Talk:Main Page/archive59

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Evolution refutation material

-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, another piece that "refutes" evolution by completely misunderstanding it. And what's with the ominous music when it first brings up Charles Darwin? When I heard it, I half expected Darth Vader to appear.--Frey 11:49, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Possible breaking news: 'three parent' embryos created in name of 'science'

Scientists in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, have created embryos containing DNA from three individuals - one male and two females. This opens the possibility of tri-parent babies being born within years - with no thought given to the consequences of such Frankenstein science. Bugler 17:10, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

worldwide map of the location of our visitors

map of the location of our visitors worldwide see User:Deborah/mytest (I need people to help fix the coding for me) -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

After the coding is fixed the coding needs to be put on the main page -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't help, I'm afraid (technical numbskull) but it sounds a brilliant idea. Bugler 17:32, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry Deborah not possible unless you just save the picture and up load it. You could embed pictures into wiki if this package was installed, although Andy wouldn't install this. There is only a linited range of html commands you can stick into wiki and <a> and <img> are not amongst them as it has a simpler system for these two. DanielB 20:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

it seems to be working partially in that the link shows the locations of the people who view User:Deborah/mytest although it leaves a bunch of ugly coding on the page a side effect -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Is there a way it could omit the proxy locations of people who are pumping our page counts into the hundreds of thousands? DanH 15:46, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Not that I know of, although for proxy viewers that view the Main Page it will show a big red dot, if they view the Main Page 1000+ times -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

see [1] this shows the people who viewed User:Deborah/mytest look at legend it will not make huge dots to represent anything over 1000 + views-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia going to San Francisco

It might be news worthy to point out that Wikipedia is going to move from Florida to San Francisco[[2]], the most liberal, anti-Christian city in the country. Chippeterson June 6, 2008 9:25PM

That news article is over six months old. Also, I'm not sure anyone really cares anymore where Wikipedia is.--Aschlafly 22:17, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Ron Paul Campaign and it's Neo-Nazi Supporters

Interesting article over at American Thinker - Wandering 06:45, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Doesn't the front page cover articles about campaign endorsements? Wandering 12:50, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Is there really no interest in this article? Wandering 10:45, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you would get a better response if your edits were made in correct English (clue: headline, apostrophe). Bugler 06:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Scrooges

The Main Page news item about Liberal Scrooges is a piece of junk. Either Peter Schweizer is deliberately lying, or he just couldn't be bothered to do competent research. This [3] source states Gore had given more than "$85,000 over the last five years to charity". This $85,000 covered the period Gore was criticized for. Gore has since made contributions that dwarf this figure. Evidently Schweizer must have been asleep when Gore announced he was donating half his share of the Nobel Peace Prize award to charity. The glaring defect with Schweizer's reasoning is his cherry picking of personalities and the complete lack of statistics. What if he used Bill Gates as an example in his article? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was bankrolled with an initial donation of $126 million in cash by the Gates family. This endowment has since grown to the many billions. Who checks the Main Page articles for accuracy anyway? Shouldn't a quality control system be introduced? That way Conservapedia won't look silly when they post links to dumb articles. --Jimmy 11:06, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't know the explanation with Gore, but it seems like two competing claims rather than proof that Schweizer is wrong. The Gates may be an exception to the rule, although I haven't worked out what sort of percentage of their income they gave; perhaps it's a small percentage of a huge figure? But the main point is valid, as explained in Atheism and Uncharitableness Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip: It is not a matter of two competing claims. The evidence that Gore was not the miser that Schweizer made him out to be is as plain as day. Gore released his tax returns every year he was in the White House; Schweizer could have spent a few additional minutes like I did to find the truth. I even remember the initial criticism from the likes of Quayle and Gingrich when this matter was initially brought up by the GOP. When Quayle slammed Gore about being cheap, he (Quayle) refused to say how much he donated to charity, it sounded like he had something to hide and was being hypocritical. I don't know how much ready cash Bill Gates has available as most of his wealth is allegedly in Microsoft stock, but $126 million is a huge sum anyway. As for the Atheism and Uncharitableness article, it is about atheists, not liberals, the two are not synonymous.--Jimmy 12:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
As far as the evidence offered here so far is concerned, it is two competing claims. Schweizer says that he's citing Gore's tax returns (i.e. hard evidence), and the counter-claim is a very general claim that it was not that, but another figure (i.e. no hard evidence). Admittedly, however, I don't have the advantage of being familiar with other claims and evidence brought up at the time. Regarding the Gates, it's not the absolute amount that is relevant, but the percentage of income. The Atheism and Uncharitableness article is ostensibly about atheists, but the source material, or at least some of it, is not so much about atheists as conservatives versus liberals. I'm not claiming that it's all an exact correlation of conservative vs. liberal, but that's the tendency. Philip J. Rayment 03:25, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
P.S. See also here. Philip J. Rayment 03:37, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip: It is not just two competing claims. Schweizer claimed Gore was a Scrooge because in 1997 he gave only $353 to charity. That is the only year he mentioned and he based his entire premise on that one year. Yet all he had to do was look at the tax return for the next year to see the Gore's donated $15,000 to charity. [4] The year prior to Schweizer's revelation the Gore's donated over $35,000. Not to mention Gore was paying three tuitions for his children. [5] Clearly Schweizer was sacrificing journalistic ethics and accuracy in order to smear Gore. So you tell me something; I used the same hard evidence that Schweizer had access to, so who's conclusion is more accurate, mine or Schweizer's? I wouldn't be surprised if the other people mentioned in the article were evaluated the same way. Your second reference was a much better article than Schweizer's smear job. But it had one glaring error; it did not mention any sources so we could check the validity of the author's conclusions. At least Schweizer listed some references but that proved to be his undoing.
After reading the Atheism and Uncharitableness article, I've come to the conclusion that it is rather horrible. For the most part, the references talk about secular vs religious charitable donations. Secular is not the same as atheist and agnostic, and non-religious is not the same as atheist. Each of these words has its own meaning and to run them all together is poor scholarship. I hope someone will make the appropriate changes. The first reference even pointed out that religious liberals and conservatives donated at about the same rate, so that one item defeats your earlier assertion about liberal scrooges.
Now that I've pointed out how Schweizer wrote a piece of junk article, is Conservapedia going to be associated with it? Is Conservapedia happy to participate in the lies that Schweizer is spreading? Or will this encyclopedia do the right thing and disavow a connection to unfounded smears and innuendo? --Jimmy 15:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
This is not the kind of encyclopedia that allows itself to be censored. Etc 17:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Technicality Re: Clinton But....

She didn't end her campaign. She actually "suspended" her campaign. Not a huge difference in that she endorsed Obama, etc. but according to election law, she can continue to raise money to retire her campaign debt. But for accuracy's sake--she suspended, not ended. --Jareddr 17:06, 7 June 2008 (EDT)


<a href=""><img src="" alt="ip-location" border="1"></a>

[6] should show who is viewing Talk:Main_Page -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

should show who is viewing Talk:Main_Page as of 15:58, 8 June 2008 -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I find this somewhat ironic, considering the recent post about cyber-stalking.
Interesting though. ATang 10:57, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


I think it's fair to mention that most of the people killed were from when he drove into the crowd in a 2-ton truck. Most of the injuries were knife inflicted. Even the fact that he had such a large knife is unusual - carrying a concealed knife in Japan is illegal - the mangaka of Death Note recently spent time in jail because a pen knife was found in his car.

