Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-25T17:15:34Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* YES */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:55, 23 April 2007

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No '''bombings''' in the US--but we had the [[Beltway Sniper]]s and the [[Anthrax Mailer]] since then, and now this thing on the news yesterday about a group of wanna-be raiders planning to attack Fort Dix. And the world that exists '''outside''' the US has had plenty more bombings since Bush announced the Tenth Crusade.
:::On the other hand, just imagine the mess we might be in if Gore or Kerry had been President on 9/11--Osama Bin Laden might have been captured near the Pakistan border, and US troops wouldn't be hopelessly bogged down in Baghdad. What a hideous thought. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Fox "Noise" Channel]] is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

:::Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

the "WAR ON TERROR" is a smokescreen term, since terror is an emotion ( extreme fear) and how do you fight a war on an emotion? A " WAR ON TERRORISM" is also a bumper sticker phrase, as terrorism is a tactic, which anyone can use at any time, and how do you stop a tactic. Now a" WAR ON TERRORIST'S" would almost work, except anyone may become a terrorist at any time and for any reason. It is amazing how the dim american public listen to the lies that are perpetrated by the Bush regime when anyone with more braincell's than an amoeba can see through them. Even the birds know what he's saying is crap, as they expressed during his speech Thursday May 25.

==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in ''the very same way.''
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was '''not''' "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to ''bring him to justice.'')
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

But colleges are liberal, didn't you know? You'd better get homeschooled about terrorism. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Missile Defense Shield'''? Unless the missiles in questions are RPGs, when do we need a "missile defense shield" for? The Soviet Union is DEAD, folks. Get over it and start strategizing for the enemy we have NOW. And against Terror, a Panel Truck Defense Shield would be a much better investment.
:::And here's a little much-needed [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/05/perspective.html perspective]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Gulik, you are part of the problem. When you say let's recognize the enemy we have now. That's a nice saying yet Democrats don't want to think about the enemy. They want to believe the enemy is the USA. The missle defense shield is not designed to strike 2,000 missle launches from Russia. It is designed against the threat of rogue nations. We have military trucks that can absord the impact of IEDs and RPGs. The Democrats decided Spinach farmers, the minimum wage and peanut storage was money better spent.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's exactly ONE nation with the necessary combination of "nuclear missiles" and "insane leader" for us to need a missile shield: North Korea. Which means that we are spending billions of dollars to stop ONE guy, and the method we've chosen to try to stop him (Magic Laser Beams From Space,) works one out of three times, on a sunny day, IF the attacking missiles have built-in radio transponders. I feel safer already. [http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]
:Meanwhile, Bush pulled Arabic-speaking special forces units OUT of Afghanistan, where they were hunting Bin Laden, to go after Saddam Hussein. At least we all know where his priorities are... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are the most capable in fighting Bush only, Republicans are so much more concerned about the fight against terror. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

May 10, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
Hoekstra Ridicules Dems' Environmental Intelligence

The 2008 intelligence authorization bill put before Congress this week diverts CIA and other intelligence resources away

from terrorism-related issues to study global climate change – and Rep. Peter Hoekstra believes that’s flat-out wrong.

: Okay. Let's do a [[Pascal's wager]]. I hate to be 'making tallies of lives', but from a utilitarian perspective, it's right on.

Say (and I know I'm pulling figures out of the air) the likelihood of a major terrorist attack, that kills 10,000 (which, one must remember, is a massive amount - especially for terrorism, which generally tries to achieve its goals through 'style' rather than 'substance', to use rather blunt terms) is 50% in the next 50 years.

Thus, on average, 5,000 people would lose their lives.

Global Warming - in the next 50 years, the [[IPCC]] estimates that 150 '''million''' will be displaced - maybe 10 million (a very [[conservative]] estimate) will die as a direct result of climate change. Let's go with the average notion on this site - say that there is a '''1%''' chance (I know it's more, because the evidence sort of shows it) of the above taking place.

