perhaps the number on the Main Page is a typo?Leftist 16:40, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

No, you misunderstand the statistical estimates in that entry. The number on the main page is an exact count. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:07, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you counting templates? redirects? special pages? categories? images? --Mtur 17:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
None of the above are included. Included are substantive entries and valuable study aids. You can do the count yourself by going through the list at Special:Ancientpages. Feel free to report the exact number here.--Aschlafly 17:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Item 9096 is AFD The South ‎- so its all of the items in the mainspace that are listed. Of note, you've got ~1000+ pages that are 'terms' pages of various types that are simply lists of links. You might want think think about some of those old pages again though. 1600-1700 and Alphabetical Order are... something. There are also a few old gems back there that would be good to go through and review their importance (and pop culture references Zero skateboards - especially if pop culture references is a valid critique of Wikipedia) --Mtur 17:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
There are only six entries of the type "AFD The South" in the mainspace. Also, I think there are only a few hundred terms pages ... but those are important study aids.
In general, the quality of entries here is much higher than on Wikipedia. Try using the "Random page" entry on Wikipedia and you'll be astounded by the high percentage of junk that is returned.--Aschlafly 09:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Those Nazi Germans have the constitutional right to teach religion in public schools

If Conservapedia puts something on its front page, it might want to make sure that is supported by facts. Mandatory schooling has been introduced by Frederick William I in the early 1700s in Prussia, and in the rest of present-day Germany by the beginning of the 1800s. Some 130 years before Hitler.

And while there is mandatory schooling, religions have the constitutional right to teach religion in school, in every school, even public schools. The German compromise is to make it mandatory for children to go to school, but to give religions the opportunity to teach religion in school. The American compromise is, afaik, to not teach religion in school, but to allow home schooling. I guess while you trash Germans as Nazi's, you would more than love to have a constitutional article protecting religious education in schools. User:Order May 20 13:00 (AEST)

I doubt your claim of mandatory schooling in anything like the present form going back to the early 1700s. Several famous Germans, such as Mozart, were homeschooled since then.
No thanks. We're not trading a right to homeschool for a right to government-approved instruction in religion.--Aschlafly 23:07, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Mozart was Austrian. It looks like primary education was made mandatory in Prussia in 1763 for all children 5-13, and in 1794, all schools were nationalized and teachers became government employees.--Steve 23:18, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Mozart might have been ethnically austrian, but he was born in the HRE.Bohdan 23:26, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica {] says Mozart was German. I've seen in several places, including the cite on the front page, that Hitler imposed the current law against homeschooling. Show me some cites justifying any argument to the contrary.--Aschlafly 23:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Add the German Riemann, born in 1826, as another homeschooled German who disproves the above claim. See homeschooling.--Aschlafly 23:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, as for Mozart, he was, while ethnically German, as your site says, born in Salzburg, which was at that point, like Bohdan said, an independent Archbishopric that would go on to become part of Austria. [2].
As for the public education system, here's the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica on Prussia [3] saying that "In Prussia education is compulsory, and the general level attained is very high. Every town or community must maintain a school, supported by local rates and under the supervision of the state. By the constitution of 1850, all persons are permitted to instruct, or to found teaching establishments, provided they can produce to; the authorities satisfactory proofs of their moral, scientific and technical qualifications. Both public and private educational establishments are under the surveillance of the minister of public instruction, and all public teachers are regarded as servants of the state (Staatsbeamte). No compulsion exists in reference to a higher educational institution than primary schools. All children must attend school from their sixth to their fourteenth year." showing that, at that time, all teachers had to be regulated.
I'm still trying to figure out what the law pa$$ed in 1938 actually said. So far, I have, like you, just seen the a$$ertion that Hitler banned homeschooling in 1938. And Riemann was born and grew up in Hannover, not Prussia, so he wouldn't be subject to the mandatory schooling law--Steve 00:03, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Mandatory schooling became law in Hanover in 1845 [4] . Riemann's school, the Johanneum in Lueneburg, still prouds itself that Riemann was at their school from 1842 on [5]. Maybe it should be added that Riemann went to school in Hanover from 1840 on. Before this he was indeed home schooled by his father, a priest, and Mr. Schulz, a teacher. This is happend 90 years before Hitler. User:Order May 20. 14:22 (AEST)

That is why it said present-day Germany. Austria was until 1871, when the modern Germany was founded by Bismarck,considered to be part of Germany. Bismarck, kept Austria outside. Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria, which at that time one of the many states in Germany. And the dispute whether Austria should be part of Germany lasted until the second World War. Note, Hitler was an Austrian national until the 1930s.

And mandatory schooling doesn't mean that you cannot be schooled at home, it means that you have a certified teacher. If you are well off, and you can affort your private teacher you can get exemption. In the end its a matter of the states.

You might have seen many articles that claim that that the Nazis introduced it, but I guess they are just parroting each other. It was introduced in Bavaria 200 years ago [6], in Prussia [7] 300 years ago. And I guess also that none of the article that you read, mentioned the constitutional right to teach religion in school. A constitutional right that you probably would love to have. User:Order May 20 13:50 (AEST)

From [8]: "It should be noted that home-schooling is illegal in Germany, but the Busekros family hoped that the school authorities would be flexible since Melissa was no longer subject to full-time attendance requirements. The recalcitrance of German authorities can be traced back to 1938, when Adolf Hitler, fearing that parents had too much influence over their children, banned home-schooling.