This is a tragic event and we should not politise it here. It has nothing to do with gun control. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 12:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Jessica, yes, this story does have something to do with gun control. This story has to do with government control of weapons people can use for self-defense or sporting purposes. In countries with gun control (like Japan), citizens have to depend on the government to protect them. The problem is the government only reacts to the situation, after the citizens have been killed, stabbed, raped, robbed, etc.
Another point is that the government starts with guns and continues restricting ways to defend yourselves. This is even mentioned in the article, "the government was considering tightening restrictions on large-bladed survival knives like the one apparently used in Sunday's attack, which had a five-inch blade and is available in stores." I'm sure there are already laws against killing and stabbing people. As you said, carrying a concealed knife in Japan is illegal also. The attacker chose to break those laws. It's the person with no morals that is the problem, not the guns or knives.
When a demented person chooses to kill one or more people in Japan, what are they going to do? Since the guns are restricted, survival knives will probably be banned, what's next?
Our gun control article has a section, Gun control outside the USA where it states, "Ironically, Japan is home to Tokyo Marui, the world's largest airsoft gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns." If you do a little research, you will find that even airsoft guns are dangerous. "Airsoft guns require responsibility. Some people choose to use airsoft guns in a negligent and even criminal manner. Please read about Airsoft Gun Safety to learn about how to properly handle and use airsoft guns. Misuse of airsoft guns can result in prison time or even death and thus must be used with the highest level of responsibility." [7] When the criminals use these airsoft guns to to kill and injure others, is the Japanese government going to restrict sales of their own products?
Notice the key word here, responsibility. Law-abiding citizens have the responsibility to use regular guns, airsoft guns, knives, trucks, etc. in a responsible manner. Immoral people will not respect these laws, no matter how many restrictions you put in their way. Guns, knives, and trucks don't kill people by themselves.
We are using this story as another example of why the U.S. shouldn't have gun control. Liberals want to use examples like Japan to support more gun control in the U.S. Conservatives in the U.S. don't want our guns, knives, etc. taken away like in Japan. When the government starts gun control, law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 14:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Two things. One you obviously do not know what an airsoft gun is. The only way someone could be killed with an airsoft gun is if they were hit on the head with the gun itself. Airsoft guns shoot little plastic BBs with an average muzzle velocity of 150 to 500 ft/s while a normal gun has an average muzzle velocity of well over 2000 ft/s. Secondly they do not need guns to defend them. They are all ninjas. SugarCup 14:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you putting forth the opinion that if there was no gun control in Japan, someone would have shot and stopped the attacker before he...well, I hesitate to name a point at which he could have been stopped by an armed civilian, given that neither of us were there to see what happened. But are you saying that the lack of gun control in Japan somehow made this a larger tragedy? Wandering 14:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Dean, I do understand where you are coming from, I too now live in a country with no strict gun laws, but let us face it - if a lunatic decides to initiate a random act of violence, then people are going to get hurt. By saying gun control in Japan led to this, one could counter argue firstly by saying if he had a gun, more would liekly have died and also by asking did the right to bear arms stop Richard Speck, Charles Whitman, Howard Unruh, Mark Ellis, James Huberty, to use a few bad examples. Nothing can stop somebody who resorts to violence - that is why there are police. I understand this is a touchy subject for Conservapedia, but please understand that all of Japan and all Japanese are taking this very badly at the moment - this is not something we are used to and I wouldn't like to see it used to score points here, as ultimately, it will change nothing - in Japan or the USA. JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 14:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Jessica, we are not using this article to "score points". We're not going to be politically correct here. We are presenting a valid counter-argument to liberals that want more gun control in the U.S.
You also wrong when you say "Nothing can stop somebody who resorts to violence - that is why there are police." The problem is the police only react to the situation, after the citizens have been killed, stabbed, raped, robbed, etc. Citizens need to be able to defend themselves and that is exactly what they do in the U.S. Look at the examples in this link Armed citizens defending themselves. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 16:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
All five of those examples involve the criminals coming to the victim's home, which isn't even remotely comparable with a spree in a busy and dense commercial district. Three of them also have the criminal exhibiting suspicious behavior prior to the confrontation - which isn't exactly comparable with someone initiating a spree by hitting people with their car. If you can find comparable situations of armed citizens stopping spree attackers, then there might be a place for your rhetoric in the context of this incident. Wandering 16:34, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Wandering, look at this link to see incidents in which civilians with firearms have come to the aid of law enforcement officers attempting to perform their often dangerous duties. Armed Citizens And Police Officers These incidents were in public situations. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 17:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I said a "comparable situation", which none of those seem to be. Akihabara is a dense and crowded commercial district in a city considered by some to be rather overpopulated. You might have an easier time coming up with comparable situations if you looked at some pictures of the crowds it can attract. Wandering 17:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't know; #3, #11, #15 seem somewhat comparable, in that the suspects either used or were about to use deadly force. But you're right, they're not comparable in the crowd situation (at least none that I read). The idea of three or four citizens, who would probably have little or no training, firing off their guns at a suspect on a crowded street is not a pleasant one.--Frey 22:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm glad you weren't in charge in the Colorado shooting, when a woman weak from fasting did shoot a murderer in a crowded church and thereby saved the lives of dozens. See conservative parables.--Aschlafly 22:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
What you forgot to mention is that the woman was a security guard and former police officer who had been trained for and possibly experienced in the use of a gun in that kind of situation. Most gun owners don't meet that standard. How often does the average gun owner even go to the firing range?--Frey 13:55, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
How about this: We make right-to-carry permits available for any law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen who wants one, but they have to pass a firearms safety course, pass a training course for dealing with combat situations, and acheive some minimal score at target shooting. And they get re-certified every year, having to pass the same requirements. Does that seem reasonable?--Frey 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Wandering, you said, "All five of those examples involve the criminals coming to the victim's home, which isn't even remotely comparable with a spree in a busy and dense commercial district." Charles Whitman was the Texas Tower massacre, Huberty was the San Diego McDonalds killer, Unruh walked through Camden shooting people - these did not "enter the home", nor were they stopped by armed citizens, who no doubt did the rational thing and ran for cover. The premise that armed civilians can (and do) intervene relies on a very basic assumption - that there are brave people around at the time the situation happens. JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 00:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

So hypothetically, what happens if someone has easy access to a gun (because of a lack of gun control) and attacks a group of people, all of whom are too scared to act?JPohl 09:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
As was stated before, most the deaths were caused by the two ton truck being driven into the building. No-one could have stopped that, regardless of gun laws. Now we can probably reasonably assume the crazy man would have had a gun, instead of a knife. How many more deaths could he have caused before someone else may have been able to take him out? I'd far rather be stabbed than shot. And whilst the guy may have been stopped sooner if there wasn't such strict gun control, I'd bet a lot of money on the fact he would have ended up killing a lot more people if he'd had a gun rather than a knife.Raggs 09:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
In the end this is just about common sense. Someone out to do harm will use whatever weapons they can get, and if this guy was carrying automatic pistols instead of a knife I hate to think of how many innocents would have died. The expectation of armed citizens stepping in to assist or act in place of the police is ridiculous - a live-fire shootout is nothing like practicing on the target range, and this can only lead to more casualties over time. Think about it - any driver is trained an licensed to operate a car properly, but do we expect or want average citizens to interfere in high-speed pursuits to help the cops take out fleeing suspects "before someone gets hurt"?
I saw an interview on TV with a responsible firearms trainer showing his clients why they need to dispel their fantasies about stopping the bad guys with ease - he had the client shoot at a firing-range target with good results, and then had him do it again, this time screaming and randomly firing a starter pistol near the back of his head. Not one bullet even hit the outer target circle. He then trains people how to remain composed under these situations, but I'm sure most people who keep guns for protection only don't get quality training like this and keep up with it.
Should people be allowed to have guns for sport and in their own homes? Sure, once they get trained & licensed, and have all their firearms registered just like their cars. As for letting anyone carry guns around for protection, we have a story in today's news about what's more likely to happen than stopping the potential bad guy: "Child, 4, Shoots Self at Sam's Club With Grandma's Gun" --DinsdaleP 09:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


One of my friends wants to make an account, but there is no longer an option to create an account. Is this some strange new policy, or is something messed up? SugarCup 14:04, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Why is Conservapedia, not allowing new people to sign up -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Problem has been fixed -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

"In his own words" Obama video

DeanS recently put up a video on the front page that alleges to contain what Obama "really thinks of white folks" (CP's words). It contains entirely out-of-context shock quotes from one of Obama's memoirs. In this kind of book, where one of the major themes was being introduced to racism and then moving past it, it is almost libellously disingenuous to quote from the earlier and middle portions and pretend that they're what Obama "really thinks." Please take it down.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Removed --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 01:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that was amazingly quick! Thanks, I appreciate it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Selena Gomez

Does it really matter what she pledges? Britney Spears pledged the same thing, and Lindsay Lohan pledged to keep her Catholic values....JPohl 10:31, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget about Miley Ray Cyrus, who was actually featured on CP's front page for her Christian values...before she did a risque spread in Vanity Fair while her father looked on. Of course, she claims she had no idea the final spread would turn out that way. Does beg the question what she thought was going to happen when she agreed to remove her shirt and hold up a sheet instead. --Jareddr 10:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
So does that make Selena Gomez's pledge worthless? What appalling cynicism, and what an example of Liberal negativity the previous edits present to the young. The action of a young woman who is in the public eye affirming her virginity and pledging to remain pure should be applauded and celebrated. That others have fallen by the wayside is completely irrelevant. Bugler 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm just saying I don't really care for the promises that she makes about her lifestyle. 15-year-olds tend to rescind on long-term commitments like this.JPohl 10:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't think this is front page worthy. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:55, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Would you prefer her to be flaunting herself in nightclubs? Professions of decency should be welcomed. Not all 15 year olds 'rescind' - there are plenty who don't fall. Bugler 10:57, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Response to CPAdmin - I disagree, for this reason: this encyclopaedia is aimed at homeschoolers, many of whom are teenagers; and while the mass media is devoted to glorifying decadence and louche behaviour, anything that shows our kids that they are not alone and not 'uncool' in behaving with decency and modesty and remaining pure is to be applauded. Bugler 11:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
And what happens if she breaks her pledge, like so many others have? Is it suddenly not cool anymore? I think there's something fundamentally wrong in saying "celebrities think this is cool, so you should too!"JPohl 12:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Were that to happen, it would be regrettable, but would not undermine the basic premise here. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in saying "celebrities think this is cool, so you should too!" I have sympathy with that viewpoint, but in today's media and society, the bias is so overwhelmingly towards the portrayal of unchastity as acceptable and even desirable, that anything that argues that abstinence, modesty, and decency are desirable should be supported, even if it comes with celebrity endorsement. Bugler 12:07, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Well put. Liberal bias is intense in pushing sex outside marriage as somehow being cool. In fact, not all people and not all celebrities agree. That is worth publicizing in order to debunk the false liberal claims.--Aschlafly 12:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't think they push it as being cool as much as they portray it as morally acceptable. Chastity has its problems too you know.JPohl 13:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I would disagree with that. What you say implies 'moral equivalence' in media etc coverage - but it isn't even that. Chastity and virginity are portrayed as 'odd', 'nerdish', 'weird', and this can lead to bullying, peer pressure, pressure from boy/girlfriends, all to conform to what is wrongly pushed as 'normal'. Bugler 13:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, Bugler. JPohl, there's no denying that the liberal media push extramarital sex as being cool. Also, in reply to your other statement, chastity outside of marriage has no problems.--Aschlafly 13:22, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually chastity outside of marriage has flaws. Chastity can prevent STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and sometimes negative emotions. On the other hand, those who are chaste tend to not discuss issues like physical desire or contraception, which can cause rifts in marriage. A poor physical connection between husband and wife can cause deep feelings of shame, guilt, and jealousy, and those damage relationships. My Roman Catholic friend is in this situation- depressed because of his marriage, but he doesn't believe in divorce, so he's stuck.JPohl 13:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

but he doesn't believe in divorce, so he's stuck There is Catholic Marriage Guidance. Except in the most extreme of circumstances people shouldn't abandon a marriage: through commitment and patience, most problems can be overcome. The harm done by unchastity far outweighs any notional 'problems' of chastity. What you describe, while distressing, is not down to practicing pre-marital restraint - the same issues would have arisen anyway. Bugler 13:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to prioritize chastity without either providing insufficient education or demonizing sexuality.JPohl 13:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
That, though, is a problem of educational standards and practice, rather than with the concept of chastity. Bugler 13:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Can someone archive this page?