Thus, on average, 1.5 million would be displaced, and 100,000 would die.

See? Terrorist bombs<Catastrophic sea level rise and desertification
--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.==

Then they ought to prove it. As it is, as many people die from terrorist attacks EVERY DAY in Iraq as died at Virginia Tech. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

To prove it means somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. The democrats need a loss badly, will not accept any talk of victory. When many people die of terror attacks everyday, you obviously blame? --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-04-20T16:57:18Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* Nobel Peace Prize nomination? */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-03-22T12:12:33Z

Dugless mcspud59:

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Debate:Was the media attention needed?

2007-03-21T20:57:59Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages */

I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia ==
I'm sorry... the what? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think it just made YEC viewpoints get mocked further. Look at the articles, who could blame them. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The word that Gospel is from in the greek can mean "good news" as well, so it's not necessarily a bible thing :-). "It was needed to spread the ''good news'' of Conservapedia" --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I am uncomfortable with the word Gospel. The word today is viewed in a religious context. Gay means happy, but would people find it offensive to call the site Gay Conservapedia? Of course.

== The attention was needed ==

== It should have only been mentioned, not covered ==

== No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here ==
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages ==
why do you have to " protect" anything, just provide facts, not spin and you should be okay.--[[User:Dugless mcspud59|Dugless mcspud59]] 16:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the media attention needed?

2007-03-21T20:57:42Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages */

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-21T20:27:29Z

Dugless mcspud59:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
Feel free to add additional debate topics

Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God

2007-03-21T17:48:29Z

Dugless mcspud59:

This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying:

'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God as something that happens 'naturally' not by the will of our creator and thereby denies the influence of our own behavior.'

It was instantly replaced by this stuff:

'A natural disaster is a disaster caused by natural forces, as in, a volcano, or a hurricane.
Some simply call a "natural disaster" an Act of God [1].'

I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can see[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Natural_disaster|here].

::So where is the 'logical error'? And by the way: it's good form to sign your post.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So your saying that when a sunami hits and kills hundreds of thousands of people, it's because your " creator" caused it, an " Act of God ". I guess that would make your creator the biggest mass and serial murder in history, given all the acts of god that have killed millions of people.

::::Dear 'Anonymus': That's what you make of it. The flood happened and god had no doubts whether people were 'good' od 'bad'. Why is it so hard to understand?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

so what your saying everyone killed was killed because they were " bad" ? What a warped concept.

