Talk:Main Page/archive84

Gary Coleman

Didn't he die from complications from a fall? I feel like the headline should mention his involvement with hollywood values, but shouldn't say they caused his death. Correct me if I'm wrong though.RaymondP 14:23, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

He's a victim of Hollywood values, as can be inferred from many articles on the internet. After all that, reportedly dying from a fall at his young age raises more questions than it answers. Enough said?--Andy Schlafly 14:32, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

It is very possible that new info could arise later, such as drug use or something that could be attributed to Hollywood values, but as of now the story is it is just an accident. His young death isn't suspicious either, to me at least, as deaths like these can easily happen, and Coleman himself wasn't in fine health, after all he went through kidney surgeries and dialysis due to his size. Mentioning other things he has been involved in, such as assault charges, would make sense if you choose to do so, but as of now claiming that Hollywood values took his life is a bit of an assumption without further evidence. Sol1221 14:39, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Believe me, I agree he was a victim of hollywood values, and those can and certainly should be mentioned in the news story (along with that comment, I chuckled when I saw the commenter act so offended, so much for his liberal "tolerance.") But considering he was sick for much of his life and his death was an accident, I just feel it shouldn't be blamed on his values instead of cirumstance.RaymondP 14:53, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

A death at a young age due merely to an unexplained fall can be due to substance abuse, such as alcohol, which is what I infer from the reports. I welcome more information but it is very rare for a 42-year-old to die from a simple fall in the absence of substance abuse.--Andy Schlafly 15:24, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Some reports indicate he had been suffered from seizures in the past year, which is a very likely explanation for a fall. [1] [2] And from a less objective standpoint, it's not fair or especially classy to infer that this poor guy was drunk or on drugs. EMorris 12:26, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Your attempt at censorship won't work here. Denial of substance abuse as a possible cause of an unexpected, premature death is a common media distortion. We don't cave into that liberal pressure here. If the cause of death were a seizure, then presumably the press reports would have stated that. I don't claim to know what triggered the fall and thereby caused the death, but I can make objective observations about the possibility of substance abuse, a trademark attribute of Hollywood values. If you have more information, then please provide it.--Andy Schlafly 12:52, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Who's censoring anything? For that matter, who's denying substance abuse? Saying "maybe it wasn't drugs" isn't censorship by any measure. I'm saying that nobody knows what caused the fall, but there are certainly other possibilities besides drugs or alcohol. I'm also not saying he never did drugs; I'm saying they may have no bearing on his fall. A seizure is a likely explanation, and he was known to suffer from them. You said you don't know what caused the fall, but that you're making an objective observation; that's quite an oxymoron. Why not also make an objective observation that a seizure could have caused his fall? It's equally valid.EMorris 14:27, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Let's pretend there were no drugs or alcohol involved, this is still a Hollywood values statistic. Two of three child actors are dead, the third is a lifelong troublemaker living on the edge.--Jpatt 14:26, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Good reporting and education requires drawing some inferences. The liberal media are in denial about substance abuse-induced harm. They are not in denial about seizure-induced harm. God gave us good minds and we're not going to be browbeaten into silence when the liberal media deny the harm caused by substance abuse (probably alcohol, not necessarily drugs, in this case).--Andy Schlafly 15:14, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Yes, reporting often requires drawing some inferences. But a good reporter will also dig deeper for the truth and if it's not yet available, will hold off on designating their inferences as facts. Again, Coleman's seizures are an equally valid possibility for his fall (probably more valid since he had two very recently). I already mentioned that it's disrespectful, but it's also just sloppy to draw such a confident conclusion as to the cause of his death with so little information is available. Can't we wait until an autopsy before saying he essentially killed himself? EMorris 12:25, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

No one is trying to say he killed himself, EMorris. Mr. Schlafly is just noting that it is very unusual when someone that young dies that way. It is not offensive to speculate. --NateSmall 16:02, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Well put, Nate. Note, by the way, that if the press had publicized the possibility that Gary Coleman died from an alcohol-induced fall, then Ted Koppel's son (who surely follows the media) may have curbed his drinking and saved his life. Liberal denial by the press does cause harm.--Andy Schlafly 20:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Ugh, I was afraid someone would say that. No, nobody's saying he committed suicide, but CP is essentially saying that he drank/drugged himself into such a condition that he fell, which led to his death. And CP's approach to this hasn't been speculation, but unequivocal assumption of fact. What's offensive is the confident statement that his own slovenly lifestyle led to his death and ignoring the possibility that it was simply poor health. EMorris 12:58, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

EMorris, what's getting offensive is your portrayal of the comments here. Quote people if you like, but don't rephrase in an offensive manner. And address what is being said, such as my comment that Andrew Koppel's life might have been saved by more truthful reporting about the possible cause of Gary Coleman's death.--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

What are you talkin about EMorris? What trully is offensive is that your trying to censor CP from reporting the dangers of alcoholism and the corruptioin of Hollywood values that Hollywood stars like Gary Coleman probably had. Not enough people know about these issues becaue of Liberal denial and you want to stop us from getting the word out?--ReligiousRight 13:15, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Why are you dwelling on this, EMorris? If they release a report that says that Coleman died from health issues, I am sure that Mr. Schlafly will retract his statement, but right now his thoughts on this matter are perfectly valid. And I would appreciate it if you did not impugn my motives or anyone else's. --NateSmall 14:56, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

ReligiousRight, I'm arguing against making a statement that could be wrong. That's very different from censorship. Also, I'm pursuing the argument that came up before Andy's point about Ted Koppel's son. While it's related, it's not what my argument is about. I don't have to address it if it's not what I'm talking about. And Nate, I'm dwelling on it because I think CP is making an easily avoidable mistake. I'm trying to point out why it's a mistake. You say that Andy can retract his statement later, but it's generally preferable to avoid making a statement you might have to retract. Why not wait to find out what's true? EMorris 12:03, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Liberal amorality is the root cause of using children as a commodity, without concern for the life-long consequences of not instilling or living by moral values. Kids make Hollywood millions, each and every year. Only those with strong parental controls, based upon Christian values make it through relatively unscathed. Period. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:42, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

I agree TK. Have you seen that despicable family that has nearly 20 children and exploits them with a TV show? ColinS 20:31, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

The Duggars? There isn't any exploitation there, ColinS. Far from it, they are the epitome of Christian values! Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are great Americans and a good example of involved and loving, home-schooling parents. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:50, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/head-injury-kidney-failure-led-to-colemans-death_1147272 RaymondP 09:15, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

If you had any doubt that Obama and his minions were socialists

Hillary Clinton went on to cite Brazil, long known for its high taxes, as a model of a successful economic policy.

"Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what – they're growing like crazy," Clinton said. "And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."

...