This law still exists in Germany today. The German government fears the development of parallel societies and will act aggressively to stop anyone trying to move away from the state-sanctioned educational system. Melissa is just the latest example of heavy-handed state action." --Aschlafly 00:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Then, please note that you can quote as many blogs that cite the same factual wrong information as you want, it doesn't make the information more correct. It easy to play the Nazi card, but in this case plain wrong. The EB entry from 1911 is fairly convincing proof that mandatory schooling existed way before Hitler.

And with respect to the case of the Busekros, it has been noticed, and the blog that you quote says it too, that mandatory schooling wasn't the issue. Regulation of homeschooling does not apply to the Busekros, because the girl is too old. The issue was that she had problems at school, and that the authorities blamed the parents for her problems. The problems became apparent when she stopped going to school. You might argue that the authorities were wrong to blame the parents for her psychological problems, and wrong in the way they handled the issue, but the case has little to do with home schooling. It is about if state interference was appropriate in a case were officials suspect psychological abuse.

But while you hammer the Germans as Nazis about mandatory schooling, Aschlafly, I didn't hear any comment from you about the constitutional right to teach religion in school.

So, Andy, if you have to choose between (a) mandatory schooling, with the constitutional obligation of schools to offer religious class to all children, and (b) opportunity for home schooling, but the prohibition to teach any religuous class to any child in school, I am not sure which I'd prefer. And drawing the Nazi card just makes your argument weaker. Did you know that Germany had a constitutional right and obligation to teach religion in school? User:Order May 20 17:00 (AEST)

I see that the main page has been edited, but that the false claim that Hitler introduced mandatory schooling in Germany is still on it. Whoever put it there, you don't care if the main page contains blatant errors, don't you? Why? Is it just laziness and sloppiness, or do you have another reason? User:Order May 21. 11:30 (AEST)
Order, you're in denial and you're not fooling anyone. Hitler clamped down against homeschooling to inculcate his view of the world. What's the reason for the German prosecutions of homeschoolers today? You haven't cited a single example of a prosecution of a homeschooling family before Hitler took power, but I've provided citations to articles tracing this to him. Instead, you try to justify these actions by saying that schools teach religion. That's a pathetic excuse, frankly. Germany today prosecutes families for homeschooling just as its totalitarian state did. Admit that these prosecutions are wrong and should stop immediately. God willing, someone in Germany will wake up and speak out against these prosecutions.--Aschlafly 21:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Germany builds Autobahns, just like its totalitarian state did. But for different reasons. If your only argument is that Hitler did it too, that's what I call pathetic reasoning. What is pathetic about the constituional right to receive religious education in school, and the constitutional obligation of schools to offer it? User:Order 21 May 12:40 (AEST)

You haven't given a single reference, and I gave you a few. Read [9] for an example how it was enforced. I can give you more, if you ask for it. I can also give a link to Hitler law if you want, which you didn't. But fact remains that mandatory schooling was introduced way before. You haven't given a single source. Only opinions on blogs. User:Order May 21 11:45.