==From the Natural Disaster Talk Page==

WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Your version of the article is a disgrace. It's not 'simply called' act of god. That's the ver nature of 'natural disasters'.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]]
::I just don't think that God is such an immanent being that everything that happens can be attributed to him. I really doubt that God himself is personally responsible for every natural disaster that occurs and they are all conscious decisions that he makes. Rather, I believe they are a part of the mechanics that control how the world in which God made functions.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Truly our God is an awesome God. If HE chooses to hurl tornadoes, HE surely can. When we look past HIS works, like Hurricane Katrina and that monsoon in Sri Lanka, we don't learn from HIM. Calling something a "Natural Disaster" takes away the force of GOD's perfect love.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::God created systems that do the work for him, if you believe in him. Saying he does everything directly is like saying the President makes your plumbing work.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
the president does make my plumbing work, everytime he gives one of his smirky speeches I'm off to the bathroom to throw up.
::::God's perfect love is to kill thousands of people with a super storm? I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to that belief.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::By that logic, GOD is a so-called natural disaster. I don't think you should say that. Youm could be banned.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::So you also don't 'buy' Noah? I thought it's a general agreement here to take the bible literally? Or am I mistaken?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What the...!? Flesh that out so it makes sense. Aaaaand go! Also don't threaten me.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't threatening, or didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. But if everything comes from GOD, then it must be evidence of HIS perfect love. I know in my heart that even the soldiers who die in Iraq, fighting the muslims, are part of HIS ultimate plan. A natural disaster must be an act of GOD--a hurricane, a tornado, dinosaurs, wars and blessings. It is all part of the plan. Saying anything is natural is like going into a parking lot full of shopping carts and saying they must have gotten there by chance. Yes, at that particular second they are, but they were created by people, and thus by GOD so their placement is part of GOD's perfect will. We Christians must retalliate when so-called atheists and others try to steal the language from us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First of all, the US is fighting the Iraqi insurgents. NOT the Muslims. There's a biiiiiig difference. You should look up the distinction somewhere else, perhaps on [www.wikipedia.com|Wikipedia]? Second of all, again, the distinction is between the original cause and the ultimate cause. God, to you, is the original cause, but he is not the ultimate cause, even if disasters are in his plan. Again, it's like saying the President makes your water run.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Never mind that your interpretation of "God's Will" basically absolves anyone of taking repsonsibility for their actions. "Sure I punched that guy in the face and took his car. But it's all part of God's plan." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Would GOD allow it otherwise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So if you do poorly on your homework, not your fault. Good point, Dave.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The only problem is your beliefs rely on God to be an immanent being. What if I believe God to be a transcendent being?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the best example I can think of right now. Lets say I design a computer program to create and manage a society of people, ala simcity. In the background of this program, I have it set to roll a set of ten dice every second. Each time the program rolls ten dice of the same number, the program randomly selects 2 coordinates on the map. At one coordinate, the computer creates a tornado, which follows a straight path to the other coordinate, at which point, it disappears. Now, I have created the system in question. However, the individual tornado itself is not direct action on my part, but rather a natural phenomenon of the system that I created. If I were to die while the computer system was running, it would still have tornadoes, despite my not being alive anymore. Thats basically how I think the world functions. God made it, then sat back and watched.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should he just sit back and watch? While your scenario is possible (technically) it's not convincing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why else? Too see what they create?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." (Mark 13:5-8)
:::People are misbehaving and God is punishing them. It is happening now.
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please Stop the Ridicule==
I did not come here to debate and be ridiculed for my belief. Please do not ridicule Christians with stronger faith than some others. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help debating you. It's all part of God's Will...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Showing you logical fallacies is no insulting you. It's a common problem that even the admins of this site don't understand.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Claiming 'stronger faith than some others' could itself be considered attacking the belief of those others. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So claiming a strong faith attacks others, or threatens them? I thought Conservapedia was a place for Christians to come and be welcomed, not derided for their faith. I don't have time to create logical enthymemes for you, but GOD is the reason for everything, noy just what some people want HIM to promote. Some people use GOD like a slogan to be hayled out hen they see fit. I think GOD has a place in everyting around us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You didn't just claim a strong faith, you claimed that it was stronger than others. The obvious implication was that those others are those Christians who happen to disagree with you on this point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still: God caused the great flood, why shouldn't he cause a hurrican?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am unconvinced by angry tirades. Only logic works well.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I wasn't the one threatening you. Concerning logic: What about the flood? You never answered that one.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "tirade" thing was directed at Flippin, not you, Sherm, sorry for the confusion. But, I would say that he didn't cause the flood, but that's because I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't think that Noah actually saved all life on Earth. But, if you believe in God, certainly some acts are acts of God. But it goes too far to say that everything happening in the world is an act of God. Certainly they're in accord with his plan, but not directly caused.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Flippin|Flippin]], please note that [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] tends to have "a chip on his shoulder" and is ready to argue (on ALL points). And [[User:AmesG|AmesG]], Gee, give us all a break, dude. (Though I '''did''' like the analogy of the President being my plumber, [turn on the light switch to get the hot water on], though I'd rather him do the gardening.) ANYWAY...

::::"Stuff happens," to paraphrase the vulgar bumper-sticker: We don't know if there even is a "why" when stuff happens; we can know what leads ''up'' to stuff happening, we can see inside tornadoes and project with a fair degree of accuracy where they're going to go next but the philosophical '''reasons why''' tornadoes happen will be argued until the end of time.

