Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Lemon test

2007-11-21T21:07:31Z

Gridley: /* Warren Burger */

== Warren Burger ==

I note that there has been a bit of a battle in relation to the assertion in this article that the late Chief Justice Burger made an admission to one Andrew Schlafly (who I assume is Aschlafly) during a dinner conversation in 1991. I note that one editor removed the sentence claiming that it was hearsay. That is clearly not so (in fact it is one of the few pieces of information on the site that is not hearsay in one form or another). Others have also tried to remove the sentence.

Whilst the sentence is anything but hearsay, it should be removed. Firstly it is essentially irrelevant. A judgment is a judgment. Whether the author of the judgment anticipated how widely it would be used is not a matter of any legal importance whatsoever. In fact it is highly doubtful that any judge would be able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what legal changes might develop from their judgments.

Perhaps, even more fundamentally though, what concerns me about the posting of this presumably private dinner discussion is that it is not the act of a gentleman. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 00:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

: Nothing improper about this at all, particularly since [[Warren Burger]] has been deceased for many years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

::I imagine that his immortal soul lives on. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Lemon test

2007-11-21T05:15:31Z

Gridley: /* Warren Burger */

== Warren Burger ==

I note that there has been a bit of a battle in relation to the assertion in this article that the late Chief Justice Burger made an admission to one Andrew Schlafly (who I assume is Aschlafly) during a dinner conversation in 1991. I note that one editor removed the sentence claiming that it was hearsay. That is clearly not so (in fact it is one of the few pieces of information on the site that is not hearsay in one form or another). Others have also tried to remove the sentence.

Whilst the sentence is anything but hearsay, it should be removed. Firstly it is essentially irrelevant. A judgment is a judgment. Whether the author of the judgment anticipated how widely it would be used is not a matter of any legal importance whatsoever. In fact it is highly doubtful that any judge would be able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what legal changes might develop from their judgments.

Perhaps, even more fundamentally though, what concerns me is that the posting of this presumably private dinner discussion is that it is not the act of a gentleman. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 00:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Lemon test

2007-11-21T05:12:45Z

Gridley: New page: == Warren Burger == I note that there has been a bit of a battle in relation to the assertion in this article that the late Chief Justice Burger made an admission to one Andrew Schlafly (...

== Warren Burger ==

I note that there has been a bit of a battle in relation to the assertion in this article that the late Chief Justice Burger made an admission to one Andrew Schlafly (who I assume is Aschlafly) during a dinner conversation in 1991. I note that one editor removed the sentence claiming that it was hearsay. That is clearly not so (in fact it is one of the few pieces of information on the site that is not hearsay in one form or another). Others have also tried to remove the sentence.

Whilst the sentence is anything but hearsay, it should be removed. Firstly it is essentially irrelevant. A judgment is a judgment. Whether the author of the judgment anticipated how widely it would be used is not a matter of any legal importance whatsoever. In fact it is highly doubtful that any judge would be able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what legal changes might develop from their judgments.

Perhaps, even more fundamentally though, what concerns me is that the posting of this presumably private dinner discussion is not the act of a gentleman. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 00:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Jeri Kehn

2007-11-21T04:42:05Z

Gridley: Removed gossip and incorrect information. Should this entry exist at all?

[[Image:Fred jeri7.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Thompson with Jeri Kehn.]]
'''Jeri Kehn''' is the wife of [[Fred Thompson]].
{{DEFAULTSORT: Kehn, Jeri}}
[[category:biographies]]

Plectrum

2007-11-21T04:32:35Z

Gridley:

A '''plectrum''' or '''pick''' is a small piece of [[metal]], [[plastic]] or felt used to pluck the strings of a [[musical instrument]], such as a [[guitar]].

[[Category:Musical Instruments]]

Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand

2007-11-21T04:25:32Z

Gridley:

I find this article does not do what it says. It doesn't give reasons from the constitution as much as court decisions that have created laws that allow abortion. We already know court decisions have made abortion legal. The question is, what does the constitution say? Arguments should focus in that area, otherwise this is just a reiteration of abortion precedent under the guise of pretending to discuss constitutionality. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:The wording of the liberal argument is tricky. They want to argue that abortion on demand is ought to be something that a woman has a right to choose. So they assume their conclusion; see [[circular argument]].

:Everyone has the right to make choices.

:No one could say that men have the right to make choices, but that women don't. Therefore, everyone ought to favor "a woman's right to choose".

:[[Abortion on demand]] equals "[[a woman's right to choose]]".

:Therefore, everyone ought to favor abortion on demand.

:It's really quite clever how they made this argument. It's parallel to the "[[homophobia]]" scam: irrational reasoning and arguments based on "hate" should be disregarded because they are nonsensical. Opposition to homosexuality is a [[phobia]], i.e., an irrational fear or hatred. Therefore, opposition to homosexuality is nonsensical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)
::Actually, when you put it that way it sounds quite reasonable. Why do you say that it is a scam? That is to say: where is the logical flaw? --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 23:25, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom

2007-11-20T01:11:09Z

Gridley: /* NATO and the US */

== NATO and the US ==
The article says, "Six years after the overthrow of the Taliban, America and NATO forces are still fighting Taliban forces in parts of the country, especially in the south".

What is Australia doing there? So far as I am aware it is not part of NATO and nor is it a part of the US. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 17:31, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:Australia is not a part of NATO but it is a NATO ally. They share intelligence with NATO and work with NATO on some operations along with working bilaterally with the U.S.. In Afghanistan, Australia is just one of more then six non NATO nations to take part in Operation Enduring Freedom (under the ISAF, International Security Assistance Force). As of March 2007, they had about 400 troops based in the Uruzgan Province of Afghanistan. Those forces are mostly involved in training of the locals and reconstruction.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)
::The article does not appear to make reference to those six (or so) other nations. It appears to indicate that it is the US and NATO involved (which is a tautology, isn't it? The US is a part of NATO). Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that the ISAF (consisting of NATO and various others) continues the fight. I note also that Australia [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2070673.htm recently lost an SAS soldier] in Afghanistan. I guess it's not all training and reconstruction. --[[User:Gridley|Gridley]] 20:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom

2007-11-19T22:31:14Z

Gridley: New page: == NATO and the US == The article says, "Six years after the overthrow of the Taliban, America and NATO forces are still fighting Taliban forces in parts of the country, especially in the ...