Order, do you (1) support or oppose Germany's prosecution of homeschoolers today and (2) do you deny that Hitler prosecuted homeschoolers in a similar manner??? If you're in Germany, do you feel unable to speak freely about this???--Aschlafly 21:48, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You forgot the irony tags around your last statements, right? --schifra 11:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
That's a poor attempt to answer the two questions.--Aschlafly 11:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
First. I (schifra) am not the person answering questions posed to other people (Order). --schifra 11:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Does your answer mean that your last question about speaking freely about home schooling was meant seriously? If so, the appropriate answer is: No, we are unable to do so. Instead we march through the street once a week, shouting "Sieg Heil", raising our right arm and shortly we will win another Blitzkrieg against the French.
Besides, I am pro home schooling. In addition, you have obviously no clue about school situation in Germany. Otherwise you would have noticed that there are numerous pro home schooling voices in Germany, but mainly from a liberitarian point of view. In addition, the 68 generation started home schooling in the preschool age, which is why most Conservatives in Germany oppose home schooling in general. All this information is readily available. So, before defending offending statements on the main page, which simply indicate a narrow minded view, get your facts right. --schifra 11:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Schifra, thanks for your misguided lecture, but Germany does not respect free speech as much as the United States does. For example, I think Germany recently warned World Cup fans that they would go to jail if they said certain things. Obviously free speech was not respected by Nazi Germany either.
Also, I doubt your attempt at a Nazi joke is appreciated by all. Perhaps a recognition that the prosecution of homeschoolers in Germany is a remnant of Nazi Germany would be appropriate. You seem to be in denial.--Aschlafly 12:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks a lot for comparing today's Germany with Nazi Germany and calling my post a misguided lecture. Regarding freedom of speech, I am tempted to shout "Du Arschloch", which would not put me into jail here in Germany, but probably in the United States. So much regarding freedom of speech.
The World Cup fans were actually warned that shouting "Heil Hitler" and showing the swastika in public is not funny, but a serious public offense. A point, that I expect you to understand, since you did not even appreciate my "Sieg Heil" above, although obviously ironic. But maybe, you are right. We are already on our way. The Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, and some Florida beaches are already under German control during the week or vacation time.
Now to the point, whether it is appropriate that the prosecution of homeschoolers in Germany is a remnant of Nazi Germany: Numerous poster have already shown, that compulsory school attendance has been put into place in numerous German states much earlier at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The reason was that workers with reading skills were needed in the factories. Austria was also mentioned as a counter example, but actually reinforces this argument, since they were later in the industrial revolution than Prussia, for example. Regarding prosecution, you can be sure that these regulation were not just put into place, but disobediance was definitely prosecuted. How long are you willing to maintain your false claim and do not accept the arguments of people with a more solid background?
But the more important point is this one: Even if the regulation was put into place by the Nazi regime and it is still in place today, there is a major difference between today's Germany and Nazi Germany, which you neglect. During the terror regime of the Nazis, millions of people were simply killed in the concentration camps for no good reasons. Don't you agree, that there is a difference to the situation of today with independant political and judical institutions, with trials, with lawyers? Do you really want to compare these cases with the prosecution in concentration camps during Nazi Germany? I would not, even in face of a over reaction of the authorities. Or do you think it is ok to put the United States in a line with China, Kuwait, Ruanda and other states simply since they all still have capital punishment?
Putting this case into the context of Nazi Germany is blatant distortion, since it neglects the public discussion in Germany about these cases. In addition, there are some strange things on the parents side, too. A quick lookup revealed that the parents have actually applied for home schooling 2 years ago, but the school authority never answered. There is something very fishy about this, since you have the right for the case to be delt with within 4 weeks or so. Any judge will be on the parents' side. In such a trivial case you do not even need a lawyer. You see the difference to Nazi Germany or not?
In addition, home schooling is not the prime concern about school. The general achievements of German pupils is low at the same time of high social selection as shown by the PISA studies. As a result the whole school system is a major topic of discussion. Neglecting this context in your statement, but falsely claiming a Nazi context is giving a heavily distorted view. You may call this posting a misguided lecture again if you like, but I am sure there are enough readers, who are able to do their own investigations.
You claim that I am in denial. Denial of what? Sure enough, there are remants of Nazi Germany. It is an old claim of the 68 movement, that the Americans did a bad job in clearing. Again, you speak much in favor of the libertarian views of the Greens and put your self into stark contrast to German conservatives. Bull's eye! Alas, wrong aim!
Whew!!!! You protest far too much in denying that that prosecution today by Germany of homeschoolers (hundreds of them) is a remnant of Nazi Germany. You protest far too much in denying that free speech is not fully allowed in Germany. Foreigners at the World Cup were warned that they would be tossed in jail if they criticized or mocked Germany by saluting Hitler. I wonder how that law against free speech is written. Is speaking out that something is a remnant of Nazi Germany also illegal, or disfavored? Do you hear people describe other modern practices or laws as a remnant of that time? It's amazing how much effort you put into denying that the prosecution of homeschoolers is from that era, when numerous American articles confirm that it was.--Aschlafly 14:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you get the difference between prosecution of homeschoolers then and now. In short: Even if the law would be a remnant (which it is NOT), the prosecution is not a remnant. Is there a difference in capital punishment in the United states and Iran or not? You can critizise or mock Germany as much as you like and won't be put to jail, maybe burn the German flag. The point is saluting Hitler and showing the swastika in public, which needed to be made clear in particular to British fans. Speaking out that something is a remnant of Nazi Germany is disfavored by Conservatives, but was favored by the 68 movement. Inform yourself about revisionism. You show again, that you have no idea of the situation in Germany, but simply insist that the most important thing of the home school issue is that it is a remnant of Nazi Germany. I do not understand, why you cannot accept, that this aspect is totally irrelevant for this case, but will rather reject friends. Remember the recent article in the Welt, the second most important conservative newspaper (after the FAZ) in Germany. Again: Bull's eye, but wrong aim. --schifra 15:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
You're in denial. If a foreigner attending the recent World Cup in Germany dared to criticize or mock Germany with a salute of Hitler, then the government would put him in jail. There is something wrong with that. Ditto for jailing homeschoolers. There are unfortunate remnants of totalitarianism in Germany, and the sooner that is admitted and addressed the better off everyone will be. Your denial is an obstacle to progress.--Aschlafly 15:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I am in denial? So what?. A naive foreigner would get along with a fine, unless he continues after a warning. Believe me or not, but the knowledgable ones saluting Hitler and showing the swastika are a real threat to everyone (remember the French policemen nearly beaten to death and other cases of innocent people). Such action does not come even close to burning the American flag on Ground Zero and continually saluting Osama Bin Laden. Is that covered by your freedom of speech? I hope not. The conservative point of view here is that legal and political actions are the way to go. If you loose at court you have to obey. Anything else promotes anarchy and we had enough of that in the seventies and eigthies. Your repeated claims are a plain copy of liberitarian and leftist arguments of the 68 movement and reflect a very naive point of view of Germany and probably Europe. I hope you find the time to have a prolonged stay here and learn more about violant hooligans or right wing extremists as well as about the details of the different school systems in German and European states. --schifra 17:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, right. Germany needed to threaten to prosecute British for mocking Nazi Germany because of ... right-wing extremism???? Find a way to blame German prosecution of homeschooling on right-wingers also, if you can.
Twisting statements once again. It is not about prosecuting British for mocking Nazi Germany. It is about violent football fans and saluting Hitler. I mentioned British, since dressing up with Nazi symbols seems to be taken more funny by British. It is part of the German law to consider this as a serious offense. Furthermore, it is you putting the case of home schooling in context to Nazi Germany. I have clearly stated before, that the authorities over reacted, but where is your comment about the probability that these parents are willingly pushing their case beyond legal limits to make a steer up, a well known strategy of 68. Your naive arguments are counter productive in this respect. --schifra 19:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
You're not fooling anyone. There are remnants of totalitarianism still existing in Germany, and your defense of it illustrates the continuing problem. Thank you for your postings because others would have doubted that people defend jailing homeschoolers.--Aschlafly 18:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
You don't have to tell me that remnants of totalitarianism are still existing in Germany. If you wish, we might discuss the speech of the Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg at the funeral of Hans Filbinger or how right wing extremist abuse peaceful socker fans as a hide. I do not understand your blind defense of any pro schoolers even after statements that this case is probably more complex as well as throwing aboard the conservative principle of law obediance and supporting leftists and atheists claims, who would gain tremendously through home schooling? You cannot simply transfer the situation of the United States to Europe or Germany. How come that all you have to say about schooling in Germany: the prosecution of home schoolers is a remnant of Nazi Germany and if you do not agree, this confirms my point of view and neglect all other points. Do you have the slightest idea of the positions of the churches in Germany about home schooling? Obviously not. They know exactyl, what would be lost. Why don't you acknowledge that the school system is a major topic of discussion, where home schooling is not of prime priority, but not excluded. Too little remnants of Nazi Germany or what? --schifra 19:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