::::I believe it error to conclude that just because we can know what happens to create a tornado we can dispense with God and any plan He might have with regard to that tornado.

::::MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::HAHA! Thanks, Cracker? I'll give it a break when I get a break though ;-). But note that I concede that a divine plan naturally follows, but ultimate causation does not. Hey, I need something to do in Admin.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting, simcity works as a perfect way to illustrate this. In the game, by default, disasters occur at random. However, the game allows you to turn disasters off or you can make disasters happen at will. Maybe thats how God is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:God <3 Arcologies.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Free Will==

My problem is this. If God is immanent like Flip believes him to be, then he has a hand in everything we do. Thus, we do not have free will, because everything we do is an Act of God. If we don't have free will, then what is the point of our existence? Why did God create us if not to see what would happen if you gave a creation free will?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:This means solve the problems of hundreds of years of philosophy. We have proof in the bible that god interfers with life on earth. The question here is how far his influence reaches.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ABSOLUTELY! Thank you sherm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::If there's a legitimate question on that point, then it's hardly an atheist term, is it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can understand God interfering to guide the course of humanity. I can also see him interfering to correct grave injustices. But I can't seem him interfering in the everyday lives of humanity. Also, if you subscribe to Judaism, they believe that after the second destruction of the Temple, God left the earth and became a transcendent being, rather than an immanent one.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If there is no free will how can we sin?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My point exactly, which in my opinion refutes, to an extent, God's immanence. God cannot be immanent to the point where he controls humans' individual actions, or thus we cannot sin(unless of course God willing a human being to do something that is sinful still counts as a sin, which is I guess possible, but highly unfair and illogical)--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Exactly. By assigning everything to the Will of God, personal responsibility is removed. Consequences are removed. All choices, no matter how wrong or how damaging to others, are acceptable since they are the Will of God. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my world to be able to look at a guy like Ted Bundy or the 9/11 bombers and know that they are NOT part of what God wants from us.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Who called this a 'legitimate' question? It's like you are saying: There is free will and because of that god has no way to act? The opposite is true: Because humans have a free will they tend to sin and because of that god needs to act like he did with the flood.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::You misunderstand, we're not saying God has no way to act because of free will, we're saying that because of free will, God must be limited in his ability to act, otherwise humans will be incapable of sin, when in reality we obviously are.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So you acknowledge limits to Gods' control and we just differ on where to draw the line.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Where do I say that??? I believe in gods ultimate power. --[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Someone else take this one.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Can we all agree that this should be a debate topic again and not an article?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God

2007-03-21T16:54:17Z

Dugless mcspud59:

This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying:

'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God as something that happens 'naturally' not by the will of our creator and thereby denies the influence of our own behavior.'

It was instantly replaced by this stuff:

'A natural disaster is a disaster caused by natural forces, as in, a volcano, or a hurricane.
Some simply call a "natural disaster" an Act of God [1].'

I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can see[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Natural_disaster|here].

::So where is the 'logical error'? And by the way: it's good form to sign your post.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So your saying that when a sunami hits and kills hundreds of thousands of people, it's because your " creator" caused it, an " Act of God ". I guess that would make your creator the biggest mass and serial murder in history, given all the acts of god that have killed millions of people.

::::Dear 'Anonymus': That's what you make of it. The flood happened and god had no doubts whether people were 'good' od 'bad'. Why is it so hard to understand?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

so what your saying everyone killed was killed because they were " bad" ? What a warped concept.