It is getting extremely long.JPohl 14:21, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 23:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

potential story

[8] WARNING: This story contains graphic descriptions of artwork that is offensive. HenryS 18:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Gas Tax Cuts

Obama's right to criticize gas tax "holidays" and the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal agrees, saying the idea “smacks of poll-driven gimmickry.”

Conservative economists also agree with him. Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who has written a best-selling textbook on economics, said what he teaches is different from what Clinton and McCain are saying about gas taxes. "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers," he said. Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, said the laws of the market argue against a tax suspension. "Every summer, the refiners are running full out. If the price fell, people would want to drive more and there would be shortages," he said. "It's a basic economic principle that if the supply is fixed, the price is going to be determined by demand."[1]

With deadly bridge collapses making the news, the last thing we need is a pandering-driven cut into the highway trust fund that the tax supports. The $9 billion that the fund would lose this summer to the tax cut would fund a lot of quality construction and engineering jobs to keep the roads our economy depends on in good shape. I hate paying $4/gallon for gas, but I'm willing to keep paying the 18.5 cents for the next three months if it would put thousands of Americans to work on infrastructure projects we'll benefit from for years to come. I respect Senator McCain, but if this is an example of the economic leadership we can expect from him, we can do better. --DinsdaleP 19:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Obama presents the smarter policy.

Apparently, most voters agree. As far as I could tell, calling for a gas tax holiday didn't help Hillary Clinton's campaign at all.--Frey 14:09, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Thought some people here might be interested in this…

[9] --MakeTomorrow 20:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Fascinating stuff. --DinsdaleP 20:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow thankyou. I must have missed that in the latest edition. Oh well! That's fascinating, although I'm sure we could argue all day as to what it really means :P Bolly 20:55, 11 June 2008

Yes, thank you for that. Made interesting reading. Isn't life amazing?Liberalnproud

Atheist rapper violently attacks atheist co-founder of Rational Response Squad

No official, reliable word on this, but its buzzing around a few blogs. Greydon Square apparently beat up Brian Sapient so badly that Sapient had to be taken away by ambulance. Will keep an eye out for news on this. Jinxmchue 00:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

"Sapient," incidentally, is an online pseudonym. So in case anyone else is keeping an eye on the news, his real last name is Cutler and probably would be reported as such. Jinxmchue 09:29, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Poll shows public knows what the media denies

The liberal bias in the media is obvious to the majority.

Voters Give Media Failing Grades in Objectivity for Election 2008

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

The only thing I'm surprised about is the percentage of Democrats. I would've guessed it to fall between 30 and 40 percent. Jinxmchue 11:10, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

This doesn't say people believe there is a liberal bias, just a general bias. Although it does point out that Republicans (and Rodham Clinton supporters) feel that there is a bias against them (or in favour of their opponents).JPohl 11:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Meanwhile, Bush is still hitting record lows in approval ratings. I wonder if it's the media's fault? Wandering 12:22, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't seem likely. I think the public is just tired of people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney having authority, as well as a deceptively waged war, a flagging economy, on and on... I know Rove is gone. I was just using him as an example that the Bush administration overall has made the decisions that have made it unpopular.

Early Church

This might be interesting for the "news" section:;_ylt=AmxYiHDGae6KpN5Vy41Q6ris0NUE


Agreed; this strikes me as a very exciting discovery. I was going to mention it, but I see that Angela beat me to it. --Benp 21:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Domestic Drilling

What is omitted from the election-year rhetoric about domestic drilling is that the key bottleneck is in the refining, not production. Even if you ramped up production by opening fields that are currently off-limits (forgetting that these take years to develop, not weeks), there's a finite capacity for refining this crude into usable product, and that will be the key constraint on supply, as it was two summers ago. The refiners don't have any economic incentive to invest billions in new plants since the 40-year return on investment is not there, so unless the government gets into the refining business that constraint will always be there.

The other thing that's left out of the rhetoric is that in a free market, any additional crude developed will go to the highest bidder, and they may not necessarily be Americans. The better short-term strategy is to encourage conservation, invest in pebble-type nuclear energy, and do what Americans do best under adversity - innovate and adapt. We'll see more hybrid vehicles, delivery services bringing goods to many people with one truck instead of everyone running errands in their own cars, and so on.

Conservapedia should show original thinking and leadership in rejecting the old-style thinking that giving the okay to drill more oil now is going to do anything fundamental to improve people's lives in the next couple of years, and promote articles and essays with effective, practical solutions instead.-DinsdaleP 22:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I read an article a few weeks ago stating that even with the opening of the reserve it would only cause a decrease anywhere from $.41 to $1.44 per gallon at the current price. Part of the gas price increase is due to the value of the dollar dropping worldwide. If we do not stabilize our economy we will continue to see the price of gas increase.--Able806 09:41, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

It's not enough to get a permit to drill - you have to find the good strikes, develop them, and then figure out how to efficiently transport the crude tho the nearest refinery. Even if we started drilling in ANWR today, it would be a few years before any meaningful quantities would make it from there to domestic refineries in levels that would lower domestic prices. We'd get a better, more meaningful drop in prices a lot sooner if we could stabilize the dollar through sound economic policies.--DinsdaleP 18:09, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

On a purely cynical level: oil is a finite commodity, and is eventually going to run out. It makes sense to conserve the supplies under our control and encourage other nations to deplete theirs first. --Benp 16:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

You're right about the finite nature of the oil supply, which is by the major producers aren't investing in new refineries - they wouldn't recoup the billions it would cost to build them before diminishing crude supplies would make them unprofitable to operate based on volume. While domestic conservation is good, I wouldn't encourage any major nation to deplete their supply - putting a nation's future at risk doesn't make them capitulate some idealogical point - it starts wars for survival. --DinsdaleP 18:09, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


Can someone help me fix Template:Stub, there is some error in my coding for example see absolutism -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)


Was wondering the statistics in the mainpage news article. It states that U.S. ranks 41:th in homicides, but couldnt find any refrence from the article and atleast according to these statistics U.S. is 24th ( 8:th in murders with firearms)and the countryes which have more murders aren't the most peacefull places. HeikkiL 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Slightly unrelated, but wow, this is a fabulous source.JPohl 09:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Capitol Coffeehouse 80% statistic

This article says that "more than 80% of the population is demanding that we drill now and drill at home". Does anyone know where this statistic comes from? The Gallup poll for last month seems to give 57%. Incidentally, has there been any proof that China is currently drilling for oil off Florida? The existence of the lease doesn't exactly prove the existence of drilling. Wandering 13:41, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

China NOT drilling off Cuba

The headline on the front page is inaccurate. "...a February 29, 2008 Congressional Research Service that found “[w]hile there has been some concern about China’s potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba’s oil sector has been focused on onshore oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec).”

Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, took to the Senate floor Wednesday and called the alleged Cuba drilling “akin to urban legend.”

Shown the quote from the CRS report, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail that the “fact is China can drill off the cost of the United States and Americans can’t. At a time when the nationwide average price for a gallon of gas is over $4, that policy just doesn’t make sense.”"

Boehner's spokesman is basically saying that China can drill off the coast, but has retreated from the previous day's press release from Boehner, "“WHILE CHINA EXPLORES OIL AND GAS 60 MILES FROM AMERICAN SHORES, DEM MAJORITY KEEPS AMERICA’S ENERGY RESOURCES UNDER LOCK-AND-KEY.”" Politico: Chinese aren't drilling near Cuba --Jareddr 16:24, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

There are two distinct points here. First, is that some politicians (particularly conservatives) feel it is unfair to allow foreign countries (such as China) to drill offshore while forbidding ourselves to do the same. They probably mention China because it claims a 200-mile economic zone; you may recall it forced down a Navy plane in the first few months of Bush's presidency which "dared" to enter that zone.
Second, would be any specific claim that China is or is not doing such drilling. Let's not confuse principles with facts; we'll leave that sort of confusion to liberal sources like Wikipedia. --Ed Poor Talk 18:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
But they're /not/. The quotes and links that Jareddr provided show that. The first point is a non-issue because it simply isn't happening. DannyRedful 14:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

My two cents says Pinar del Rio is Cuba. China exploratory what? Tobacco? No- Oil. China's next step? China will be eventually extracting oil in offshore drilling. The same spot were special interests block the USA from drilling. Proper information at the top level of government was a gaffe or is it?--jp 20:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Article on Gun Control

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense as an argument. The US is a stable country with good law enforcement, especially by world standards, so why compare it on a completely global scale when most countries are incompatible?

There are many reasons to compare the US with other countries. The main reason is that human nature is the same; only culture and government are different. Social science studies these differences.
Moreover, arguments for more-restrictive or less-restrictive gun laws often point to data collected both within the US and abroad. It's all good, and I think it tends to show that (all other things being equal) more guns in the hands of law-abiding people means less crime.
Not all of this crime is "private" (lone hooligans) or "mafia". Government itself has been the worst culprit. For example, in the period 1939-1945 Germany suffered more than 9 million murders - completely apart from military action - perpetrated by the Nazi government on a largely unarmed populace; see the Holocaust. China and the USSR suffered less publicized but far worse but for the same reasons. The "defense against tyranny" motive is not mere theory: it is frighteningly real. --Ed Poor Talk 19:01, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Have you seen the counteries above the US, not an impressive list? In some of those countries you could get murdered by the police because they feel like it. Russia and Georgia are the only European countries higher than the US neither of which would have much gun control judging by how availiable the old soviet AK47 is. The list only confirms the more availble guns are the more murders occur. DanielB 19:13, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
When we study violence, we should consider all the people who cause it - whether they are "legally armed" or not, and whether they are "government agents" or not. It is only people who have made up their minds already who refuse to look at facts which contradict their cherished notions. Science is about subjecting our theories to real-world testing - ideology is about pushing our viewpoint no matter what. --Ed Poor Talk 19:17, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Gun contorl means that "control". Is there large scale gun transporting through the country? Are the police properly trained and under control? All these form part of gun control as much as regulating gun ownership. My problem is you are bosting how well the US is doing but the contries worst are mostly lose government controlled, either through indifference or they are being over run by armed criminals. Gun control clearly work not only incontrolling crime but the disent into complete anarchy. DanielB

Gun control is indeed a multifaceted term. And bear in mind that when we're talking about issues like this, America, on the world stage, is actually to the right, so what is a leftist view to conservatives in America is likely a moderate view to most people. Also, why refer to "leftist gun-grabbers"? That's just an insult, not a view. I have found that it is not uncommon for Conservapedia to be rude to Democrats like me, but still. Why make an argument against yourself by insulting the other side?