"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] – whether it's individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are,"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/28/clinton-rich-arent-paying-fair-share/?fbid=w8DLsZyBTHq

Will Hillary also mention that Brazil has one of the highest income inequality ratios in the Western Hemisphere?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index_2009_0.html

Perhaps, she also forgot to mention that Brazil has a per capita GDP of $2850 per year. Guess that's pulling people out of poverty, ain't it?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita

Obama and his minions (the Clintons included) want to turn this country into a communist agrarian peasant society. Hopey! Changey!

Soho 22:59, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=BRL

Brazil's growth lags behind its population growth, Democrat dummies.

Soho 23:11, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Brazil has a lot of income disparity, but it's a tax regime is a far bigger concern to any economist with a brain. Economic growth there isn't going to pick up as long as people are penalised for making money and doing business! It's the usual socialist claptrap. That said, copying the Brazilian model, however retarded doesn't turn you into a agrarian peasant society. Brazil's industries are the most technologically advanced in Latin America by a long short. --BishoiH 17:22, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

I had always though that Brazil's relative success was attributed to having a freer market than its socialist South American neighbors. I can't remember where I read that though... JimFullerton 16:33, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Columbia Plagiarism by valedictorian

I made the following comment at one of Columbia's blogs:

Ed Poor • June 1, 2010 at 6:33 pm • Reply

I’m a senior editor at Conservapedia – an online encyclopedia project. We try to write original material whenever possible, but frequently we find someone else has described a topic better than any of us can. In such a case, we QUOTE and CITE.

In academia, it is important to give credit where credit is due, and never to pretend that someone else’s work is our own. It’s even more important when making a prominent speech at a flagship institution of our democracy, where respecting the rights of others is the bedrock of our way of life.

--Ed Poor ^Talk 18:35, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

gossip

All the headlines about Tipper and Al strike me as gossip, which I hear this site ha a policy against. BenjaminM 13:07, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Al Gore has made up to $100 million imposing his global warming theory on the rest of us, and built an $8M-plus home (green?) with part of that fortune. That's not gossip. That goes directly to his motive, and disproof of his own politically relevant claims about his marriage is not gossip either.

Afraid that more people might wake up to Al Gore's global warming scam???--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Global Warming is a scam, much like Global Cooling of yesteryear, but posting off topic is still posting off topic Aschlafly. Also, I heard you're for free speech, why did this get censored? --JonathanBaker 13:31, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Al Gore is a public figure. How is it gossip to comment on his divorce? --NateSmall 14:45, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Jonathan, nothing got censored. Commenting on what Al Gore says, and exposing his motives for his global warming scam, is not gossip.--Andy Schlafly 14:50, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

"THE EUROPEAN UNION WILL COME APART... "

Show me one part in the constitution that says America was founded on a belief in God. The founding fathers were deists and the like, and some made very Anti-Theist quotes. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. --JonathanBaker 13:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Name the deists who were Founding Fathers; I'd love to see it. Karajou 13:16, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

You can't use Wikipedia as a source, as it can be edited by any one for any reason. You will limit yourself to the actual Founders themselves or those who knew them. Karajou 13:21, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Why would they refer to a Creator if they didn't believe in one? But you'll probably just reposnd with some sort of Liberal denial.

Hehehe, I'm not liberal. I'm not conservative. I'm anti-political. No, not an anarchist either, but I'm anti all the !@#$ that is today's politics, money grubbing and more. --JonathanBaker 13:26, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Oh, and here: Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson

Priests and conjurors are of the same trade. -Thomas Paine

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. -Thomas Paine

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches -Ben Franklin

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."

-Ben Franklin

To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatic. -George Washington --JonathanBaker 13:27, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Four people, out of seventy were deists? And you're claiming Washington as a deist when his own writings prove that he's not? Here's what you're going to do: since you obviously quote-mined these men, you're going to read all of their writings, from start to finish. And it's going to be what they themselves wrote, and not modern biographies. Have a nice day. Karajou 13:32, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

No, Jonathan, you're a liberal. You're trying to twist the words of The Founding Fathers to suit your own personal, political goals. Clearly they were not atheists. Judging from your statements here I can guantee with with 99% certainity that you believe evolution and want to keep prayers from our public schools. --ReligiousRight 13:35, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

He is the result of the teaching in the public school system; he's been taught half-truths and outright lies about the Founders, and left that school system with those lies in his head. Not once was he shown who Washington or Jefferson or Franklin or any other Founder was by their own writings, and I'm sure his little beliefs in these men will prevent him from doing the simple task that I stated above. He doesn't want Washington himself altering his belief in Washington the deist. Karajou 13:42, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Here is the link to a first-hand account of Franklin's flirt with Deism: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walters/web%20103/Ben%20Franklin.htm . But what does it matter anyway if some among Founding Fathers were Deist or anti-Theists? The United States was founded on some common, clear moral, political and, yes, religious ideals, while at the same time allowing freedom of religion to people of other faiths.

On a related note, I disagree that the European Union is just an economic device, with no common morals, religion and culture. Most of the EU is Christian - I disagree with people who claim that we're all atheists, cause we are not. Religion is a great part of the lives of many Europeans. We also have common morals: all states in the EU outlawed the death penalty, for instance, and there is an European convention on Human Rights. Should a country in the EU start torturing its own citizens, or should it install a dictatorship, it would soon be out of Europe. Lastly, there IS a common European mentality, in spite of some ancient antipathies (Greece and Bulgaria don't like Turkey, for instance, and Poland is still a bit wary of Germany): most of my friends, and, in fact, most of the young people I know, in many different european countries, are enthusiastic about the EU, and we are starting to feel more "European" rather than, say, Italian, German, French or Greek. Sure, the EU is in trouble now, and it may fall for economic and political reasons; but I think that portraying most European countries as atheistic has no basis in reality. --MarcoT 13:52, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

In the link you provided above on Franklin's "deism", read number 13, then ask yourself whether or not a deist would ever do what Jesus did. Karajou 14:06, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Jesus can be admired - no, actually Jesus IS admired even by those who do not believe that He was the son of God, just like Buddha can be admired without being a Buddhist. I think that there can be no doubt that Franklin was, at least at a point in his life, a Deist, as he openly acknowledges it in his own writings. This said, the fact that one out of many Founding Fathers was - at least temporarily - a Deist changes nothing. --MarcoT 14:12, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

He stated "imitate Jesus"; he didn't say "admire Jesus". A deist would admire Jesus, but he wouldn't imitate Jesus; if he did, then he wouldn't be a deist. Further, the link is from Franklin's autobiography, which was published in 1791, a year after he died. He ends the account of his life at the age of 51 (1757); he worked on his book in three periods (1771, 1784-85, 1788), of which during those periods the Revolution broke out and the Declaration was written (he signed it), and he signed the Constitution in 1787. Which year of his life was the "imitate Jesus" line added to his book? Which of those periods did he practice being a deist? It certainly cannot be when he signed either the Declaration or the Constitution. Karajou 14:27, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Aw, he didn't bring up the Treaty of Tripoli. I'm disappointed. Jinx McHue 14:19, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Marco, my comment in the news item had nothing to do with Europeans in general. It was specific about the EU. The point being that long-enduring confederations are based upon other than merely an economic convenience, which the EU is. The EU fails to acknowledge, as the Declaration of Independence does, that all men have rights, granted by God, that no other man can take away. Given the historical fragmentation of European states, the centuries old grudges that still exist today, without some sort of spiritual binding, it all must ultimately fly apart. I am not alone in that conclusion as surely you know. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:46, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

And Jonathan:

• The opposite of Deism is Atheism -- the lack of a belief in God.
• Deist's disagree with Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God.