So your only remaining argument is that the treatment is remnant of Nazi Germany. Can it be that you are a bit misguided about how Nazi Germany treated opponents?

Anyway, homeschooling is not a criminal offense but a civil offense, and you can get fined for it. Some homeschooling parents who do get fined, after due process, and often positive media attention, chose not to pay. If you do this repeatedly, jail time can be an option. In that regard their treatment doesn't differ from the treatment of traffic offenders who refuse to pay their fines. But I guess also the treatment of traffic offenders is remnant of Nazi Germany. User:Order May 22

Well put. I worked as a professional driver here in Germany and my average speed was 100 mph and my personal limit was 125 mph. Let's assume I would repeatedly drive at this speed in the US, I would finally end up in jail, although time has shown that I can savely handle a car at this speed and can know exactly whether the traffic situation permits this speed or not. It is not even necessary that I endanger me or other car drivers. --schifra 03:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

As much information as I can get, the father probably behaved in such manner. So, it could well be that he lost his case at court, refused talks, insulted others and continued to break the law repeatedly since long time. Such behaviour would be a strong indication of irresponsibility and that he is using his daugther to steer up a case. Erlangen is not a small town. There are numerous high schools, including private ones mainly from the churches, probably others as well. How come no other solution could be found as long as home schooling is not allowed? Btw. Regarding your claim that another remnant of Nazi Germany is lacking the freedom of speech, I am still waiting for an answer from Aschlafly, whether burning the American flag on Ground Zero and saluting Osama Bin Laden would be covered by the freedom of speech or not? --schifra 03:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Shifra, hundreds of homeschoolers have been prosecuted by Germany. Also, in response to your question, the answer is "yes" that those activities are protected free speech in the United States. Surely you don't continue to defend the position of the German government that it can and should imprison foreigners attending the World Cup for mocking Nazi Germany with a salute.--Aschlafly 10:36, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