I have a question for those pro gun ownership. What about this video (it's safe, don't worry - it's simply a fan video from a gun show in Oklahoma) strikes you as having to do with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Is this what we want from it? Is this kind of behaviour a positive contribution to society? StatsFan 20:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

With your logic, it sounds like you should take a very narrow view of the First Amendment right to free speech. Do you?--Aschlafly 20:20, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry? Don't change the subject. What does a nine-year-old girl shooting a military machine gun have to do with any supposed "right to bear arms"? Is this a positive thing for someone so young? Would you, or their parents, approve of your homeschooled students doing this? StatsFan 11:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to play devil's advocate here, but does a death threat fall under First Admendment free speech? DanielB 21:21, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
No, it doesn't.--Aschlafly 21:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
So the phrase "Congress shall make no law limiting free speech"(or what ever the exact wording is) is ignored because some free speech is potentially dangerous. Why then are there not the same ristrictions on the second admendement regarding gun ownership? People can be hurt by gun ownership far more than speech. DanielB 22:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Very true. Guns can do more harm than why are guns protected?

Hang on a moment. You can't have it both ways. Earlier this week Conservapedia pointed up Japan's strict gun-control laws when reporting the sad stabbing in Tokyo. The site has frequently derided the United Kingdom's gun laws -- once disgracefully insulting the entire country by describing it as "emasculated" -- when reporting crime in Britain. Yet the murder rates in those countries are, respectively, about a quarter and a third of that in the United States. Either gun control and murder are related or they aren't. I make no judgment myself, but the person making these editorial comments must make up his or her own mind. --KeithJoseph 15:55, 13 June 2008 (GMT)

re. the Gun Control item on the Main Page - the claim that the US is "41st" is unreferenced both here and in the linked article. It's not especially "Trustworthy" to go around slinging numbers about when they seem to have been made up. The reference to it should be removed, unless someone can find a better reference than "some guy's blog says so". StatsFan 12:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

KeithJoseph is right - countries with gun control have significantly lower crime rates. Gun control is beneficial; if you disagree, fine. But again, state views, not insults.

I don't know if that's right or not (I suspect not), but that is certainly not what Keith was saying. He very clearly said he wasn't drawing a relation between those two things; he was merely pointing out a discrepancy on the site. --Ezekiel38 06:45, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


Roosevelt was not the first US president to 'refuse to give up power'. Previous two term presidents unsuccessfully ran for a third term (such as U. S. Grant). Roosevelt was just the first to be elected to a third term. CraigC 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I know. And I don't think the Great Depression was still around in 1945 - it's generally regarded as ending in the early 40s. Conservapedia just doesn't like Democrats, so its mean to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthebrick2 (talk)

Ronald Reagan was actually quite vocal about repealing the 22nd Amendment. Tordenvaer 10:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

HPV Vaccination

The article on the HPV vaccinie is a non-article, so why is it on the front page? The article reads

"In both cases, the cause of death could not be identified. No causal relationship has been established between the deaths of the young women and the administration of Gardasil,"

So why then an article from a clearly biased website? They have a clear agenda and who ever put this article there is helping them push it. DanielB 01:05, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus

I just don't get what's so terrible of allowing habeas corpus, are we to think that we're omnipotent and can do no wrong? Every man or child (yes, we arrested children as young as 14, then tried them as adults once they reach 18, [one of the articles of impeachment against W]). Every innocent man that is held without even the possibility of challenging his imprisonment damages our collective soul, how so many people can say "we can do without this", and Sen. L. Graham even saying we should rewrite the constitution[!] is both shocking and appaling.

I am so glad that we have a system of checks and balances, because every now and then, something does get righted. Though it doesn't surprise me Mukasey says it doesn't apply to Gitmo, since when have the Bush people ever been held back by a think as silly as "the law". Nor does it surprise me that McCain also opposes it, he's old enough to remember when the courts didn't have to go through the silly motions of habeas corpus. ---user:DLerner--- 11:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

The notion of applying constitutional rights to enemy combatants is what people find to be appalling.--Aschlafly 11:17, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The US has always been a leader in the treatment of POWs. While our guys were being tortured by the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, etc, did we do the same? Of course not. We fed them, did not torture them, allowed them to exchange mail via the Red Cross. What people are concerned about is there are people in Cuba who have been held for years with no recourse, no idea of what they're be charged with and who may or may not be enemy combatants. Some of them were captured, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in Europe. Is it really such a bad thing for criminals to stand trial? We treated confessed Nazi war criminals better than this. CraigC 11:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
(To Andy) And many people find it appalling that we give trials to serial-killers. But we do. Because we are a country of laws, and without law, we will crumble. Also, the notion of calling them enemy combatants is efficient, sidesteps the whole bloody Geneva Convention, (Which America signed). What's appalling to me is the damage to our collective soul as a nation. There isn't a doubt in my mind that many of those imprisoned in Gitmo were simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, (or even more sinisterly, handed over to us by militias that "are on our side"... to settle personal scores). We have laws for the good times and the bad, we don't throw it to the winds just because we're angry or scared, we keep it always because it's what separates us from them, good from evil, man from animal.
In conclusion, let me ask this question: What is so terrible about giving them their day in court? Do we drop "innocent until proven guilty" just because he's muslim? ---user:DLerner--- 11:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I have one very specific concern with trials, particularly trials in an open court: if the government has to present the evidence against those imprisoned, it is entirely likely that it will include sensitive or classified intelligence. Revealing such intelligence could jeopardize the integrity of ongoing operations, or endanger U.S. operatives.
Consider the following hypothetical: A U.S. deep cover agent in Europe infiltrates an Al Qaeda cell. The agent learns their plans and discovers the name of their superior. This information leads to the capture of the superior. Now: the agent is still in place, in the hopes that he will be able to gather evidence on future terrorist attacks. How can the prisoner be given a fair trial in an open court without serious risk of that agent's death?
I'm all for treating prisoners humanely--it makes good military sense, in addition to being the Christian thing to do--but there are limits. --Benp 12:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't the civilian courts have ways of dealing with that, though? This sort of situation comes up in civilian trials all the time, when the police use undercover agents.--Frey 13:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
...and sometimes that works out, and sometimes it doesn't. How many "protected" witnesses have died in racketeering cases, for instance? It's one thing to employ such a technique when you're trying to put away a small-time drug dealer or gang member. When you're dealing with a highly-organized and motivated enemy with substantial resources, an unknown number of clandestine operatives within the United States, and strong motivation to obtain such intelligence, I think it's a really bad idea. Our existing justice system wasn't designed to deal with that situation. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that, if we're going to have trials for these prisoners, we need to take the unique circumstances into account and make some changes.
That brings up another problem of logistics. Our court systems are already overloaded. How are we to make room for these hearings, and how speedy will they have to be? Is it just to bump other cases down the docket, and make others who may have been waiting for justice for a long time wait longer? --Benp 13:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All the above is good and fine, you all make valid points, revealing evidence may cause danger to troops/agents etc. may reveal what we know... Fine. Now what's stopping the government from eliminating undesirables by simply claiming that revealing information will cause damage? Nobody is safe in that case.

If the terrorists have intended to disrupt our way of life, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Our own judicial system is slowly evolving (or "intelligent designing") into a system that rivals communist Russia during it's heyday. Secret prisons, torture, show-trials, fear-mongering etc. You do realize that all the government needs to do to put you away forever, strip you of the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to habeas corpus, the right to have consul present, the right to not receive cruel and unusual punishment - is to declare you an enemy combatant. Once they do that, it's over, you have no more rights.

Habeas corpus, (meaning approximately "show the body"), is one of the oldest legal concepts still practiced today. Without it, a innocent man can molder for years, never seeing the inside of a courtroom. And forget about getting a fair trial, in military tribunals things that would never be admissible in any other American court (such as hearsay) are admitted as evidence.

I ask any of those who disagree: What would you say to a man held for most of a decade without a trial, never able to prove his innocence, submitted to constant abuse and torture (lets not beat around the bush, we all know what's happening there), only to be released years later without so much as an apology; Would you tell him, "well, it was for the greater good", or will you not be able to look him in the eye?

This is the slipperiest of slopes we can have as a people, and I applaud the SC for putting an end to the frivolous lawlessness perpetrated by that mountebank we call "Mr. President". ---user:DLerner--- 14:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, all those who think "well, our government would never do anything like that", allow me to refresh your memories. Here is a short list of some the atrocities this government has clandestinely done over the last century.
  • Administrating LSD to unwitting subjects for the purpose of research.
  • Allowing many innocent black men to die from easily treatable syphilis.
  • Project SHAD
So, it's not a big leap to assume that the government can imprison anyone they want for simply being a pest, now that people are demanding it be part of out legal code sends shivers down my spine.