==From the Natural Disaster Talk Page==

WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Your version of the article is a disgrace. It's not 'simply called' act of god. That's the ver nature of 'natural disasters'.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]]
::I just don't think that God is such an immanent being that everything that happens can be attributed to him. I really doubt that God himself is personally responsible for every natural disaster that occurs and they are all conscious decisions that he makes. Rather, I believe they are a part of the mechanics that control how the world in which God made functions.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Truly our God is an awesome God. If HE chooses to hurl tornadoes, HE surely can. When we look past HIS works, like Hurricane Katrina and that monsoon in Sri Lanka, we don't learn from HIM. Calling something a "Natural Disaster" takes away the force of GOD's perfect love.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::God created systems that do the work for him, if you believe in him. Saying he does everything directly is like saying the President makes your plumbing work.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::God's perfect love is to kill thousands of people with a super storm? I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to that belief.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::By that logic, GOD is a so-called natural disaster. I don't think you should say that. Youm could be banned.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::So you also don't 'buy' Noah? I thought it's a general agreement here to take the bible literally? Or am I mistaken?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What the...!? Flesh that out so it makes sense. Aaaaand go! Also don't threaten me.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't threatening, or didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. But if everything comes from GOD, then it must be evidence of HIS perfect love. I know in my heart that even the soldiers who die in Iraq, fighting the muslims, are part of HIS ultimate plan. A natural disaster must be an act of GOD--a hurricane, a tornado, dinosaurs, wars and blessings. It is all part of the plan. Saying anything is natural is like going into a parking lot full of shopping carts and saying they must have gotten there by chance. Yes, at that particular second they are, but they were created by people, and thus by GOD so their placement is part of GOD's perfect will. We Christians must retalliate when so-called atheists and others try to steal the language from us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First of all, the US is fighting the Iraqi insurgents. NOT the Muslims. There's a biiiiiig difference. You should look up the distinction somewhere else, perhaps on [www.wikipedia.com|Wikipedia]? Second of all, again, the distinction is between the original cause and the ultimate cause. God, to you, is the original cause, but he is not the ultimate cause, even if disasters are in his plan. Again, it's like saying the President makes your water run.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Never mind that your interpretation of "God's Will" basically absolves anyone of taking repsonsibility for their actions. "Sure I punched that guy in the face and took his car. But it's all part of God's plan." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Would GOD allow it otherwise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So if you do poorly on your homework, not your fault. Good point, Dave.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The only problem is your beliefs rely on God to be an immanent being. What if I believe God to be a transcendent being?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the best example I can think of right now. Lets say I design a computer program to create and manage a society of people, ala simcity. In the background of this program, I have it set to roll a set of ten dice every second. Each time the program rolls ten dice of the same number, the program randomly selects 2 coordinates on the map. At one coordinate, the computer creates a tornado, which follows a straight path to the other coordinate, at which point, it disappears. Now, I have created the system in question. However, the individual tornado itself is not direct action on my part, but rather a natural phenomenon of the system that I created. If I were to die while the computer system was running, it would still have tornadoes, despite my not being alive anymore. Thats basically how I think the world functions. God made it, then sat back and watched.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should he just sit back and watch? While your scenario is possible (technically) it's not convincing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why else? Too see what they create?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." (Mark 13:5-8)
:::People are misbehaving and God is punishing them. It is happening now.
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please Stop the Ridicule==
I did not come here to debate and be ridiculed for my belief. Please do not ridicule Christians with stronger faith than some others. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help debating you. It's all part of God's Will...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Showing you logical fallacies is no insulting you. It's a common problem that even the admins of this site don't understand.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Claiming 'stronger faith than some others' could itself be considered attacking the belief of those others. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So claiming a strong faith attacks others, or threatens them? I thought Conservapedia was a place for Christians to come and be welcomed, not derided for their faith. I don't have time to create logical enthymemes for you, but GOD is the reason for everything, noy just what some people want HIM to promote. Some people use GOD like a slogan to be hayled out hen they see fit. I think GOD has a place in everyting around us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You didn't just claim a strong faith, you claimed that it was stronger than others. The obvious implication was that those others are those Christians who happen to disagree with you on this point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still: God caused the great flood, why shouldn't he cause a hurrican?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am unconvinced by angry tirades. Only logic works well.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I wasn't the one threatening you. Concerning logic: What about the flood? You never answered that one.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "tirade" thing was directed at Flippin, not you, Sherm, sorry for the confusion. But, I would say that he didn't cause the flood, but that's because I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't think that Noah actually saved all life on Earth. But, if you believe in God, certainly some acts are acts of God. But it goes too far to say that everything happening in the world is an act of God. Certainly they're in accord with his plan, but not directly caused.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Flippin|Flippin]], please note that [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] tends to have "a chip on his shoulder" and is ready to argue (on ALL points). And [[User:AmesG|AmesG]], Gee, give us all a break, dude. (Though I '''did''' like the analogy of the President being my plumber, [turn on the light switch to get the hot water on], though I'd rather him do the gardening.) ANYWAY...