How protected are they in real terms though Andrew? This is horribly bad taste and I would never dream of doing such a thing but if I were to get on my soapbox at Ground Zero and start a speech about how OBL was right and how 9/11 was a just punishment (which is a disgusting thing to say but surely permitted under free speech) how long would it be before I was detained by the powers that be and questioned about my "terrorist" actions. Free speech is a truly great thing but I suspect even in the United States it must have some limits, if not on paper then certainly in how people are treated for making certain statements. Fingermouse 11:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Free speech really is protected in the U.S., so much so that some say it is too protected. Nothing would happen to anyone who burned the flag or praised Osama bin Laden. He might be monitored a bit more than usual, or perhaps even have to undergo extra checking at an airport. But there would be no direct infringements on his liberty.
Being put on the no flight list is no direct infringement on someone's liberty? But probably for good reasons in such a case. --schifra 05:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm astounded that people here defend Germany's prosecution of homeschoolers and threatened arrests of foreigners who might mock Nazi Germany at the World Cup. Folks, this is 2007. Totalitarian remnants need to be discarded.--Aschlafly 11:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I never questioned that totalitarian remnants need to be discarded as you imply. However, your statement that the prosecution of the Busekros family is a remnant of the totalitarian Nazi Regime is historically wrong (the laws have been in power in numerous places long before Nazi Germany), is politically stupid (turning off German pro home schooling people by your comparison). Also your statement that foreigners are threatened to be arrested for mocking Nazi Germany and another temnant of Nazi Germany is similarly twisted. Shouting "Sieg Heil" and showing the swastika is not mocking Nazi Germany. It is praising a terror regime and therefore we have a law in place, which on the negative side limits the freedom of speech, but for good reasons. When comparing the freedom of speech in different states, you cannot just take a special case to make a general statement. Actually, there has been a clear court case recently about showing a crossed out swastika for the purpose of mocking Nazi Germany and NeoNazis, where it was clearly stated that this is no problem. So, the limits of freedom of speech are clearly put more narrow when praising Nazi Germany but more open when mocking it. This situation is a prove for limits in the freedom of speech as a remnant of Nazi Germany? If this is all you want to see, well. I see this as an important measure to counter the remnants of Nazi Germany. --schifra 05:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Whether it is legal to praise Nazi Germany in public or not is one but not the only aspect when comparing the freedom of speech in different countries. For example, The United States limit the freedom of speech much more strictly, when it comes to swearing, sexual explicity. May I remind you that your initial statement was whether one can openly talk about home schooling in Germany. In case you really did not know it: Yes, you can and more importantly, people do so without being threatened. Newspapers report about it. You can put in applications for homeschooling and fortunately some cases were decided positively. I would agree immediately, if you say there are not enough. I would agree immediately, if you state that the authorities over reacted in several cases. But on the contrary you keep up your remnant of Nazi Germany claim, which might actually be a valid point in other things, but in this context it is plain irrelevant and actually distracts from the important issues. --schifra 05:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the warning of World Cup fans, it should be obvious that a law has to be applied to anyone, whether foreigner of not. So, what is wrong in warning visitors about what is considered a serious offense? As I said before, nobody (in particular obvious foreigners) will be arrested right away, but anyone will get an advance warning. Even, if he continues to behave like that, a foreigner will get away with a fine, just like me if repeatedly going at a speed on your highways, which is common in Germany and I can handle safely, even if no one is harmed. I gave you good reasons for the way shouting "Sieg Heil" and so on is handled here in Germany. If you are not accepting them and the limits in freedom of speech is the only important point for you, no wonder you are astounded. As a practice I suggest you think about the good reasons for threatening a German with jail for driving at high speed, even on an empty high way, which he handled savely for years? Would you claim the traffic signs with speed limits a remnant of Nazi Germany threatening foreigners with jail if placed in Germany? --schifra 05:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your speedy and honest answer. And yes, I'm a believer in free speech and freedom of education. Thankfully in the UK we have many faith schools as well as being able to homeschool our children. Every family should be free to make the choice for their children. Fingermouse 12:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Amen to that. Thanks for your contributions here from the UK! I hope you can contribute more from the UK perspective!--Aschlafly 12:20, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
The freedom of speech in the US is not as high as you might think, Aschlafly, as shown by numerous example of t-shirts that people were not allowed to wear in US schools, mall, etc [10][11]. Also desecration of the confederate flag is illegal in for example Florida [12]. And on freedom-of-speech in general the US doesn't score that high, when ranked internationally. Its press freedom ranks 53, a shared place with Tonga, Croatia, and Botswana [13].
Now, to the ban on Nazi-symbols in Germany. If you have ever been in a German city at in the evening, and you ran into a group of soccer hooligans, yelling "Sieg Heil" and wearing the swastikas, you'd know that it to be a good day if you would get away with a bloody nose. Wearing swastika and yelling "Sieg Heil" is in Germany on par with threating physical violence. British soccer hooligans probably didn't know this, and that is why they got informed about the German custom to make it illegal to use walk around with these symbols. Because it is threating to many.
Finally, you still say that the treatment of home schoolers is remnant of Nazi Germany. So what you are saying is that the German authorities shot father Busekro? Or did they gas grandma Busekro and their youngest baby? Or did they remove mothers Busekros womb, while she was fully conscious, without anaestethics? Maybe they stormed their house, trashed it, set it on fire, and put them into a labor camp. Maybe the Buskros are right now draining the swamps of North-West Germany, with too little food, and poor sanitation. Or do you suggest that the German authorities sent the family Busekro on a 200 mile death march with out water from Bavaria to Berlin? If any of this happened, I agree with you, their treatment is remnant of Nazi Germany. Otherwise you are just abusing the Nazi card.
Aschlafly did even worse than that. The statement on the main page was that the LAW is a remnant of Nazi Germany, not the prosecution. Only after it was shown by several other posters that this is historically wrong be escaped to the prosecution. Now, if he would be British, I could understand his argument to some extent, because of the repudation of British police, but still would not agree in the end, because of what you nicely explained.
Your arguments would be taken more seriously if you wouldn't play the Nazi card. Comparing the treatment of home schoolers with Nazi Germany is as silly as Michael Moore, or any other white male, comparing himself to Rosa Parks [14]. If you are pro-home schooling - and there are good arguments in favor of it - what is wrong with saying that the current law is unjust and unfair and curtails freedom. Full stop. An then give some real arguments, rather than mentioning Nazis'. In that sense you are in the episode of Fawlty Towers where you are kindly asked "Don't mention the War". Because, most German hearing your comparison with Nazi Germany will think that you are an ignoramus, who has no clue about the horrors of Nazi prosecution. And on top of it they will frown at you when you add to your argument that they should allow wearing the swastika. There are not many more effective ways to disqualify yourself as a serious participant in the public debate. Nobody will listen to you arguments in favor of homeschooling, no matter how valid they are. User:Order May 23.