There's a reason "slippery slope" is classified as a logical fallacy. Habeas corpus is, indeed, one of the oldest legal rights--and it has been suspended before during time of war.
That's not to say that I believe the President should have the unilateral power to declare someone an "enemy combatant"; I do not, and I believe that the threat of abuse stems more from that than from the idea of holding enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. The concept of the imperial Presidency is one of which we should all be wary. --Benp 15:17, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
If slippery slope is a logical fallacy, why is pot illegal? [They say it's a slippery slope that will lead to...]. I didn't say that it will happen (A happened therefore B must happen), but there is great danger in it's happening.
You're right, habeas corpus has been suspended before, even by Pres. Lincoln. But the question we should be asking ourselves is "should it ever be suspended?" I don't think so. If the case does not have enough evidence for a conviction, then why the hell do they have him incarcerated?
Unfortunately, the President/the law can declare anyone an enemy combatant, that's the way it is. And all this doesn't answer the question: "What about the innocents?" ---user:DLerner--- 15:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I can think of circumstances in which I would argue that habeas corpus should be suspended temporarily. I think you probably can, too, if you put your mind to it. As for the notion that "The President/the law can declare anyone an enemy combatant," I think that's extremely debatable, and I would like to see the law in question. In short, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing; what should be of concern and should prompt outcries is the concept of "enemy combatant" as a catch-all limbo wherein no existing laws apply. --Benp 15:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

What innocents are you talking about, User:DLerner? We are talking about people caught in flagrante delicto. Many of these people were never citizens of the United States. Those who were, are now guilty of treason. And in either event, because they are not wearing a uniform when taken, they deserve no better than the customary treatment of enemy spies.

I'll tell you what: that disgraceful decision has just all but guaranteed a terrorist attack on American soil. When—not if, but when—that attack occurs, I will be the one to remind you of this day. Or I shall instruct my executor to so remind you, in an event the nature of which I'm sure you can infer.--TerryHTalk 15:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm curious: would you agree with me that the power to declare individuals "enemy combatants"--particularly United States citizens--is far more problematic than the suspension of habeas corpus during wartime?
I'm extremely uncomfortable with the notion of any one person, regardless of political party, having that power and not being subject to oversight. --Benp 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Ben, we've got two issues to consider, and I see that many people here are deliberately conflating them.
The first is what rights does a citizen of the United States have, when charged with treason or an offense tantamount to treason.
The second is what rights attach to an enemy alien.
That Supreme Court case, AFAIK, applied equally to enemy aliens as to US citizens suspected of treasonable acts.
And I have no sympathy for anyone who cannot tell the difference between a "pest" and a true threat. A heckler is a pest—a fly to be brushed aside. We're not talking about hecklers. We're talking about cold-blooded murderers.--TerryHTalk 16:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Terry - your answer has a fundamental flaw of presumption. You state that these people were caught in flagrante delicto. How do you know that? Because your Government told you so? The entire foundation of the US was based on checks and balances - we are allowed an armed militia to prevent a Government overrunning us - good. We have a Congress to prevent an abuse of power by the President - good. We have Courts - for what? To check the facts of the Government's case? The very foundation of this country has been torn apart by the denial of normal legal rights to these detainees - if the case against them is strong, no-one will have the slightest problem with their conviction. The most intense and deep hypocrisy is being perpetrated by insisting that "Government knows best", and you would agree if your front door was kicked in and you were detained for seven years without access to a fair court. The sham that is Guantanamo is a deep, festering wound in this country's soul, and has the power to end the dominion of the United States internationally, as we are seen to not represent what we so proudly claim to represent. Aggrieved 16:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I repudiate your suggestion. You're the one with the fundamental flaw of presumption. You presume that war and criminal investigation are, and by right ought to be, fundamentally identical, and that even enemy spies have rights. They do not.
Would you care to have your daughter marry any of those Gitmo detainees?
Your kind of fundamentally flawed presumption is going to get us all killed.--TerryHTalk 17:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I would not like my daughter to marry any of the detainees who were guilty, not for a second. But we already know that large numbers of these detainees were innocent - the US has admitted it, they have been released, and the US is being prosecuted because of their illegal detention. How do we know there aren't more? How do we know? Aggrieved 17:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Several people have been released from Gitmo without charge you know Terry. Obviously they are not all potential terroists. What does that say to you? AdenJ 17:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

It says that somebody blundered. Because, to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans.--TerryHTalk 17:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry Terry, but that is completely, absolutely, 100% untrue. While there is a suggestion that a very few have returned to the battlefield, there has never been a suggestion of impropriety from most of the released prisoners. Aggrieved 18:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I would be fine with the argument that some public trials may pose security and intelligence breaches, IF these people were only being held for a year or two. There is an element of immediacy in that period when the information is still "hot". But many people have been held for 6 years now. How long do you have to wait before the information relevant for a proper trial ceases to be "sensitive"? People held that long deserve to a) know what they are being held for (i.e. specific charges levied against them) and b) defend themselves in a proper trial. As Frey pointed out, concerns of witness protection and the like come up all the time in civil court cases and there are well-established ways of dealing with them. Benp's objection about logistics is inapplicable; these people have been waiting 6 years to even get INTO the docket. If we place them in the docket, they would be pushing down people who have been waiting a shorter time for justice. I completely support the SC's decision and feel that disintegration of habeas corpus is a terrible violation of the rights of the human being. Foxtrot 17:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree completely Foxtrot, but it's not only that - it's a violation of the very essence of what America was founded on. Aggrieved 17:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
They'll get the customary treatment of enemy spies: a military tribunal. That's run along the same lines as a court-martial. We now are in the ridiculous position of affording enemy spies more privileges than we afford our own soldiers.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If that "aggrieves" you, then I feel sorry for you—up to a point. And that is that I will not compromise my security to salve your hurt feelings.--TerryHTalk 17:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

"every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans"....Hmmmm from what I recall David Hicks returned to Australia and another did return to exactly the same thing he did before he was captured, being a camera man for Al-Jazeera AdenJ 19:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Bin Liden, You are innocent until proven guilty in a mainland civil court. If you win, freedom, and the chance to sue for defamation.--jp 22:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Withdrawal of false claim

TerryH, as per our discussion on my Talk page, you should now withdraw your lie that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", as you have been clearly proven wrong, multiple times. The Trustworthy Encyclopedia will thank you for correcting the record. Aggrieved 20:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Administrative Action

ATTENTION: User:Aggrieved has been blocked for two weeks.

  • Charge: Contempt of the administration.
  • Specification: In that, on 14 June 2008 at 20:32 EDT, said user did publicly affront this administrator after this administrator had warned him not to.

This is actually the second time that this user has shown contempt for the administration; hence the term of the block.

I do not lie. And I do not regard citations from unreliable sources as proof that I have told a lie. And I do not tolerate remarks of that nature, and certainly not on this page.

Let that suffice for all users.--TerryHTalk 22:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

That's certainly one way to end a discussion! Wandering 22:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Wandering, you have twenty-four hours to apologize. And you can do it on User talk:Aggrieved, if you please. In a word: Stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration. There's not a wiki that I know about that has a "defense bar" for "attorneys at regulation," or whatever you want to call it, and Conservapedia is not about to institute one.

And that goes for you, too, AdenJ.--TerryHTalk 22:34, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I not accusing you of lying but I think you are misinformed, check this link,21985,23860726-661,00.html AdenJ 22:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I also have issues with Guantanamo, but not with this specific issue. I glanced at a book at the bookstore written by a man who was apparently falsely imprisoned in Gitmo for three years. He was then released without a word of apology or explanation, or any restitution. In the event that somebody is wrongly put there (which does seem likely), there needs to be some form of recourse, even if it's not in a civilian court. Apparently the US knew he was innocent almost all along but still did not release him.

I agree that civilian courts are not the best place due to state secrets, but the military does not appear interested in making sure the right people are there at this point in time, or at least is not taking any steps in this regard. DanH 23:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

So having contempt for the "administration" is now a blockable offense? Well, I'll have to remember that, the sysops ought send out emails whenever they change/add to them. Is it written contempt or even feelings, cause if it's feelings you won't have many people left... ---user:DLerner--- 23:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, I too protest what is a clear ideological conflict. He was not insulting and did not make personal remarks, you just didn't like what he's saying. There are rules on this site that supposedly are the sole governing principles, and disagreeing with people is not among them.

As for the issue itself: what are these prisoners? The Third Geneva Convention is intended to govern the lawful engagement of war, and it provides two categories for those captured: Prisoners of War and Civilians. Both are dealt with quite clearly, and their treatment laid out. However, in order to ignore those guidelines on treatment, the administration decided that there was a new category, "unlawful combatants."

I believe many people such as myself dislike this blatant attempt to flush human beings through arbitrary selection of language alone into a legal memory hole. The obvious conclusion, if they are not civilians in wartime or prisoners of war, is that they are simply civilians. As such, they are accorded all due process for any individuals that have been taken into custody - including the right to demand a writ of habeas corpus. Instead, the government attempted to "decide" what rights they should be granted.

We are a country of laws. We don't get to ignore them when they become inconvenient. As has often been said, "freedom isn't free." Sometimes a nation has to bleed for it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences

The arrogance of some administrators has reached the point where they are creating their own pet rules and banning otherwise competent editors because these same editors will not swallow the absurd allegations that are refuted with the simplest of ease. I am referring to the recent confrontation between TerryH and Aggrieved. TerryH makes a comment that is so easily falsified [10] that I wonder why he even bothered to do it in the first place. Aggrieved and others point out the utter ridiculousness of his statement [11] with the simplest of references and what is his reward? Three week block for violating TerryH's pet rule about "contempt of the administration". TerryH's actions are nothing new and it does not appear that the Conservapedia leadership will step in and stop this nonsensical power-grab by power hungry sysops. I have been blocked twice so far for violating DeanS's personal rules. He blocked me for editing a post by Aschlafly (not allowed I guess) and for "tattling". Of course he didn't post the tattling rule until about 12 hours after he blocked me.