To throw out the Deism argument here, makes me believe you somehow confuse that term with atheism. To many of us, who are practicing Christians, although we disagree with Deist's as to God's actual day-to-day role, and the Trinity, it is enough for us that they do believe in God, who created the Heavens and the Earth. That doesn't make Deists anti-religion in any active sort of way, anymore than being Jewish means a person actively opposes and subverts Christianity. You are trying to apply Deism to prove something that isn't true, namely that the United States wasn't founded as a Judeo-Christian inspired nation. Give it up. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:12, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Did I ever say Atheism? No. I know the difference. --MichealFox 23:18, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Hollywood and the Oil Spill

I just noticed these two stories.

Maybe the Democrats want to live in a movie, but I, for one, do not want to be ruled by actors and directors! --NateSmall 15:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Some politicians (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, probably others) came from Hollywood :P This said, if someone has a good idea he can be a Hollywood star, a Harvard graduate or an illiterate peasant and it doesn't really change anything. I just hope that they are being considered because of their actual ABILITIES and not because of their fame. --MarcoT 15:29, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Nate, I suggest you stop reading the Huff-Po, as it is neither credible or factual for the most part.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:48, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Case sensitive logins

Hi, I'm new here so sorry if I'm writing this in the wrong place.

But when I try to log in as "michaelsmith1974" it doesn't let me log in unless I get the case right. (the M and S are uppercase). My browser automatically makes it lowercase for some reason. Could you fix it so that case doesn't matter when logging in. Thanks MichaelSmith1974 18:27, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't that'll be a simple thing, and what's more, I know our webmaster has his hands full right now with another issue. I suggest using a different browser. JacobB 18:34, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

I know I'm new here, but if your webmaster needs help with anything, I'd be glad to help him out at no charge. I really like this site. Please feel free to get in touch with me for any web related issues. I'm a programmer/web developer by day :) MichaelSmith1974 18:56, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

We will keep that in mind, Michael! Know that CP values substantive contributions and user rights and privileges flow directly from those contributions. Case-sensitive logins, as you undoubtedly know, are a valuable security function at websites, so I doubt we will be changing that. As Jacob rightly suggested, don't go against the flow of the world...use IE or Firefox! :P --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:27, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm actually using firefox, but it was a weird problem when it cached my login after i typed it in lower case accidentally. I look forward to contributing to CP! MichaelSmith1974 22:04, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

What operating system are you using? I imagine you entered the password lowercase, and then told the browser to save it. There are ways to undo that depending on both browser and operating system (operating system because if you're using a mac, you'd open Keychain Access and just change the value for the username).--IDuan 19:29, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

A couple of interesting articles I've found

Someone obviously understands the importance of proper conservative music. Also, Obama seems to have issues with morals of any sort, whether based around the Bible or just common sense. RogerJ 01:22, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Phase I concerning the public refutation of Richard Dawkins is finished and now.....

Phase I of public refutation of Richard Dawkins is now in place. I am looking forward to phases II, III, IV, and V. I have an outline of a plan written down and I am looking forward to implementing it.  :) conservative 13:40, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

"the obscure American team..."

You mean the same "obscure" team that made it to the finals of the Confederation Cup last summer and gave Brazil--arguably the greatest football nation of all time--a run for their money? KevinO 13:44, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I wish our team the best, but most Americans don't follow soccer and don't even know the team exists. What was the audience in America for that all-important match you reference? No much, I bet, and hence it is "obscure".--Andy Schlafly 13:56, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

It's "obscure" because Americans didn't watch it? How about the fact that tens of millions of people watched it--I was in Ghana, watched most every match of the tournament and people were following/rooting for the US team (among others, most were behind Bafana Bafana, of course...) with great passion. You'll notice it's called the World Cup--not the "American Sports Fan Cup." KevinO 14:01, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. Sounds like many Americans have much to learn from you about world-class soccer. Let's pray the American team does better this time in the World Cup than ever before.--Andy Schlafly 14:10, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

It's frustrating that so many Americans ignore a sport that their country excels in on a regular basis. another way to think of it: How many countries are there in the world? Only 32 of them qualify for the tournament every four years, and the US hasn't missed one in a long time now. Just by qualifying, a country is automatically something to be taken seriously. I'm not in the US again this summer, but I will be cheering the team on, and wish more Americans would do the same. KevinO 14:24, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate your frustration, but soccer is a low-tech sport. Great for picnics and growing up, but not designed for television or statistical number-crunching. Television has a hard time capturing "what isn't there," such as low-scoring contest. I'm no fan of television, but American football fits that medium well and many Americans like to watch the tube.--Andy Schlafly 14:32, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

You make good points, Andy, but is it really "pathetic" to struggle against the American team? Sure, soccer isn't particularly popular in the United States, but that doesn't mean the members of the team aren't world-class competitors. Personally, I don't think there's ever any shame in getting beaten by the United States--it just means the better team won.  ;) --Benp 15:09, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was speaking from a Brazilian POV (point of view)! Brazil was one of the first to recognize the value in Conservapedia, publishing a big newspaper article before many in the English-speaking world woke up.--Andy Schlafly 15:43, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Why Soccer Doesn't Catch on in America--The Top Ten Reasons to Hate Soccer:

• 10. They count backwards - Soccer is 90 minutes long and is split into two 45-minute halves. But, instead of counting down from 45 minutes every half, they count up from 0 to 45 and then from 45 to 90 in the second half.
• 9. Not Enough Contact - This a sport that penalizes people for barely touching the opponent and encourages players to take more dives then Michael Phelps.
• 8. Four Sports is Enough -- America is already completely saturated with sports. It is hard enough to support NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL teams.
• 7. You Can't Screw Up in Soccer - in soccer a player can go an entire game without touching the ball (with the exception of the goalie) and look like he did his job.
• 6. Schedule - With national teams and other circumstances teams can go without playing a regular season game for almost a month at some points. This makes it impossible to build loyalty in an Multi League/Multi Sports market, like America
• 5. Two-Hour Games - Some of the greatest sports memories are watching 12 inning, 4 hour baseball games or sitting on the edge of your seat during triple-overtime hockey or basketball games.
• 4. Hockey - While there are a lot of differences between hockey and soccer, the basic objectives and rules are similar. But hockey is faster, hard-hitting, action packed, in a much smaller field of play and has more scoring chances then soccer.
• 3. We already have football! - The main reason that you should hate International football is because it is worse in every respect in comparison to American football. There is contact in the NFL. Games can be high scoring. There is action in every single play. And most importantly both teams can score on any single play.
• 2. Ties - The fact that there are quiet a few ties and sometimes barely even overtime in soccer is the most frustrating thing about the game.
• 1. It's boring! It takes too long to create a scoring chance and games often don't have any scoring at all. Why would anyone want to give up two-hours of their life and see nothing in return?