That depends on a case by case basis. The argument that you have to home school, because otherwise your kids won't get access to religious education, doesn't hold in Germany, because they have the constitutional right to receive religious education in school. This is a right that you do not have in the US, but would probably love to have. And it is in the constitution as a reaction on Hitlers school laws, which required school to teach Nazism instead. So, you see Germans did learn from their history.
When it comes to individual cases of allegedly psychological abuse by the parents, I wouldn't feel competent enough to pick a side. Maybe you know the case details. I don't. Personally, if Melanie is a normal teenager who loathes normal school, I'd tell her to start working in a trade, which counts in as education at her age. If she gets psychologically abused, I'd ask their parents to stop. Or do you condone abuse, as long as it is done under the banner of homeschooling?
When you cry wolf about the home schooling situation, you should keep in mind that religion is taught in school, a constitutional obligation, and you should not assume that the situation is as in the US, where it is constitutional impossible to teach religion in school.
And furthermore, it is still wrong to say that Hitler introduced mandatory schooling. Frederick William I. did. User:Order May 21 12:00 (AEST)
Order, psych abuse is frequently used in the US as a excuse to prosecute homeschoolers. Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 22:56, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
If its used as an excuse, you should attact the arguments of the accuser. Saying that they are just Nazis won't do, it makes a poor argument. And if you really care about homeschooling, you probably want to make sure that you're not in bed with people who abuse homeschooling as an excuse for psychlogical abuse. User:Order May 21 14:15 (AEST)

Nice job: With your front page statements about this case and how it relates to Nazis regulations you undermine the position of German conservatives and give credit to the libertarian point of view of the Greens. --schifra 10:49, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Spam Filter

The spam filter is preventing anyone from inserting words like "Ma$$achusetts" or "a$$ert" into an article because it contains the word a$$.Jaques 00:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I just fixed it, and I assert that this should not be a problem anymore. :-)--Aschlafly 00:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)


Some carpenters are building an ark on Mount Arafat the location where Noah’s Ark landed when the great flood subsided [15] Auld Nick 04:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

  • That seems odd, without God asking them to. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Is God's request a prerequisite to the initiation of a construction project? Auld Nick 05:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Given it is a replica of the Ark, IMO, yes. But to each his own. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Is it a replica or just a free variation? Does God own the patent for a particular design or the concept in general? If God does own the patent would it have not expired a long time ago?
This opens many legal questions perhaps Aschlafly can help here. Auld Nick 05:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL...I have it on good authority, Nick, that God doesn't recognize any Patents. He claims to own everything. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't worry about patents; it's obviously not a copy of the original, given that it's going to be 30ft long, compared with 450ft of the original! Philip J. Rayment 05:43, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Democratic Underground and

Wikipedia members from Democratic Underground and have the power, the numbers and the seniority. They can win any argument about content, either through mob tactics or a well-placed block by a friendly administrator.Left in Control of Wikipedia Crocoite Talk 07:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, of course. It's the same working principle as the UN. An organization which has high ideals but which allows majority rule can always be hijacked by people who don't agree with those ideals. The UN's human rights organizations are a joke - a sick joke. And I think I'm right to be suspicious of their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The whole Kyoto Protocol scam is based on politicized science with the twin aims of hurting the U.S. economy and (maybe) even getting mandated wealth transfer from the wealthy West to the government coffers of third world dictators. --Ed Poor 07:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
"Hurting the US economy"....yeah. Because being forced to kiss up to the tyrants in the Middle-East whose ancestors had the good luck to settle on top of oil deposits has done WONDERS for our economy. And I'm sure all those folks in Bangaladesh who are worried about 90% of their country ending up underwater are all in on the Marxist plot, too. You know what industry in the US is outspoken about believing in Global Warming? Insurance companies--a sector of the economy that has a LOT of money riding on guessing right about natural disasters. --Gulik3 08:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Insurance companies are pushing global warming in order to charge higher insurance premiums and increase their profits. Its a capitalist plot designed to transfer wealth from paranoid consumers to multinational corporations. Auld Nick 08:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem with this site is I can never tell if anyone's being sarcastic. Poblano 10:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope you can do better than that. I look forward to seeing if your other edits are more intelligent.--Aschlafly 11:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Left in Control of Wikipedia

Newsmax reports,

60-year-old Fred Bauder, describes himself as a "retired lawyer" living in Colorado, but the truth is that in 1997 he was officially censured for inappropriate activities. [16]

All the relevent material describing his disbarment is here,[17] excerpted,

When Jimmy Wales asked if you would be interested in serving on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee did you advise him that you were under disbarment by the Colorado Supreme Court? - Ted Wilkes 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No, such a statement would not be factually correct and is irrelevant anyway, If I had actually done something serious it would be a different matter. Fred Bauder 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitration case brought against Bauder regarding his lack of disclosure is here, [18] which of course he failed to recuse himself from. Excerpted,

Fred Bauder is in fact not a retired lawyer, he is forbidden to practice law by the Colorado Supreme Court. As seen here in the Supreme Court record, Fred Bauder was disbarred in 1997 and has never been reinstated. In 1999, the Supreme Court affirmed his disbarment and that court order remains in full force and effect as a result of his failure to comply with Colorado law. The Court document states that Fred Bauder was disbarred in accordance with the American Bar Association regulations because he intentionally or knowingly violated the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession. The case record states he was found guilty of extremely serious charges including complete disdain for the justice system. Among the things the Supreme Court ordered so as to protect the public from conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice was the findings that:
  • that Fred Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(c);
  • that Fred Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado;
  • that Fred Bauder was engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice;
  • that Fred Bauder failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation;
  • that Fred Bauder ignored the disciplinary proceedings;
  • that Fred Bauder has failed to meet the Court's requirement that he demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law;