TerryH's incredible assertion that others should provide the evidence that he is right or face the consequences is in my opinion pure arrogant laziness. Since Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", TerryH may want to set the example and actually back-up his claims without abusing his position as an administrator. Since there is not anything in the commandments prohibiting me from criticizing his reasoning, I will simply ignore his threat to other editors and speak my mind. I do this to appeal to the administrators like DanH who at least had enough spine to comment that TerryH was incorrect with at least some of his unsupported assertions. [12] I am quite frankly tired of dealing with tyrants behind keyboards, I'd like to see an administrator stand up and show some backbone and stop these abuses.--Jimmy 01:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. How can people defend terrorists in a conservative encyclopedia? These uses should be banned for life. Anyone who was ever at Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist. End of story. The US Military does not imprison innocent people. Did the terrorists give 2974 people a fair trial before they killed them on September 11? Why should we do it for them? If some were released, it was a disgrace, and those responsible for their release, including certain members of the Supreme Court, should take their place. We should all hope that our President will see to it that the remaining prisoners are executed before the end of his term, to make sure there is no chance that a future President Barack Hussein Obama would release his fellow Muslims. TonyT 13:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Dear Karajou, Jimmy raised a valid point there. It is quite unfortunate that you have decided to block him. Is there any rule that no one should raise any point against any sysops, however tyrannical they are? Hope you won't block me too due to me stating my opinion!

regards. --SMaines 13:56, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Not at all, SMaines. The blocks were in regards to personal attack and or interference in other's business. It would not have happened had the users simply brought forward supporting evidence and presented it in a respectful manner. Karajou 13:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I appreciate that Karajou, but did you not notice that TerryH's responses have been equally disrespectful? --SMaines 14:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, TonyT, I really, really, hope that your comment was sarcastic.

Karajou, calling someone a liar on the main Talk page qualifies as a personal attack, but the whole thing started when TerryH made such a far-reaching assertion with no supporting evidence. Then, when challenged on it, instead of admitting he exaggerated in the heat of the moment (which could have been done without hurting his broader point), he got defensive and threatened to block anyone who didn't agree with him, even when they provided evidence suggesting he may have been mistaken. Aggrieved may have been out of line, but so was TerryH. I'd expect better behavior of a Sysop.--Frey 15:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
It seems there is certainly some controversy over this issue. TerryH certainly made a mistake, and although anyone can make a mistake, he compounded the situation by deciding to take a stand over his incorrect opinion on the matter of the Guantanamo released. The record shows that Aggrieved simply said that TerryH's comment was untrue, which it was, and it was TerryH that started slinging the mud. It seems ludicrous now that there's all this banning of users and reverting of comments - the reversion of ThomSach's comment and his subsequent earlier seems surprising, given the comment was relatively benign. I do think TerryH, with all due respect, should acknowledge that his comment was wrong. WaltherPPK 15:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Block Me

Block away fellas. I can't fathom the tyrannical power thrown around by sysops. First a sysop makes a mistake and types something untrue, then he starts throwing his weight around demanding people apologise for proving him wrong. On top of that, he starts blocking everyone who joined the conversation, labeling them wikistalkers and trolls. I will have nothing to do with a project that claims repeatedly that Liberals censor speech they disaprove of, Liberals can't stand to proven wrong, etc, and then turns a blind eye when the Sysops do the same thing. So, again. Block away Homeboy. Terry K YOU WERE WRONG. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 16:48, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Please spare us your Parthian Shot. I took a look at your edits and they have been mostly talk and very little substance.--Aschlafly 16:52, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
You obviously have not looked at the my edits, but that's neither here nor there.... You're far too busy inventing clever little anecdotes to protect the children of the world from marrying a filthy, sexually active, STD carrying liberal. By the way, celebrating the death of a wife as a chance to marry a good clean conservative... That's great. Almost as good as Newt Gingrich bringing divorce terms to a patient recovering from cancer surgery. you conservatives really love Family Values don't you? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 19:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This is all getting a bit silly I must say. Surely everyone is taking these online encyclopedias a bit too far. From an academic point of view I don't see either Wikipedia or Conservapedia to be reliable sources for anyone involved in scholarly work at any level including high school. How can anything that is editted by general members of the public be as valid as an editted textbook or peer reviewed journal? These are forms of media that we should be encouraging anyone who has serious aspirations of academic excellance to seek and learn from. Surely with this view in mind we can all relax, take a step back and see the limitations of online encyclopedias. The previous posts by a number of people are in my view taking this whole thing too seriously. I can see the value of online information but not for the seriousness that some posts here are going on about.--Lamb12 07:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

The Lisbon Treaty

Anyways... slight mistake in the news section, Ireland was rejecting the EU constitution, not the EU itself.

Actually no. Ireland has rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands three years ago. Ajkgordon 13:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
AJK is correct. The country was rejecting a treaty that was drawn up following suspension of plans to forward a constitution. The "No" campaign was supported by the Socialist Worker's Party, the (supposedly) leftist Sinn Fein and every unwashed, American-flag burning, pacifist know-nothing in the country. So it's more than a little odd to see it being praised here as a victory for the right. --KeithJoseph 18:18, 16 June 2008 (GMT)

The headline is accurate. The vote constituted a type of rejection of the EU, a crushing defeat for the globalists. As to some leftists groups opposing the EU, that is correct. Note that even a broken clock is absolutely correct twice a day.--Aschlafly 13:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

If it's a broken digital clock without power, it's never correct. --Elkman 13:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't agree with you that your headline is accurate. Your headline suggests that Ireland has utterly rejected the EU, which is not the case, they have only rejected the latest treaty. It is far too ambiguous. Also, is Conservapedia against the EU, and similar institutions? What is bad about the idea of international co-operation?Liberalnproud

Speaking for myself - I do not oppose international cooperation, in fact, I encourage it - but I believe the EU goes way beyond mere cooperation in reducing national sovreignty near the point where each individual country loses most of its individual identity, and leaving citizens in individual European countries powerless in a maze of bureaucracy. DanH 14:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Some who support the EU may have opposed the Treaty of Lisbon. The headline is misleading and could suggest that the vote constitutes whether or not the Republic of Ireland stays in the European Union. It should be changed to "Treaty of Lisbon". Kilmarnock 15:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Headlines capture the main point in a clear way, not the exception. The headline captures what happened well. The name of "Treaty of Lisbon" is obscure and should not be in the headline.--Aschlafly 15:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
The name "Treaty of Lisbon" is one of the most controversial subjects in Europe now. Obscure? Hardly. Either way, the headline does not capture what happened. The EU and the Treaty of Lisbon are not the same and using them interchangeably is highly misleading. Kilmarnock 18:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
No takers? Well, I guess the Main Page will remain inaccurate (although this isn't the first time). Kilmarnock 12:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Would those who support the Irish for rejecting the integration of the European markets support the breakup of the federally-governed United States? WaltherPPK 15:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I hardly think the EU leaves its citizens feeling powerless, and the EU's member states retain most of their sovreignty. I do agree though that EU bureaucracy is quite unwieldy. The Lisbon Treaty was an attempt to rectify that and streamline EU government to cope with the expanded EU. The Lisbon Treaty had its problems and it was right that it was rejected, but it was an improvement on the treaty on the constitution. Also, Mr Schlafly, how is 'Treaty of Lisbon' obscure? Surely, 'Ireland rejects EU's Lisbon Treaty' would have been sufficient and a lot more accurate than the current headline? I thought this was the 'Trustworthy Encyclopaedia'Liberalnproud

Yeah, matter of fact, Ireland is one of the stronger Euro nations, unlike the UK, they use the Euro.

Al Sharpton

Is this "news", considering that he's been doing this since the 1980's? --DinsdaleP 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


This would be a great Debate Page topic. For what it's worth, if a person is not willing to fill valid, legal prescriptions properly issued by a doctor, then they should not be pharmacists. There's nothing wrong about having strong personal convictions, but they should then choose not to dispense prescriptions at all instead of selectively inserting themselves in the middle of doctor-patient relationships. --DinsdaleP 15:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate page created:
Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

Interesting story on Iraq...


--Benp 17:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Benp, Thanks for the article suggestion. It has been posted on the Main page. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 17:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Quite welcome. What I found especially interesting was that the article explicitly acknowledged how little airplay the positives were receiving in the United States. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by how balanced it was. --Benp 17:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Al Gore and Obama

Al Gore has just endorsed Barack Obama, despite the fact he said earlier he would not endorse a candidate so he could promote environmentalism. This is especially ludicrous because McCain is the most pro-environmental Republican there is, and it seems like Gore might be shooting himself in the foot. I submit this as a suggestion for the breaking news stream. Link here.