I found this list on the Internet, and does the best job of explaining why "Soccer" doesn't play well in the U.S. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

What to expect

There are a few things that come around regularly. American's puzzlement at the rest of the world's upcoming hysteria is one of them. If you were thinking of tuning in to a few games to find out what gives, I don't think the USA England game is going to be the most illuminating. The USA do have a very good keeper (who plays for the best club and under the best manager) but one player does not make a team and, especially, not one goalkeeper. One striker makes more difference, not enough to be critical on its own, but more. In that respect England’s Rooney is more to boast about than USA’s Howard. Howard is very good, Rooney towers above the rest. The rest of the England squad are excellent (except for Heskey, and Crouch). In theory any team that England put out should walk over the USA. BUT:

1. It takes a while for the big teams to “warm up” in a tournament, the first game will usually see them looking pretty ordinary.
2. There is always one “lesser” team that surprises everyone in each tournament. USA could be that team in this tournament.
3. Over forty years of experience have taught me that England will disappoint. They won’t do what they should do: win 4:0

So I think it’ll be a fairly unspectacular, low scoring game. If USA win it’ll likely be 1:0, which is also the likely margin of an England win. Watch the game, of course (c’mon, it’s the WORLD CUP and your team’s playing), but don’t judge the whole thing from an early warm up fixture. Later fixtures will give you a better idea of why we’re all going to go mad for a month.Toffeeman 18:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate your analysis. But England -- atheistic as it is -- a bit weak on the all-important passion and faith necessary to prevail in the big games, don't you think?--Andy Schlafly 19:02, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Indeed. Think about it. Let's say two equally good teams are about to face off. Team A has read their Bible and prays to God before the game. Team B does neither. Who do you think has a better chance of winning?

Football star (real football, not soccer) Tim Tebow even writes Bible verses on his face. If you carry a statistical analysis on his games I'm certain that he'll end up doing better when he has Bible verses on his face than when he doesn't. Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you should consider having your students wear Bible verses on their face durings tests. They might very well end up doing better. Just a thought. --ReligiousRight 20:10, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Can I just field a different objection? Perhaps this is my British pride seeping through, but how does atheism's prevalence in the UK (whose official religion and established church, by the way, happen to be Anglicanism) have any effect on the soccer team? Moreover, if you're going to imply that poor soccer teams are caused by atheism, don't then say the US soccer team is "obscure". Clearly, soccer teams aren't made bad by atheism, considering how "obscure" the US team is and how "pathetic" it would be to lose against them and the huge religious belief in the US! WRanford 08:34, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Election day

We list that elections are occurring in 12 states. FOXNews has elections occurring in 11 states [3] --Jpatt 11:38, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Actually it has it both ways! Headline says 11, body of the story says 12. Another vindication for Conservapedia! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!

Starting this week, Admin Conservative will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! conservative 17:07, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Liberal Episcopal Church is Thrown out of Anglican Communion!!!!!!

Finally! The Archbishop of Canterbury has suspended the radical and extremely liberal Episcopal Church of America from the Anglican Communion!!His main reason being the Epsicopals ordination of yet another homosexual bishop despite widespread opposition. Rejoice!! Maybe Conservapedia's growing popularity in the UK helped the Archbishop of Canterbury to finally make the right choice!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08/anglican-communion-cuts-episcopalians-ecumenical-bodies-electing-lesbian-bishop/#content

--IScott 18:48, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

From the look of things, this is a suspension, not an outright removal. Historically, the sticking point with the election of bishops regardless of sexual orientation has been with the more traditional African branch of the Anglican Communion, not with England. Since this news item hasn't been showing up on many reputable sources, I would presume that this is a temporary reprimand as opposed to a complete rebuttal of the progressive policies of the Episcopal Church. DanieleGiusto 21:53, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Really, FOX News isn't a reputable source? How typical of a liberal democrat to say. Just goes to show plenty of liberals partake in deceit. Oh and by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of all Anglican Churches not just the Church of England.--IScott 22:00, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

The story is very clearly labeled: "Published June 08, 2010 | Associated Press" That means it is subscribed content that the AP moves to thousands of news outlets at the same time. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:32, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

I said "not many," not "none at all." And if something shows up on Fox without appearing on, say, the BBC, or the NYT or WSJ or many other sources, it really is a less reputable news item. The fact that this is an AP story doesn't change much. A Google search for "Anglican communion cuts ties" returns this article in a lot of marginal or local news items, with a couple local CBS and NBC outlets reporting the sanctions (the other biggest source being the Guardian UK). The Anglican Communion website doesn't even mention it {http://www.anglicancommunion.org/} and the Episcopal Church {http://ecusa.anglican.org/} does mention it here: {http://ecusa.anglican.org/79901_122744_ENG_HTM.htm}. I was raised and confirmed Episcopalian (so you don't need to tell me who the Archbishop of Canterbury is, and his role in this political news item is very limited as it appears he was under pressure by other factions within the church) and this whole affair smacks of unnecessary backlash over something that basically already happened within the Episcopal church with the previous ordainment of a gay bishop. The additional fact that only a moratorium rather than a ban on ordaining gay bishops was requested is a sign that the church, or at least a significant part of it, does tolerate such elections, and I doubt we will see any overturning of the appointment. Rather, this will all boil off in the next few weeks/months and maybe then we'll see a news item about the real implications of this would-be "severance." DanieleGiusto 17:43, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

I will honestly sympathize with the fact that you did at least attempt to search for more articles, but next time maybe you should try to search something other than the title of the article.(Or maybe you purposefully did that to try and deceive others?) That aside, all I had to do was type "Anglican" and "banned" into google. Look here is the BBC article you claimed you couldn't find

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10188825.stm

and here is the article by the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7146121.ece

Also I would hardly call this backlash unnecessary, it was very, very necessary. The liberal attitude of the Episcopal Church was a cancer for the Anglican Communion. All the Episcopal Church in its current form did was try to ingrain homosexuality into the American society.--IScott 19:12, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

You make some good points. Thanks for the sources, and I find the articles on those sites more enlightening. For example, in the BBC article the action is specifically directed, namely that "dissident Anglican provinces should not take part in formal dialogues with other Churches." The Episcopal Church in the US is then highlighted as an offender of the proposed moratorium, but the Episcopal Church has very regional politics (for example, the bishop of the Southwestern Archdiocese has strongly condemned past blessings of homosexual clergy along with a fair portion of Episcopal churches and churchgoers across the US, whereas California is, unsurprisingly, progressive).