Like all Wikipedia scandals, there is much more to it than is reported. Fred Bauder failed to disclose he was a former member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) in an Arbitration case brought by a former NLG Vice President [19] against this writer before banning this writer for a year. [20] A 19 year old Arbitration member reextended this witers block for an additional year after my Arbitration Appeal was rejected which was based upon Bauder's public admission he had mishandled the case. The original Complainant likewise had a Conflict of Interest in initiating WP:Dispute Resolution, in that he had admitted to a personal relationship with a living person whom the article dispute was about. And that still isn't half the story. RobS 16:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Endless Troop Commitment in Iraq

I know the line about democrats trading a troop withdrawal for a minimum wage hike is of course a much-deserved criticism of the democrats, but I can't help feeling like the phrase "Endless Troop Commitment in Iraq" is a backhanded jab at President Bush's handling of the Iraq War. Can we find a less biased phrase to describe the need to keep our troops in Iraq as long as it takes to get the job done?--Conservateur 16:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Not at all. For one year now, we've heard how Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid were going to save America & bring the troops home. Turns out to be campaign gibberish, and for a payoff of 75 cents an hour to their voter base, they sold out the troops in harms way who don't vote Democratic anyway. This is a topic that can be largely expanded upon. RobS 16:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
As long as money for body armor and up-armor kits for the HMMWV's keep coming in. That is still a very big sore point for many of those that had to forage for armor.Jnl001 17:11, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Well anybody with a minimum wage raise now can shut up about the War, cause it is the Democrats insuring that the troops will stay in Iraq that got them that pay increase (or justice, fairness, etc. however you wish to spin it). RobS 18:00, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like this story has legs. We need a good headline for today, how about

  • Pelosi & Reid join war cabal, sell out for $1.35. [21] -- RobS 15:13, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Rob, go ahead and put it up, under the banner in the middle page at Editing main page. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:22, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Request protection

As a very crucial element of tempaltes etc, I wonder if a sysop would kindly protect Template:Pipe from editing? Many thanks Fox 04:09, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Fox, I clicked that link, but do not see anything there to protect. When I clicked edit, there wasn't any text. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
It is just a " | " but its use as a template for inclusion in many other templates and so on makes it vital that it isn't edited, as thios would cause all future templates to fail. Fox 04:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
There is already a template for this: {{!}}. Because of that, I will delete {{pipe}}. Philip J. Rayment 04:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Many thanks for the pointer, I've altered the syntax in the template I created. I still think that that is one template that should have a protect on as it is a very simple thing to vandalise which has a dominoe effect on a vast number of pages. Thanks again :) Fox 05:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I've protected it now. It hadn't been used in that many templates so far, but certainly in time it will come to be a high-use one. Philip J. Rayment 05:22, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, so some templates are now okay to protect? And now we have one that will be high use, its nice to find out here, on the main talk page......keep that communication coming! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:39, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I've always agreed that some templates warrant being protected, just like some articles do. Philip J. Rayment 06:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
  • And what about: "It hadn't been used in that many templates so far, but certainly in time it will come to be a high-use one."? Ed told me to delete any templates I didn't know about, or became suspicious about....and I cerainly am with this one. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
The template in question is a very basic but absolutely crucial element for use in template arguments. Using a template call on " | " is the only way to put a pipe inside a template parameter and still have it function as a table cell divider. It concerns me that you are "suspicious" and unaware of fundamental elements of template construction while apparently overseeing them. Fox 07:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
And I've just sent you (TK) an e-mail about it. Philip J. Rayment 07:43, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Collaborative projects

Is there a Conservapedia Projects section? I would very much like to assist by tackling image attribution, and helping to maintain the file gallery with correct licensing tags. Fox 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

  • We have many much needed projects. Your best bet would be to contact Sysops Ed Poor or PhilipR. However a openness to explain, and communicate will be needed. Thanks for your offer of help. I am sure Ed and Philip will be able to keep you busy and challenged. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:24, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

U.S. Muslim poll

Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. Young Muslims OK With Homicide Bombings Against Civilians Crocoite Talk 17:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks much! I'm also nominating you for the next Sysop contest, see [22].--Aschlafly 17:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! Crocoite Talk 17:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm seconding the motion! Karajou 20:30, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Michelle Malkin takes issue with an AP headline that downplays some frightening numbers in a new poll of Muslim attitudes towards suicide bombing. Malkin: AP Buries Head(line) in the Sand Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 20:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting, and somewhat disturbing in the way that this poll is being presented in the media. The first way it's being presented is that US Muslims overall are quite satisfied with living in the US, and despite some feelings of being subject to prejudice post-911, still buy-in to the American dream to a greater extent than even most Americans.
The second way it's being portrayed is the simplistic redux that 25% of Muslims support suicide bombing, when indeed this isn't quite what the survey says. The question on the poll was "Can suicide bombing be justified in some circumstances?" The vast majority answered "never" with a plurality of the remainder answering "rarely" or "sometimes." But the numbers aside for the moment, the question leaves an elephant in the room, that being "if the answer is yes, then what are those circumstances?"
I'm sure we can all imagine *some* circumstance where suicide bombing would be justifiable. There was a film in the 80's that depicted a future where the Soviets had overrun North America, and a group of high school students had formed a rag tag resistence. If such a situation were the case today, and our only option was asymmetrical warfare, then I'm sure that people across the country would be praising the bravery of these martyrs against the oppressive horde. Likewise, Battlestar Galactica gave a positive portrayal of suicide bombing earlier this year. But, because the poll was incomplete, we have no idea in what circumstances the tactic might be valid. JohnSmith 10:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I really like the site - Exposing and Combating Liberal media Bias Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 20:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Another Great Moment in Public Education