Thank you for entertaining my suggestion. --Countryforchrist 21:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Ludicrous? He said he wouldn't endorse a candidate in the primaries---far different than the general election. And regardless of how "pro-environmental" McCain is, I think Obama's views may be more in line with Gore's, on this issue and a vast number of other issues as well. --Jareddr 21:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Then my beliefs were erroneous. I thought he made a statement to the effect that he would not endorse a candidate at all so that he could work with whoever ended up in the White House on environmental change. I apologize sincerely for my mistake, though it may still warrant a notice in the news article. --Countryforchrist 21:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't think his endorsement surprised anyone. If anything, he was just waiting until the primary was decided to avoid getting involved in the Clinton/Obama race. Fantasia 13:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
A Democrat endorsing another Democrat in the general election? Hardly a huge story. I'm surprised the media made as big a deal about it as they did. Jaguar 13:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Brains of homosexuals

Came across this article on research into differences in the brain between heterosexual and homosexual people. According to this research, homosexual people have brains which are structured like those of straight people from the opposite sex. So, for example, heterosexual men and homosexual women both have asymmetric brains with a larger right side, while heterosexual women and homosexual men both have symmetrical brains. I find this very interesting, and very relevant to some of the articles on homosexuality. Would anyone care to include it in the news section? Eoinc 09:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Seeing as how this is evidence to the idea that Homosexuality is a biological trait, not a choice, I would doubt that this site would allow such scientific research to be shown. --AndrasK 11:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I found this very interesting as well, though the article I read (in the Guardian UK) suggested it was as yet unclear whether the differences were responsible for sexual orientation, or a consequence of it. Either way, scientists seem to think the findings are confirmation that sexual orientation is hard-wired into our brains, and therefore unchangeableLiberalnproud

While it is too early to make that definitive conclusion, scientific evidence does seem to be indicating that it is indeed a biological function. Of course, that will be refuted no matter how much evidence there is at this site, but that does seem to be the way that findings are going. --AndrasK 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, it certainly vindicates those who have spent years arguing that their sexuality is fixed. We can hope that people will at last start listening to themLiberalnproud

"Seeing as how this is evidence to the idea that Homosexuality is a biological trait, not a choice, I would doubt that this site would allow such scientific research to be shown"
On the contrary, one of the Conservative values is "a never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience". In other words, conservatives seek what is true according to the facts, regardless of whether it conflicts with existing opinions.Eoinc 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

There exists a cast chasm between the supposed purpose of the site, and the way it is actually run. Take a gander at the "High School Culture" article for just one example. Mr. Schlafly wrote the entire entry based on his "observations" --AndrasK 18:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

What article? Eoinc 18:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I think he means Public school culture AdenJ 18:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Come on, this site is committed to truth and free speech. I'm sure they'll show the scientific research behind this news storyLiberalnproud

Yes AdenJ, that was what I was referring to, thank you for correcting me. I knew it was something to do with public schools! --AndrasK 20:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The sample had 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals yeah that's a reasonable sample size, as if -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The group is small, yes, but it's unlikely that the results will change substantially in a larger group. After all, we're talking about people's brains here. DannyRedful 20:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

see homosexuality is not genetic the academic community rejects the idea that homosexuality is caused by genetics -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a point: that's the same academic community that rejects creationism, right? --Benp 21:17, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

According to the study if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 6.7%, it also refutes the many claims made by people concerning if homosexuality is genetic, besides if kleptomania was genetic that would not make it moral -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

read page 11-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

It is the first study about homosexuality in twins that used random sampling -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

For one thing, your arguments are all over the place: No one here used genetic, except for you. Your grasp of English doesn't help much, here. Any chance you can put those four edits into a coherent paragraph? DannyRedful 21:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
There have been other studies searching for a physical component, and they have one thing in common -- an inability to be reproduced. Remember the 'gay gene'? Things I would look for would be how often has it been reproduced, and what sample size. Was this difference age independent, or was it only detected in later life? Certainly studies produced so far have been moving targets. Learn together 21:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Well said DannyRedful. Deborah, I am not one to nag about grammar or spelling or such things. I understand that this is quick typing and mistakes do occur, however, when it reaches the point where your meaning is completely blurred by your grammatical mistakes, please take a few minutes to clarify and edit your work. Secondly, as DannyRedful stated, no one here even mentioned the idea that homosexuality is genetic. It was merely shown that homosexuality does appear to have biological signs, indicating that it is not something that lies purely within the realm of the conscious but of the biological makeup of the individual. Secondly, no one introduced the idea of morality, or stated that this finding claims homosexuality as moral or unmoral. Please stop jumping to conclusions, especially when they skew what has actually been said. Thank you --AndrasK 21:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

One small point, some biological differences can be caused based upon actions taken in life. Biological could be genetic, or, it is possible it still falls under the realm of life experiences. Learn together 21:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

LearnTogether, no one is denying that other factors could be at play here. Also, no one is saying "yup this is the absolute 100% earth-shattering proof we needed." What we are saying, however, that this and other studies are suggesting that a biological component of homosexuality does exist. Is the sample size a bit small? Yes, absolutely, but this study offers a jumping off point. I would hope that these scientists, or others, would use these findings as an impetus for a much larger study to see if the observations hold true in large samples. Again, we are not saying this is definitive proof, but that it is in concordance with many studies that suggest that homosexuality has a biological (note that I say biological, not necessarily genetic) aspect to it. --AndrasK 21:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Why don't we all start adding content to conservapedia, rather than just waste time pointlessly arguing? HenryS 21:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

HenryS, debate and intellectual conversation is hardly a waste. How can we expect to gain knowledge if we do not listen to different perspectives? If we were mindlessly bickering, then yes, it would be a waste, but we are not. This is a logical and intellectual discussion on a topic that can offer lots of knowledge. Discussion, in a way, is even more epistemologically effective as the reader gets multiple sides, multiple arguments, as opposed to the content pages which tend to show only one side of the issue. --AndrasK 21:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Who (other than editors) reads the talk pages? HenryS 21:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

You evidently. In a larger scale, people interested in what is being said about a particular topic. --AndrasK 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not their brains are different means absolutely nothing in terms of why they are homosexual. However, if there seems to be a correlation between these similarities of the brains of homosexuals, then there is something worth researching further. Of course, all of this is mere rhetoric, all of you arguing that there is no "gay" gene, may well be correct, however what has been rather well established as a very convincing biological cause for homosexuality is the exposure of testosterone in the womb. Which also neatly explains why the more older brothers a child has the more likely he is to be gay (with each son the next is exposed to less testorone in the womb, probably a very smart evolutionary trait in order to avoid too much in fighting due to too many males, and yet supplying another body for hunting/caring).Raggs 14:42, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

That claim has been disproven by the same report from Columbia University I discussed earlier that view is considered a crackpot theory and there is a large amount of evidence disproving it -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Also attempts in the past in which large amount of testorone have been added to the bodies of homosexuals have not made them bisexual or heterosexual it only made them think more and more about sex with men than they did before the hormone theraphy -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The report that you refer to disputes the possibility of hormone transfer occuring between different sex twins whilst in the womb and consequential effects. Not if testosterone levels during the time in the womb effect homosexuality. Secondary, what I stated has nothing to do with testosterone levels in adults. The increase in sex drive has long been reported from an injection of testosterone (both male and female I believe), and that will of course end up focusing on whatever the subject prefers normally. If you can show me some of these papers (the columbia one is nice and respectable, good source, so of similar quality please), that dispute this "crackpot" theory, I'll appreciate it. It matters not to me if homosexuality is biologically caused via straight genetics, proteins playing around, developmental affects within the womb, environmental effects in young life, whatever. But so far from what I've been informed of, the testosterone levels in the womb, is what is considered correct. This really isn't a subject I'd mind being "updated" on, but as I stated, good scientific (peer reviewed) papers if you please.Raggs 16:46, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

On one of the pages of the report they do give evidence against the idea that less testorone is given to each younger male born I'll read the thing later and find the page for you-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

News items that we highlight here, are those which are of interest to Conservatives in particular, as well as those of general interest. A "breaking-news" story about a single brain research program, which has not had time to be examined (let alone replicated) by other scientists, would be unlikely to be of interest.

A story about how gay rights activists are promoting a study on brain chemistry or structure, in an attempt to score political points, would be interesting. But the history of attempts to show a biological basis for homosexuality have continued to disappoint. In fact, all they really have shown is that there is certainly a non-physiological basis for homosexuality. In other words, upbringing and other social factors; see homosexuality and choice & reparative therapy. --Ed Poor Talk 09:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Obsession over Obama's religious background

What's with this obsession? What's wrong with having a Christian presidential candidate who is, at worst, also familiar with Islam and the teachings of the Quran?JPohl 11:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Along that lines, what would be wrong with having a Jewish or Muslim or Atheist president? Is this not America where people of all religions, races, genders, ethnicities, and sexual orientations should have an equal opportunity at public office? --AndrasK 12:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Because conservatives love to charge falsely or with malicious intent. Obama has a Muslim background, his brother was raised as a Muslim, but Obama is not a Muslim. There you have it. --Tennant 14:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Wrong answer, Tennant; it is the liberals who have a proven record of what you just accused conservatives of doing. Stating that is is we who made defamatory statements about Obama's religion, and not saying a word about the source of that info, namely Obama's own half-brother in Kenya, is a lie itself. Karajou 14:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, the whole "Barack is a Muslim" issue started when his half-brother spoke up. No one even voiced the possibility before that.--Frey 16:50, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Um... are you sure, both of you? Then why Conservapedia features such stories on the Main Page? Why, on the Conservapedia article on Obama, you can read "Obama has declared himself to be a Christian, yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do,[4] casting doubt on his politically self-serving claim.[5] Obama downplays his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.[6]".
Why conservatives like Media Matters for America asks questions like this one, associating Obama with Islam? What about the memo sent by the Tennessee GOP last february? I accept that Conservapedia is republican, naturally. But most of the smear campaign comes from conservatives.
Am I lying, Karajou?--Tennant 20:14, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Smear campaigns were invented in 1964 with the creation of the Democrat's "Daisy Ad" campaign, and yet you are reducing the concept to smears being done only by Republicans and conservatives; apparently the liberals and Democrats are totally innocent of doing such things, in your view. We on this site are concerned with Obama's possible Islam and his anti-Americanism. We are concerned with his connections to known socialists and communists (read Frank Marshal Davis), and unrepentant terrorists connected to Weather Underground. And we are going to post such info when we find it. Karajou 20:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, folks, according to this, Obama's brother didn't say that he was a Muslim at all. (How reliable does Conservapedia consider ABC's Jake Tapper?)--Frey 23:23, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
If that is true that Obama is not a Muslim, then we should publish a retraction. But in any case I don't trust broadcast network news' reliability, so we should find more sources. Perhaps a Kenyan newspaper? Karajou 20:20, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Karajou - if you follow the link to Tapper's page, he links to the original audio of the interview. Murray 21:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I followed the link and listened to it; lot's of distinctive "clicks" on it. Here's what bothers me about it: it's audio, and it's apparently answers to questions which are not heard in the recording; the accent of the speaker is too close to an American one, not what I would expect from Kenya. But I will not say this recording is false; I never heard Obama's brother speak before either in audio or video, and because I simply could be wrong. Karajou 21:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Sounds like most Kenyans that I've heard before. As for the "distinctive 'clicks'," I hope you're not thinking that Kenyans (who mostly speak English and Kiswahili) speak a "clicking" language like Xhosa (from South Africa)...those are extraneous sounds on the recordingAliceBG 21:21, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
These clicks were mechanical, and not part of the languages that are there, such as that spoken by the !Kung of the Kalihari. The clicks could have resulted in a editing of the recording in which the questions by the interviewer were removed. Karajou 21:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I am *not* reducing the concept of smearing only to conservatives. I said that they love to smear Obama, and whoever opposes their views. This is called argumentum ad hominem. Obviously, it is not exclusive to conservatives only. I am not that narrow-minded.
And good luck with your hunt. I'm sure you'll find honourable sources, since the campaign has just begun. --Tennant 20:30, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you are narrow-minded, and right now you're commencing your attack on conservatives within this site. It stops now. Karajou 20:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone else find it weird that the Jerusalem Post article that started the (current) ball rolling is now nowhere to be found? Apparently they only had it up for three or four days before pulling it down for some reason. Even the cached version linked to by the Jake Tapper only has two sentences. I for one would like to know exactly what the article said and what it had in quotes and what was paraphrased, in context.