Moreover, the most telling piece of the BBC article is the ending: "I hope this can help to repair relationships with Anglicans in the developing world." I had proposed that this was the reason for the sanctions in my first post.

The Times article is not the NYT, but still a more enlightening article. In fact, look at the following point (conservatives and liberals both were "admonished"):

"Conservatives will be angry that he has stopped short of expelling The Episcopal Church in the US from the main decision making bodies, the Standing Committee and the Primates’ Meeting of the Anglican Communion." Ahem. DanieleGiusto 19:42, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Typo in Sharon Angle news story

"by the nominating" should be "by nominating". --ChrisY 08:50, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Fixed it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 13:01, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Why is Fox News playing favorites in McCain v. Hayworth Contest?

I have Fox on my desktop monitor all day, everyday, and constantly hear Hayworth's name whenever they do stories about the Arizona Primary or illegal immigration, and just saw a rather lengthy interview with him within the past couple of days. So I would take issue about them playing favorites, other than the fact that McCain (by virtue of the fact he is a senior United States Senator and former presidential candidate) gets exposure on other foreign policy and national issues Hayworth does not.

Are you by any chance thinking about people like O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta? Their shows are not controlled by FoxNews, really.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:39, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps I use the term "Fox News" too broadly, but I do include the evening political talk shows. Where was the interview of Hayworth on a news show? Such interviews are typically short, and often hostile.--Andy Schlafly 15:24, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Agreed, however Arizona has never really attracted much media attention except for Goldwater and McCain. I noted that Glen Beck refused to endorse Hayworth when Imus asked him to the other day. Hannity doesn't seem to like him much as well. Many conservatives I have spoken to have issues with JD...I just don't see it. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

FoxNews is favoring McCain over Hayworth by a bias factor of perhaps 10 to 1. Now I'm wondering how FoxNews has treated Sharron Angle. McCain is oddly quiet about her.--Andy Schlafly 15:54, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

The Constitution is " a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

Well, the idea that slaves were worth 3/5 of a human being would certainly fall under that category--the change in American values reflected in that, and in the very toleration of slavery as an intrinsic part of Constitutional law--seems incontestable. KevinO 11:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

You cannot be blamed personally, Kevin, for your revisionist thinking, I guess. That is the fault of liberal teachers and administrators who have taught you that the Constitution is a so-called "living" document, always subject to change. The fact you pick on one point shows your pre-conditioning. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 12:17, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

You cannot be blamed personally, TK, for your revisionist thinking, I guess. That is the fault of home schooling and administrators who have taught you that the Constitution is a so-called "static" document, never subject to change. The fact that you rebut one point for simply being a point (rather than on the merits of the argument itself), shows your pre-conditioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk) -- 18:52, 10 June 2010

It's a static document, subject to change through amendments only, and not subject to change to fit the pre-existing notions of a bunch of libs. And since you're an Australian citizen, you wouldn't know about those things. Karajou 00:00, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Sorry, Kevin, no home schooling here, and your assumptions as to "no change" are silly and self-serving, as no one said anything about no-change-ever. Back under your bridge, troll! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:28, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Australian currency

Although the economies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are more commodity driven than many economies, which gives more stability to their currencies, the Australian dollar (AUD) is not asset backed it appears. I revised the main page post I made. With that said, the Australian government has practiced more fiscal restraint that America in recent times, which is not terribly hard to do given the Obama administration's penchant for massive government spending (spending which is often tied to political considerations rather than the economic well being of the populace at large). conservative 11:40, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

given that the Aussies have both socialized medicine and a much smaller defense budget, do you think their model of government spending is a potential model for the U.S.A? KevinO 21:54, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Good work Conservative. Although it's worth noting that Australia's period of fiscal restraint was really 2000-2006 or so under Howard's conservative government, during which time it was the Bush administration (following in the footsteps of Clinton) which was running up the deficits in the US. Obama has been spending like a man possessed since then - even though the cupboard was bare. Australia's (left wing) Prime Minister Rudd has also been spending but to a lesser extent, and had surpluses built up by Howard to draw on. We are also fortunate here that the current view is the surpluses will return quite soon due to the continued strength of the Chinese economy on which Australia relies to a great extent for demand for our resources. -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 21:58, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

America has chosen to do 10 things:

• 1) Have record deficit spending filled with pork projects and large amounts of internal domestic spending on social programs

• 2) Have anti-business policies that have massively eroded its productive capacity and caused large trade deficits

• 3) Have an inferior educational system at the pre-college level

• 4) have many of its citizens work 5 days a week instead of the biblical 6 days a week plus many of its citizens collect welfare and don't work at all.

• 5) have a massively complex crazy tax system that requires an army of accountants who could be doing more productive things

• 6) have people retire at an early age (in times past people worked until they were not able to anymore)

• 7) Have a society that allows abortion so now we are a going to have an aging baby boomer population with less people being able to support them who are young and working

• 8) The average American watches 1,456 hours of television a year. If you assume a work week is 40 hours that is about 36 work weeks of time watching television. It is really not surprising that America is one of the most obese nations in the world.[4]

• 9) have a military empire with over 700 bases (we have military bases in about 70 percent of the world's countries)

• 10) America has one of the highest percentages of its citizens in jail (high divorce rates and high amounts of single parenting contribute to this)

History teaches that all world empires end and the Bible would indicate that this is because of the fallen/sinful nature of man (people lack self-discipline, etc. etc.). I think America is fooling itself that it can do all 10 things above. I don't see America willing to have a very strong work ethic to have a world empire plus we have an aging population. America can cut its television cords or have a world empire, but I don't think it can do both. And I don't see a massive wave of people throwing out their television sets anytime on the foreseeable horizon. I don't agree with Gerald Celente and Alex Jones on all things (for example, Alex Jones is a truther when it comes to 9/11 from what I understand and I don't believe in that conspiracy theory, etc. etc.), but I do agree with them that the American empire is probably going to end. conservative 09:06, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Creative Commons

Hi. Why doesn't Conservapedia use a Creative Commons license? I asked on Talk:Creative Commons a few weeks ago, but did not get an answer. Thanks! Keepscases 11:54, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Why should we? Karajou 11:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

It would improve compatibility with other organizations' wikis that use copyleft licenses, such as Wikia's Community Central:Licensing and the Wikimedia Foundation's Meta:Copyrights, so that we can use their content and they can use ours. Keepscases 12:24, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

"Copyleft" licenses? Karajou 12:26, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, Copyleft licenses. See also Wikipedia's article on Copyleft. Keepscases 12:32, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

The article Copyleft here is outdated; Wikipedia now uses the less onerous and more widely accepted Creative Commons licensing, instead of GFDL. Keepscases 12:34, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

With the assorted controversies surrounding Wikipedia, not the least is the pervasive liberal bias and the forced uploading of pornographic and other objectionable material within easy access of children, we think it best that Conservapedia continues on its own route. If it means no "copyleft" license, that's fine. Karajou 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