::::"Stuff happens," to paraphrase the vulgar bumper-sticker: We don't know if there even is a "why" when stuff happens; we can know what leads ''up'' to stuff happening, we can see inside tornadoes and project with a fair degree of accuracy where they're going to go next but the philosophical '''reasons why''' tornadoes happen will be argued until the end of time.

::::I believe it error to conclude that just because we can know what happens to create a tornado we can dispense with God and any plan He might have with regard to that tornado.

::::MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::HAHA! Thanks, Cracker? I'll give it a break when I get a break though ;-). But note that I concede that a divine plan naturally follows, but ultimate causation does not. Hey, I need something to do in Admin.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting, simcity works as a perfect way to illustrate this. In the game, by default, disasters occur at random. However, the game allows you to turn disasters off or you can make disasters happen at will. Maybe thats how God is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:God <3 Arcologies.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Free Will==

My problem is this. If God is immanent like Flip believes him to be, then he has a hand in everything we do. Thus, we do not have free will, because everything we do is an Act of God. If we don't have free will, then what is the point of our existence? Why did God create us if not to see what would happen if you gave a creation free will?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:This means solve the problems of hundreds of years of philosophy. We have proof in the bible that god interfers with life on earth. The question here is how far his influence reaches.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ABSOLUTELY! Thank you sherm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::If there's a legitimate question on that point, then it's hardly an atheist term, is it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can understand God interfering to guide the course of humanity. I can also see him interfering to correct grave injustices. But I can't seem him interfering in the everyday lives of humanity. Also, if you subscribe to Judaism, they believe that after the second destruction of the Temple, God left the earth and became a transcendent being, rather than an immanent one.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If there is no free will how can we sin?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My point exactly, which in my opinion refutes, to an extent, God's immanence. God cannot be immanent to the point where he controls humans' individual actions, or thus we cannot sin(unless of course God willing a human being to do something that is sinful still counts as a sin, which is I guess possible, but highly unfair and illogical)--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Exactly. By assigning everything to the Will of God, personal responsibility is removed. Consequences are removed. All choices, no matter how wrong or how damaging to others, are acceptable since they are the Will of God. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my world to be able to look at a guy like Ted Bundy or the 9/11 bombers and know that they are NOT part of what God wants from us.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Who called this a 'legitimate' question? It's like you are saying: There is free will and because of that god has no way to act? The opposite is true: Because humans have a free will they tend to sin and because of that god needs to act like he did with the flood.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::You misunderstand, we're not saying God has no way to act because of free will, we're saying that because of free will, God must be limited in his ability to act, otherwise humans will be incapable of sin, when in reality we obviously are.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So you acknowledge limits to Gods' control and we just differ on where to draw the line.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Where do I say that??? I believe in gods ultimate power. --[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Someone else take this one.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Can we all agree that this should be a debate topic again and not an article?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-21T16:39:05Z

Dugless mcspud59:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Natural Disaster versus Act of God]
# Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?
Feel free to add additional debate topics

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-21T16:38:45Z

Dugless mcspud59:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Natural Disaster versus Act of God]
# 70 Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?
Feel free to add additional debate topics

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-21T16:30:53Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* No */

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God

2007-03-21T16:24:39Z

Dugless mcspud59:

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-21T16:19:21Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* First source */

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-21T16:18:09Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* On painkillers */

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-21T16:16:51Z

Dugless mcspud59: /* On painkillers */