The Denver Post [23] reports on a recent assembly at Boulder High School in which a panelist encouraged students to engage in sex and drug use. The assembly was taped. Students were required to attend. Another Great Moment in Public Education Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 21:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, even I was shocked. I tried several times to find a way to post on our front page, but decided against. Repeating the outrage is unhelpful here. THanks anyway.--Aschlafly 22:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Gays in the news

The girls were arrested May 11 after handing out fliers in the parking lot of Crystal Lake South High School that depict a male student kissing another boy and contain hateful language about gays Teen Girls Face Hate Crime Charges Over Anti-Gay Flier

Ug, no offense, but the girls in that story don't sound like perfect angels....might want to better cherry-pick the stories. These girls were degenerates, and it sounds like they weren't passing around those flyers so much to make an anti-gay statement as much as to attack that one individual.--Elamdri 01:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable language specialists go House Members Seek Hearings on Dismissed Gay Arab Linguists Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 00:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Fundamentalists like fighting against each other without the help of outsiders;-) Auld Nick 04:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Blacks recruited for terror by al-Qaida

Islamic terrorism analysts point out that al-Qaida's racial history lessons conveniently leave out the fact that Arab Muslim slave traders sold Africans into bondage. Blacks recruited for terror by al-Qaida Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 11:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

First and foremost, the Nation of Islam |= Islam in general. The Nation of Islam is its own religious politcal movement, and isn't representative of mainstream Islam. Secondly, the bit about Arab slave traders selling Africans into bondage is a nice little jab, though an extremely hypocritical one. Compared to the Triangle trade, Arab slave trading was practically non existent. JohnSmith 12:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Al Qaeda torture methods

Let's see if the MSM has a problem with the Al Qaeda torture methods‘How-to’ Manual Found in Al Qaeda Safe House Shows Disturbing Torture Methods Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 19:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

If you can stand to see the actual torture manual WARNING: This material contains graphic and disturbing images the last pages show rescued Iraqi Torture victims and evidence of their torture.

Wow, thanks. I don't think I'll put that on our front page, however. It's informative enough here.--Aschlafly 19:52, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


The 25th started the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940. Should it be included?Богдан Talk 23:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Superb idea. I'll post it now.--Aschlafly 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I actually meant in the "Today in History" section, but this is even better.Богдан Talk 00:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
It currently says the battle was between British and French soldiers, this needs to be corrected please. :-) Ferret 06:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Altered the sentence to clarify Fox 06:15, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, maybe I'm doing something wrong. It still says "On May 25, 1940, the Battle of Dunkirk continued between British and French soldiers during World War II." Ferret 07:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see. The main page doesn't call its text directly from the relevant article, which is what I had altered :/ Fox 08:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Only Sysops can edit the Main Page, is why. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Understandable. May I suggest simply removing "between British and French soldiers"? Ferret 08:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Better, thanks. Ferret 08:28, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Article of the day

How about a little section for "Suggested Article of the day"?

It is a way to show the best we have.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. Actually, Joaquin, as a Sysop you can post directly on the main page an article that you find noteworthy. Simply go to Editing main page and pick the second entry for breaking news. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Do this site's sysops have an anti-Iraq War bias?

I just wanted to express newfound concern on what I believe to be another attempt by the sysops at criticizing the Iraq War. The earlier reference to an "endless troop commitment in Iraq" (see my above section) coupled with the current Breaking News story referring to a "war cabal" appear to me to constitute a subtle but deliberate anti-war message, even though at first glance the two stories are critical of democrats. I would like to know who all the sysops are and what their backgrounds are, so we can determine if perhaps there is a mole.
The only other possibility is that the terms "endless troop commitment in Iraq" and "war cabal" are being used sarcastically to bring attention to the democrats who have voted for a bill that funds the war they are publically opposed to. If this is the case, then I have to question whether this encyclopedia can call itself "trustworthy", since I don't believe the use of sarcasm is appropriate for a learning resource.--Conservateur 16:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The front page news section will continue to be provocative, in a way that Wikipedia will never be. Sarcasm on the front page in the news section, used in moderation as it has been, will not be censored.--Aschlafly 15:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
It is provocative indeed. The link to the Olberman comment brings you to a page titled The entire government has failed us on Iraq, and is sub-titled For the president, and the majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal. If you hadn't assured us that it is not the case, I'd assume that one of the sysops wants to push an anti-war view. User:Order May 27, 13:32 (AEST)
  • Well you have heard, no doubt, Order, what assuming does, right?  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, but I am certainly not the only one who had this thought. An alternative explanation would be that Conservapedia doesn't mind if an article hammers the president, the GOP, its base, and the rest of the administration, and long as it also hits some Democrats. In that spirit we can link the entire work of Michael Moore on the front-page. In color. I didn't know that the position of conservatives in the US was so bad, that conservatives don't care anymore if they get blamed for all ills, as long as some blame also goes to democrats. If all conviction is gone, and only Schadenfreude left, it must be more miserable for the American right, than I expected. User:Order 15:30 (AEST)

Personal tools