CP uses lots of pictures from Wikimedia commons -- this would be perfectly acceptable if CP adhered to the terms of the Creative Commons licenses, under which most of them are released. This wouldn't place any real burden on CP. But CP doesn't and so most of its images right now are not strictly speaking legal. Of course, the common practice here seems to be to just plagiarize and make nonsense claims of fair use, but this wouldn't even be necessary if CP would just use a sensible license! --ArthurS 16:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

The only thing nonsense is your attitude. If I told you this wiki is owned by a lawyer, would you still think you are smart enough about legality?--Jpatt 16:57, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

I have no doubts about Mr. Schlafly's legal acumen. I suspect that rather he has never focused his attention on the issues here, which are neither obscure nor subtle. --ArthurS 22:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

You have to explain where Wikipedia gets them. They just don't appear out of thin air, do they? Are they copyrighted by Wikipedia once they're in the Commons? I'd love to hear your answers. Karajou 16:49, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Most, I believe, are either submitted by WP users or obtained from websites with free licenses. They're rather strict about this and fair use is only allowed in fairly narrow cases (as their lawyers have presumably indicated is appropriate). Since you sound genuinely interested in this subject, I'll just direct you to their policy for details! --ArthurS 22:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Arthur, Wikipedia is obviously the place for you; they have a high ratio of "wiki-lawyers" ! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:01, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

As you might have guessed from the new account, I am indeed primarily a WP editor, but I keep an eye out here (I'm a conservative fighting the good fight over at WP). I saw a discussion of licensing issues, so I decided to jump in -- I'm quite interested in this topic. --ArthurS 22:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

I think the effort is to compel us to get a CC license...as if CC is the only organization of its kind on the net, and it is mandatory to do so. That's called extortion, ArthurS. Here's what I think: if the image is out of copyright, we can use it; if it's offered freely in any way, shape or form by the owner, we can use it; if it's copyrighted with restrictions, we can use it provided we get permission from the copyright owner, or we use a low-res version IAW the Bridgeman v. Corel case under current "fair use" laws. And, ArthurS, I can find plenty of images in Wikipedia or other wikis in which copyrighted images were actually stolen from owners and posted by the uploaders altered with the wrong attributions. Have a nice day. Karajou 17:14, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

There is no compulsion to use a CC license! The deal is that any image copied from the commons under CC has to be released here under CC. If you object to this requirement, the solution is to simply find alternative images under more permissive licenses. This has no effect on any other images on the site, just those obtained under this license. You can keep the rest under any license you like.

And I'm sure you're right about many violating images on WP; this problem was particularly acute a couple years ago. The difference is that when the violations are pointed at WP the offending images are quickly removed, while here we resort to sweeping (and rather questionable) claims of fair use.

Hope you have a nice day too! This is an interesting discussion; I hope I haven't come off as too preachy -- I care deeply about this and related IP issues. --ArthurS 22:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

England better at soccer than politics

Not sure what this is driving at - didn't England just overwhelmingly vote Conservative at the General Election? -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 22:31, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

England is still a very liberal nation. Its election was a welcome step in the right direction, but only a baby step compared to what American conservatives achieve.--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

I, for one, will be just fine if England is not better at soccer than politics. Let's get the upset!--IDuan 08:42, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Has this site then backtracked on its weird assertion that -- despite delivering a coalition with the LIBERAL Democrats -- the British election was "a landslide" for The Conservatives? Anyway, it's nice to see that formerly patriotic Conservapedia is supporting England against its own national team. "Let's hope" indeed. Jdixon 09:13, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

As we said, the recent British election was a landslide for British conservatives. But British conservatives are, of course, not in the same league as American conservatives. Maybe in 50 years the Brits can get to where Americans are now, but by then America will be far more conservative. Britain needs to move faster to catch up.

We're charitable here, and hence our heartfelt encouragement of the underachieving British soccer team. We don't want them to be embarrassed by our obscure American team. Is our charity unrequited?--Andy Schlafly 09:42, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Hat's off, Andy. You extricated yourself from that very adeptly. But beware. It is the English, not the British football team. I wouldn't advise making that error anywhere near a Welsh or Scottish supporter. Jdixon 09:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

You're right. Thanks for the correction. I did try to be precise earlier in this discussion but my slip-up was perhaps inevitable in confusing British politics with the English soccer team. Your comment was alert indeed.--Andy Schlafly 11:19, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

You should really stop talking about English politics and soccer, its embarrassing, not least your strange view that they are both connected. LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF THE WORLD CUP. anyway England are a far stronger team then the US, 4th favorite to win VS 13th - hows that underachieving??--AHiggins 07:26, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

"All issues are political issues" - George Orwell, that great British author.--Andy Schlafly 07:59, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."

This is the quote in its entirety, from "Politics and the English Language". Personally, I've always interpreted it to mean that nowadays it is impossible to keep out of politics because both sides are so embattled on their positions that one fights on every issue on a political basis; so I think that what Orwell meant is that nowadays all issues are political issues, but they ought not be. --MarcoT 08:41, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't agree. Orwell is not blaming "both sides." He is criticizing only one side. And regardless of one's views about what "ought" to be, Orwell is quite clear about what "is" the reality.--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Canada not doing well at the Olympics?

I presume you're talking about the recent winter games. Besides winning the most gold medals, beating the USA in both the men's and women's ice hockey finals and ending the games with only 11 fewer overall medals (gold, siver, bronze) than the USA (a country with ten times the population), what more could they have done to do well in your eyes? KevinO 22:23, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

I think Canada underachieved compared to reasonable expectations. Host nations always do well, and Canada has advantages in winter sports. Canada did win the gold in the hockey finals, for which we commended Canada and were genuinely happy for her, but it's tough to deny that Canada struggled more than it should have in winning that gold.--Andy Schlafly 22:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Canadian steroid scandal

Not sure if this will be considered front page-worthy, but it's still an telling item as regards liberal education and socialist standards: 19 football players at Canadian university suspended for steroid use[5] EMorris 11:24, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

So Traditional Marriage Is Offensive But Child Pornography Is Okay, Eh, Perez?

[6]

Perez Hilton, the blogger who attacked and demonized Carrie Prejean for her defense of traditional marriage, apparently sees nothing wrong with posting indecent shots of underage girls for the world to see. Speaks volumes for his values, doesn't it? --Benp 17:49, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

World cup upset

Little Switzerland beat Spain, one of the favorites to win the World Cup. SamI 12:38, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Zero tolerance for honoring our troops!