Isn't that unusual, for an article to be up on a newspaper's site for such a short time?--Frey 22:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't read the rest of the comments so I might be saying something that has already been said, but if somebody wants to be president, then he should be clear in what his personal views are and we must make sure that such views are not going to interfere with his ability to lead, therefore a president's religious background or lack thereof is of vital importance to determine if he will be able to preserve our nation's Christian values. (Though in Obama's case I think the answer is probably "no" either way.) WilliamH 22:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

What does it matter if Obama is a secret gay Muslim (who`s a married Christian) as long as Obama comes to the same ends in his beliefs, I don`t think his sexual orientation or his religion matter, and to use those as the sole determining factor for a canidate would be immoral, wrong, biased, racist, shallow and idiotic. And as for the smear campaigns EVERYONE does them, and though it would be nice to belive that human kind is immune to them, unfortunately, no. By the way that 1964 "Smear ad," Karajou, here`s one for you [14]--Thedude 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Nuclear Power Correction

For the sake of accuracy the new article regarding nuclear power needs to be corrected; nuclear power is an important part of America's energy strategy, but it is not "environmentally clean". The author doesn't specify why he considers it clean, but it's apparent that he meant in terms of CO2 emissions while operating . He omits, as many do, that there's a significant environmental impact in mining, processing and enriching fissionable fuel. He also acknowledges that we don't have a working policy for spent-fuel storage at Yucca Mountain or anywhere else - there's nothing "clean" about nuclear waste that no state wants to store and manage for the next few thousand years. We need to build a proper number of pebble-bed reactors in the next couple of decades, but before we do we need to have a working waste-storage solution in place, instead of making it someone else's problem. --DinsdaleP 09:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Al Gore

So, Al Gores house still consumes lot of energy eventho he has taken steps to reduce it. And now he can't be taken seriously? Well, lets take another example, you as a good conservative offcourse give money to charity? But still you live in a large house and drive a nice car while there are lots of people starwing to death. So you don't think starwing to death is a real problem? or when you tell people to give money to charity, or do something to promote charity you shouldn't be taken seriously because you don't yourself live in a mud hut? Or can this approach be taken only when talking about liberals? HeikkiL 08:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Gore's house is still a huge waste of energy, which does suggest a lack of insincerity in his environmentalism. Your analogy does not address the waste and direct contradiction in Gore's lifestyle between what he says and what he does. A better analogy would be with someone who advocates giving to the poor, while simultaneously taking money from the poor.--Aschlafly 09:02, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I assume you meant "a lack of sincerity." That being said, does anyone have his power usage from before this year? The article doesn't state it.JPohl 09:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Also, I found this article (it's a bit tongue in cheek). It points out that the Gore house is using less electricity than in 2006, and more of their power is coming from renewable, carbon-neutral sources such as geothermal and solar power.JPohl 09:20, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
And many of those who give to charity still live in abundance, lack of sincerity from them? If for example Gore was profiting from the cole industry, while he was promoting renewable energy sources, then your analogy might be closer, but now it is not. HeikkiL 09:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

It is unreasonable to expect Gore to be able to turn a large house into an entirely green living space. Calling him hypocritical for not doing so would be like criticizing someone who is not a millionaire for not giving a million dollars to charity. It is simply an unreasonable demand.

Wait a minute-- The entry on the main page is wrong. Gore's energy use went down in 2k7, not up. [15] This is /also/ at a time when the area's power usage was going up on average. Why're we spreading this smear? Anyone with a working brain can tell it's a load of fertilizer. EBrown 18:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Canadian school accepts psychic "vision" as evidence of sex abuse

Warning: before reading this, please hide anything that can hurt bystanders or damage your computer screen if thrown. I promise it will make you want to throw things.

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

What is wrong with these people? Jinxmchue 11:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

I will completely agree that, in this case, there was a serious misjudment, however, I live in Denver, and not so long ago, we had a case wherein a little girl died from abuse received by her foster parents. Child services had received several reports of possible abuse and ignored them. The official conclusion from a government investigation was that if CS had taken action when they received the reports, the child probably wouldn't have died. My overall point is that, while there may not be strong evidence, if there is some, CS has the responsibility to act on it. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 14:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Not to make light of that situation, but perhaps the Denver CS should've consulted a psychic. They seem to hold more weight than any ten average people. Anyway, I think there's a vast difference between a report from someone who has some sort of direct contact with the situation and the "vision" of some nitwit psychic. Jinxmchue 15:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I won't argue with that at all.... As I said in the beginning, it's unfortunate that this case was woefully mishandled. However, note that there were other signs (such as over-sexualized behavior) and who knows what else. Also throw in that this is a non-verbal Autism case and I can't help but side with the CS and the school on this one. Obviously, if this TA was visiting a psychic, they trusted that persons word. Let me post a hypothetical... What if abuse had been found due to this report? What would your feelings be then? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 15:46, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Another article about it in the National Post [16]. I particularly loved the part where the official admits that other autistic children entering puberty have exhibited sexually suggestive behavior (because those kids just don't know any better), but then said that the other cases didn't have a psychic vision that pointed to abuse. .... Sorry, Canadian bureaucrat dude, but zero plus zero is still zero!
JD, I can see where you're coming from on this, and I'm all in favor of a requirement to report an allegation with reasonable evidence behind it, but the evidence here was not reasonable. And with this kind of case, you need to insist on reasonable evidence, since a false allegation could ruin someone's life.--Frey 15:55, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I think the claim of ruining someone's life is at best an overstatment. Was she embarrassed? Of course, is it emotionally disturbing, yes. But will she live? Yes. I would also like to say that, stupid comments aside, I'm think there's more to the story that what's being reported. The fact that the school is still standing behind the original report shows that there's more than appears at first look. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 18:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
JDavidson, you're right. I realized afterwards that I did overstate it. Sexual abuse allegations have the potential to ruin innocent people, but it looks like this one was straightened out (by a CAS worker) before any serious damage was done. This is a case of a bureaucrat going overboard, but it's also a case of the system working.--Frey 00:08, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Dead-end Pages

I have been trying to go through these pages and add links to them, but there are some problems with some of them.

A thought for Christmas and Recent Alexa Rankings of Conservapedia need to be moved to the Conservapedia:Article space

Conservapedia Style needs to be deleted correctly and Pratt & Whitney needs to be deleted because it is blank.

Conservative/LearningADHDandOther needs to be moved to User:Conservative/LearningADHDandOther.

The only other article is American History Final Exam which is blank at the moment.

It'd be great if a sysop could take care of these, Thanks. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 16:42, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestions Ferno. Changes made (except for American History Final Exam). Andy will add content when he is ready. --DeanStalk 17:48, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
No problem. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 17:49, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot

With all respect, why is it news for there to be a YouTube video about a 15-year-old story? I'm just suggesting that the news posting clarifies the relevance. --DinsdaleP 08:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the "news" section should be renamed "External links of interest" to reflect this.JPohl 09:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
That's a good suggestion. I'm not against posting the content, only in how it's categorized. I've also suggested that the Main Page template have separate "News" and "Opinion" sections for clarity. --DinsdaleP 09:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe the Conservapedia article caused the creation of the You Tube video. Conservative 21:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Israeli Insider should be Israelinsider

I think it is actually called the Israelinsider and not Israeli Insider. --AdmiralNelson 10:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure what your comment means since when I go there and do a text search I can't find anything that has the string "israel" in any case. My pointing out that it should be called the Israelinsider and not Israeli Insider comes from the source site itself at the top of the page. However, as I look at the larger site I do note that they sometimes call themselves Israel Insider but never are they called Israeli Insider. My intention is just an "FYI" should the editors wish to correct a minor, and easily correctable, front page glitch. -- AdmiralNelson 08:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Mistake in "In The News"

I've found a mistake in the In The News section but I can't edit it. There is a news item further down which says "Britain, with its atheistic schools, now leads the EU in teen drunkenness". In actual fact Britain still has many religious schools, run by the Church of England, and does not prohibit religious activity in public schools. This contrasts with several other countries in the EU, including France, where the school system is explicitly secular and religious activity is forbidden. Daphnea 15:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)


Why is the article for Camel completely protected -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Fixed --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Can you also unlock Goat -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

While someone is doing this unlocking could they also fix the problem I identified above, please. Daphnea 10:05, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Look at (has German subtitles) it's the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" available online. The documentary contains interviews with many scientists. The documentary demonstrates that the evidence disproves Global Warming -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually... (not to be purposefully arguementative) I've heard (in Britain, where the film was made) that it's been widely discredited for making information up. This one isn't really a good example of anti global warming arguments (though I'm sure they could be found). WillD

If you've heard anything substantial, please share it with us. Otherwise, it's less meaningful than gossip. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Here's a response [17] to the movie that I found last night.--Frey 12:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)