[7]

It's idiocy like this that sometimes makes me embarrassed to be a teacher. Really, guys? Really? A toy soldier's inch-long plastic gun counts as a weapon under "zero tolerance" rules? Are you afraid the boy is going to shoot someone with it? Stab them with the tiny plastic bayonet? He should be applauded for patriotism and the hard work he clearly put into his tribute, and instead, he's disciplined for it. Is it any wonder that we're raising a nation of underachievers? --Benp 16:00, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Patriotism? You are obviously in need of one of the new BHO Re-education Centers! Glorification of the military, when everyone knows endless talk, talk, talk via the United Nations is the most productive means for caving-in to dictators and despots, is counter-productive.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:12, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Missouri man's sign on U.S. 71 draws literal liberal fire

David Jungerman farms 6,800 acres of river bottom land in western Missouri. He’s not the kind of guy who posts on Twitter or has a Facebook profile. So when the 72-year-old Raytown man wanted to speak out politically, he used what he had handy: a 45-foot-long, semi-truck box trailer.

Are you a Producer or Parasite Democrats - Party of the Parasites

He planted the trailer with its professionally painted message in his Bates County cornfield along heavily traveled U.S. 71 about an hour south of Kansas City. He wanted lots of people to see it. They did. Including at least one with a good case of outrage, matches and a can of gas. On May 12, Jungerman’s trailer was torched. The Rich Hill volunteer fire department responded. A week later, it was set afire again. The firefighters put it out again. Then flames erupted in an empty farm house that Jungerman owns. “They don’t like free speech,” said Jungerman. He put out a $5,000 reward for information leading to an arrest....Jungerman said he didn’t mean to direct his sign at local Democrats. Many of those are old-fashioned Harry Truman Democrats, he said.

“They’re more conservative than many Republicans,” he said. “I should have put an ad in the paper to explain that. No, I meant the national Democrat parasite base that is sucking this country dry. The ones that just take from the government and not give anything back.” [8] Daniel1212 10:54, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Is America really doomed because of the BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill?

I've read and watched each of these links and I don't know what to think. It's way too scary. Is America really doomed? What can we make of all this information?

Cloud of Death followed by Tsunami traveling at 400-600 MPH.... [9] [10] ...See also: [11]

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, BP Death Clouds Already on Shore & Giant Wave.... [12] [13] [14] [15]

Toxic rains already happening, destroying America.... [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Willminator 12:59, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

And Louisiana lawmakers propose prayer to stop the oil spill. With a title like that, it makes it sound like they're praying for a miracle instead of asking for God's infinite knowledge on how to stop it. God helps those who help themselves in the sense of "rely on Me and yourself to fix your problems. If you're not determined to fix your own problem, then not much good will come". I might be interpreting the saying and article wrong, but this is what it seems like to me. ~ JonG ~ 22:54, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

I suggest watching less of those silly Youtube videos, and spending more time in prayer. JonG is correct, we have been appointed the Stewards of Earth (and given dominion over it, by God)....it's time we took the role seriously, and push back against the silly liberals and other nuts. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:00, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Random stories

1. The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography.[21] (H/T:[22])

2. ACORN update

A “preliminary” GAO report[23] proves that the now-defunct left-wing group ACORN's decision to shut down was the result of “a McCarthy-era style war against the poor and minorities,” says the group's former leader, Bertha Lewis.[24] The report found ACORN affiliates received a stunning $40.4 million in taxpayer subsidies in 2005-2009 alone. Even the Justice Department (which is supposed to be investigating the group) funded the creation of the “ACORN Youth Union” to “provide youth leadership training” (indoctrinate public-school students) to win “specific improvements and policy changes”(lobby for the group's pet issues) “such as school funding” (higher taxes), etc.[25] The IG report indicates that of the six major federal agencies GAO queried, only one has provided responses. “We did not independently assess the sufficiency of agencies' oversight activities,” states the report. The GAO added that 12 ACORN workers have pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud; unmentioned was that at least six more former ACORN workers are under indictment on similar charges.[26] Yet to be investigated are charges ACORN engaged in violations of RICO through money-laundering of taxpayer funds designated for nonpartisan activities, engaged in partisan activities, or violated ERISA by shifting pension funds to conceal the million-dollar embezzlement perpetrated by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother. The report incorporates changes ACORN demanded.[27]

3. Tea Party, Douglas County Georgia, June 4, 2010

[28] FOIA 07:24, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

Obama's numbers in freefall

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that more Americans now disapprove than approve of the job President Obama is doing. In the upcoming Congressional elections, Americans now prefer Republicans to Democrats, 45% to 43%. The most important issues to voters are now “cutting federal spending,” “financial reform of Wall Street,” supporting “the new law in Arizona on immigration” and “repealing the health care reform law.” [29] FOIA 19:48, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

Another rousing success for ADULT stem cell research!

[[30]]

...in other news, embryonic stem cells again fail to lead to any breakthroughs. --Benp 20:27, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

Editing disabled?

Hi. Outside 1-6am ET, how can one tell whether or not editing is disabled? Thanks! Keepscases 22:49, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

When editing is disabled, you will not see the "save page" button, only the source code will display. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:51, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Condom for elementary school children

The article says it all: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/elementary-schools-give-condoms-students-provincetown-mass-thinks/story?id=11000469 Regards, --TSpencer 10:20, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

McChrystal and "free speech."

He doesn't have it. The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically forbids criticism of one's superiors (which the Commander-in-Chief is). KevinO 12:55, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Do you have a quote of the requirement? I wonder if it is really as broad as you suggest. McChrystal's "criticism" was so mild and removed from matters relevant to military operations that Obams's removal of him for non-military reasons seems awfully self-centered.--Andy Schlafly 13:22, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

The Federal Judge who ruled against the Obama administration's moratorium on offshore drilling is being attacked as well. This seems like a manifestation of Obama's "Chicago Politics", and is troubling. President Obama and his minions seem to equate criticism with "enemies" and that is dangerous. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:55, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

If you please, KevinO, show me here two things: the exact article from the UCMJ forbidding criticism of superiors, and any and all lines referring to criticism of Obama as found in the Rolling Stones article. Karajou 14:14, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

It is article 88, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000888----000-.html

I said the UCMJ; go get it from a military source. Karajou 14:19, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Try HTTP://army.mil/references/ucmj/ucmj2.html -- Bill

If you read above, I said for KevinO to do it, not a couple of liberal trolls who came in just to answer this post. Karajou 14:32, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Obama wouldn't face so much criticism if he wasn't such a poor leader with with so many poor ideas he wants to implement. Secondly, McChrystal's competence/judgement can certainly be questioned. For example, McChrystal voted for Obama. conservative 14:37, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

A lot of military members vote Democrat; that's a given. But McCrystal is a decorated 4-star general who took down a major Al Qaida terrorist in Iraq; he's a battlefield commader who's not afraid to lead from the front. What is Obama by comparison? Community organizer? Self-proclaimed professor who's got to hide his papers? Undocumented worker? Or maybe just a commie-dictator-wannabe with an incredibly thin skin? Well, I have an answer from another president (with a thicker skin) direct to Obama himself, and it's been used by liberals continually against Bush: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt. Karajou 14:45, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Here it is, from a military source. [31] "§ 888. Art. 88. Contempt toward officials

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." KevinO 14:48, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Now read the article from Rolling Stone[32], and see if there was indeed contempt IAW UCMJ Article 88 that justified his removal. Karajou 14:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

"McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted..."

That came from the article, and such a statement does not constitute anything more than a disagreement; it is not contempt. Karajou 15:00, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

EC"McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted..." " Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner. "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"" "McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f*****g war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.""

Bear in mind that the general has to bear some degree of responsibility for the actions and words of his subordinates. It's his command, and the buck stops with him. the very act of giving a liberal publication like RS such unfettered access was in incredibly poor judgement. But my original point stands--the fact is, to call this a "freedom of speech" issue is wrong. The Code clearly says the general doesn't have it.KevinO 15:02, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with you in that he chose (if he chose) a heavily-liberal magazine that is written by and for drug abusers; that is poor judgement. But he would be guilty of contempt if he called Biden a "stupid jerk"; instead, he said "Who's that?", which is a common line describing the undersatetd position of VP throughout American history. As far as the word "shortsighted", Biden is a political hack; he knows absolutely nothing about military strategy or operations, and neither does Obama. The charge of contempt based on the words found in this magazine does not match up here, at least not from the first page. Karajou 15:09, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

McChrystal, didn't just vote for any Democrat. He voted for Obama who is definitely one of the worst presidents the United States has ever had. Part of the Afghanistan problem is the politics in the region and I don't think McChrystal excelled in the political problem solving area. If McChrystal did excel in the political realm, he would have foreseen that his Rolling Stone interview was going to get him fired. conservative 15:10, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Karajou, I'm not arguing whether or not the general should have been fired for the comments. I'm simply pointing out that the general does not, as a subject of the UCMJ, enjoy unrestricted "free speech." KevinO 15:12, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

He has "restricted" free speech: no military member can show contempt for persons in higher authority, such as in the UCMJ; no military member can do a public demonstration while in uniform; no military member can freely talk about items or situations that are classified. Other than that, every military member can exercise their rights under the First Amendment. In short, McCrystal did not violate the UCMJ in regards to the Rolling Stone article...he was hounded out by an individual who could not take the criticism when he should have. Karajou 15:20, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

The UCMJ provision cited above applies only to "contemptuous words," and requires a court martial. Not even Obama and his speech police think that applies to McChrystal.

What is clear is that Obama opposes free speech when it portrays His Highness in an unfavorable light. The public benefits enormously from free speech, and presumably most internet users are strong supporters of free speech. Why the double standard by liberals?--Andy Schlafly 17:33, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Most of this discussion is confused. All UCMJ 888.88 means is that if a court-martial were to rule that McChrystal's words were both "contemptuous" and "against" Obama, the court-martial could impose punishment. That punishment could be dismissal from his post (Heck, it could be summary execution). The point is moot, because Obama had no intention of allowing the case to go before a court-martial, and risking the very good possibility of losing. Under the United States Code, every presidential appointee serves "at the pleasure of the President," and that includes McChrystal.

That Obama has contempt for the United States Constitution, the first amendment and freedom of speech is beyond dispute. This is the man who decided that the person best qualified to serve as administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is Cass Sunstein. That was shortly after Sunstein proposed what he calls "cognitive infiltration" of groups he deems "extremist." As Sunstein explained: "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action," etc.[33]

Sunstein is proposing that people who believe they are targets of a government (or quasi-government) conspiracy should be targeted by a government (or quasi-government) conspiracy. Far from discrediting conspiracy theory, Sunstein's scheme would thus make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. It would also destroy any possibility of political discourse of the type undertaken by the Founders, as Orwell put it, swallowing the entire preamble of the Declaration of Independence in the single word crimethink. FOIA 01:32, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

The point is not free speech

McChrystal's constitutional right to free speech hasn't been abridged one bit. He (and his aides) were allowed to make snarky comments about their superiors in the civilian military command, and the comments were allowed to be publicized in a widely-read magazine. Being removed from a post is not an abridgement of freedom of speech. He is not being put in jail, or even "fired," much less shot in the head as they would have in the Soviet Union.

I have the right to express blunt criticism privately to my boss, and he has the right to heed or ignore it. I also technically have the right to call up one of the city newspapers and tell them the same thing without notifying my boss first, and he has the right to fire me for embarassing him in public.

Americans who disagreed with the Iraq War had the right to call Bush a fascist, and Conservapedia had the right to call that rubbish. Conservapedia also has the right to call Obama a fascist, communist, and muslim, just as liberals have the right to call that rubbish. Andy has the right to post "not even communists retaliated so harshly against free speech" on the main page, and I have the right to reply "no, that's demonstrably not true -- Stalin and Mao had people killed and tortured for looking at them the wrong way. This is nowhere near comparable." Andy would then have the right to call me "clueless" without giving any counter-argument, and TK would have the right to oversight the whole thing because it "portrays His Highness in an unfavorable light", just as a certain other website whose name may not be uttered anywhere on Conservapedia but everyone knows exists has the right to make a screenshot and keep it for posterity.

The point is not free speech, it is the fact that speech has consequences. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who probably agrees with many of General McChrystal's criticisms, acknowledged that when you're in the military, "there are some lines you just don't cross," and that Obama was correct to accept the general's resignation. No one would accuse Graham of wanting to stifle criticism of the President's foreign policy; what he does seem to be suggesting is that one of the consequences of a four-star general mouthing off about his civilian commanders is that he loses the responsibilities he's been given. Conservatives say that they're all about accepting the consequences for one's words and actions, and that typical liberals want to avoid those consequences. What Andy Schlafly seems to be saying in the news items and on this page is that freedom of speech means job security for a general who criticizes a commander-in-chief he doesn't like in a way he's sympathetic with. To which I say, rubbish. HenryClerval 18:29, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

You seem to be adopting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's view that someone has a right to free speech, but he doesn't have a right to be a policeman and thus any policeman can be fired if he speaks out on a matter of public concern. Needless to say, such a narrow view of free speech is no longer the law.

President Ronald Reagan was criticized far more harshly by his subordinates but he did not respond by firing them. President Reagan's leadership came from his principles, not from a simple-minded and petty exercise of presidential power.--Andy Schlafly 22:29, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Reagan fired Murray Saltzman and other members of the Commission on Civil Rights because of their criticisms. --TinOl 14:00, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Incorrect, TinOL. But about what I would expect from a liberal Canuck. There was far more to it than that, if you had bothered for accuracy...but your only interest was to troll, so no matter. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:44, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

In that case, you may want to tell the many misinformed newspapers and federal court judge who ruled that Berry and Ramirez' dismissal was not legal. What exactly is the "far more" that is being missed? Also, before you ban me again, please at least have a chuckle at the irony of doing so, given the subject of this discussion. --TinOl2 19:06, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Advice Column

I think we should have an advice column for conservative advice because many advice columns appear in the liberal media newspapers. LanceK 19:43, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Im a new member and this is my first post, so I apologize if I made a mistake. I think it would be excellent to have an advice column.--J. Martin 11:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)