Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bill O'Reilly

2011-06-22T19:46:17Z

Jasonb242: /* Birth Certificate */ new section

==Opinion Show==
It's kind of obvious that the O'Reilly factor is an opinion show, so it should stay that way. -- {{unsigned|PSMax8956}} 10:01, 2 August 2007

*That might be a little to radical for some people here, how about "political commentary show"? [[User:Overture|Overture]] 13:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**OK, that should work. -- {{unsigned|PSMax8956}} 10:03, 2 August 2007

== typo ==

I was just gonna fix the phrase "25 million people a nightly" but can't because it's protected. Sadness, utter sadness. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 21:31, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

same here, was wondering about that. -- {{unsigned|Veganman}} 18:38, 7 September 2007

==Harlem restaurant==

Although O'Reilly made the restaurant comparison as an example of how silly he had long known anti-black prejudice to be, Media Matters pretended he had been "surprised" to discover just recently that they were comparable. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007?f=h_top ] They chose to misinterpret the phrase "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference" as in indication of surprise rather than taking O'Reilly obvious meaning of, "See? This is what I was saying all along."

I've been to restaurants in Harlem too. They are comparable, and it's no big deal. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Assault==
What? Nothing about billo's assault of an Obama staffer? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:09, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:What assault might that be? Did he hurt someone's feeling? Oh no! (sarcasm) [[User:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]] ([[User talk:Wahrheit|talk]]) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Andrea Mackris lawsuit==

Should this article cover the lawsuit entanglement between O'Reilly and Mackris? Or does that fall outside the scope of this project? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Colbert? ==

The article says Colbert and O'Reilly have a "friendly rivalry". That seems to be a stretch. If there's anyone that inspired the character of Stephen Colbert, its O'Reilly, and its no friendly homage; its out and out parody. And when O'Reilly appeared on Colbert's show, O'Reilly was obviously uncomfortable -- he obviously muttered "this was a mistake" shortly into the interview. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 16:25, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

*Your words reflect someone who never watches O'Reilly, Arthur. O'Reilly frequently mentions Colbert, and eagerly promotes his appearances on the "Colbert Report", and vice-versa. I'm afraid you take Bill O'Reilly's sotto-voiced comments for real, rather than the carefully scripted words they are. In the real world, outside of the Internet, there are many such symbiotic liberal/conservative relationships, such as Alan Combs and Sean Hannity's 12 year collaboration and even a marriage or two, such as [[Mary Matalin]] and [[James Carville]]. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate ==

"''he has ineptly tried to defend Obama against criticism for failing to provide his birth certificate''." This is now outdated. Since, you know, Obama released it a few months ago. The idea that he defended Obama should stay in but atleast take out "ineptly"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 15:46, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Defense of Marriage Act

2011-06-20T20:16:35Z

Jasonb242:

I'm not sure of the proper ediquette for editing articles on this site, so i'll wait for a response before i edit it again, as it got reverted last time. In the opening paragraph it says "It defends traditional marriage by enabling...". This is a biased statement. The article should explain what the act does, and let the reader decide whether or not it actually defends traditional marriage. I suggest that it be changed to "It enables...". I apologize for changing it without asking before, i'm new here and dont really know how things work.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 00:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:Its been a few days since i posted the above suggestion, without any responses, positive or negative. I'm going to go ahead and change it, and if it gets reverted again i only ask that you explain to me why.
::So, I notice that it got reverted again...--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 16:16, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Defense of Marriage Act

2011-06-20T03:54:55Z

Jasonb242:

'''The Defense of Marriage Act''' (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. 1738c, was passed by a [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Congress]] and signed into law by [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] President [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>The law passed by overwhelming supermajorities: 342-67 in the House, and 85-14 in the Senate.</ref> It enables each state to refuse to recognize another state's grant of same-sex marriages and clarifies that the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages at all, even if recognized by one of the states.

This law has two powerful effects:

#No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state under the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the Constitution.
#The federal government must not recognize any same-sex marriages.

At the time, it was thought that the first effect was most important, and it appears first in the law. Over ten years later, the second effect has emerged as most important, and in early 2009 a lawsuit was filed in [[Massachusetts]] to force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed there.

== State Marriage Laws ==

30 out of 50 states have constitutional provisions defining and limiting marriage as between a man and a woman.<ref>http://www.domawatch.com/stateissues/index.html</ref> Traditional marriage has been affirmed in all 31 states in which it was put to a popular vote.<ref name=guardian>[[The Guardian]], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627 "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law"]</ref> The states lacking protection of marriage in their constitutions are the 13 northeastern states and territory (D.C.) beginning with [[West Virginia]] (but not including Virginia), plus North Carolina on the East Coast; in the Midwest the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, and in the West the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Washington. As of August 3, 2010, 7 states had judicially declared or legislatively enacted same-sex marriage laws: Massachusetts, California, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. [[Proposition 8]] modified California's constitution in 2008 to protect the sanctity of marriage, and [[Maine]] [[Question 1]] stopped the homosexual agenda again in 2009.<ref name=guardian> /> Only 5 states currently recognize homosexual marriage.</ref>

Of the roughly 14 states that lack a constitutional traditional marriage provision, seven have "state DOMAs," which is state legislation defining marriage in the traditional way. States or territories that lack constitutional protection for marriage or a state DOMA include New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, D.C., Colorado and New Mexico.

== Text and Codification of Law ==

The text of this law, which was passed in 1996 and signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]], is simple:

:An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage.

::Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

::SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

:::This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

::SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

::::`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

:::::`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

::::`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

::SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

::::`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

:::::`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

::::`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

This law was then codified in two different sections of Titles 1 and 28 of the [[United States Code]]:

:1 U.S.C. § 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"

::In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

:28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

::No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
==Further reading==
* Strasser, Mark. "Ex Post Facto Laws, Bills of Attainder, and the Definition of Punishment: On DOMA, the Hawaii Amendment, and Federal Constitutional Constraints," 48 Syracuse L. Rev. 227 (1998) [http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/syrlr48&div=11&id=&page= outline]
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Marriage]]
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Defense of Marriage Act

2011-06-20T03:54:09Z

Jasonb242:

Talk:Christian apologetics

2011-06-18T18:50:11Z

Jasonb242: /* Apologeticians */

== Apologeticians ==
this article has problems in content and style. It feels like a ad for a certain website. Apologetics has a historry of 2000 yeras, so the must be more than a website to refer to. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 21:54 (AEST)

:This article needs huge work. It tells me nothing about apologetics, and gives the results of a debate like a soccer game. This website should be able to do better. I don't know enough about the topic, although if someone wants to teach me, I'll do the writing, although I'd rather that someone who knows more does it.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 22:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Still pleading for help here.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think about adding content headings for some of the major issues in apologetics such as proofs for the existence of God, the innerrancy of the scripture, the problem of evil, etc. I would like to work on this page to expand on the issues covered by apologetics, but would they be better served on separated pages? {{unsigned|KDS1972}} August 2007

Speaking of the work that needs to be done, can we get an etymology section? Well, perhaps that's the wrong term, perhaps something explaining the use of the word apologetics/apologist. Was that term derived from Greek "apologia"? Did that word (apologia) have broader meaning than simply expressing fault, and did apologetics derive its name from that broader meaning? Or is it, quite possibly, used in the same context as the modern definition? I can't find ANYTHING (and I have looked), so I'm thinking this should be included somewhere. The name, to the average...idiot...would seem to provide them with all the leverage in the world to say something like "See!? They're apologizing for lying about Jesus." I know this because I have a "friend" who said this, and have heard similar anecdotes from others. Seriously. {{unsigned|LinusWilson}} July 2008

I think this article needs a lot of work to. not only are there so few arguments, there are some flaws in the ones already made. For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time, not by means of sexual reproduction, but my clockmakers making a time-telling device, and bringing more favorable traits to the next time-telling device they create. First there were sundials, then clocks which relied on weights, then wall clocks, and finally moving onto a pocketwatch. There has been a lot of work put forth into the evolution of a pocketwatch. In the cosmological argument, you give no reason as to WHY nothing could have been there for an eternity. You just state it. Work needs to be done there. Also, in the arguement for morality, you state that all humans are given common morals. I don't really get that. Some tribes in indonesia are cannibals. Many people around the world rape other human beings. Still others kill, torture, and fornicate. I don't see a common set of morals. What are they? State them in the article. Alot of work needs to be put into this article. There are still many flaws in the arguments. I'm not trying to christian-bash, im just trying to make sure you know where atheists would attack this article. This page should really be flaw free if it's here to convince! [[User:Itsafineday|Itsafineday]] 20:00, 14 Aug 2010

:Thank you for that constructive criticism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
::Itsafineday, "an atheist could argue". That's a good one. I see you have a sense of humor. We all know that prominent atheists/evolutionists are afraid to debate [[creation science|creation scientists]] (after losing debates to them in the 1970s) and that [[Richard Dawkins]] is afraid to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]], Rabbi Boteach (a second time after losing the first debate and denying the videotaped debate took place) and Dinesh D'Souza (see: [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Daniel Came]]). In addition, [[PZ Myers]] refuses to debate [[Vox Day]]. When is atheism going to evolve a spine? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

:::"''For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time..."'' not only that, but one could argue that one would only think the watch was created if they have seen other objects ''known'' to be created by humans to compare it to. And that complexity has nothing to do with creation. Is God not complex? Wouldn't that mean he was created according to that logic?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 14:41, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::""''an atheist could argue". That's a good one..."'' I don't see you trying to refute any of his points, or change the article to make up for these flaws in logic. Instead you just post links to conservapedia's latest featured articles and resort to ad hominem attacks on atheism. Wheres that spine God gave ''you''?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 14:50, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Christian apologetics

2011-06-18T18:49:27Z

Jasonb242: /* Apologeticians */

== Apologeticians ==
this article has problems in content and style. It feels like a ad for a certain website. Apologetics has a historry of 2000 yeras, so the must be more than a website to refer to. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 21:54 (AEST)

:This article needs huge work. It tells me nothing about apologetics, and gives the results of a debate like a soccer game. This website should be able to do better. I don't know enough about the topic, although if someone wants to teach me, I'll do the writing, although I'd rather that someone who knows more does it.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 22:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Still pleading for help here.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think about adding content headings for some of the major issues in apologetics such as proofs for the existence of God, the innerrancy of the scripture, the problem of evil, etc. I would like to work on this page to expand on the issues covered by apologetics, but would they be better served on separated pages? {{unsigned|KDS1972}} August 2007

Speaking of the work that needs to be done, can we get an etymology section? Well, perhaps that's the wrong term, perhaps something explaining the use of the word apologetics/apologist. Was that term derived from Greek "apologia"? Did that word (apologia) have broader meaning than simply expressing fault, and did apologetics derive its name from that broader meaning? Or is it, quite possibly, used in the same context as the modern definition? I can't find ANYTHING (and I have looked), so I'm thinking this should be included somewhere. The name, to the average...idiot...would seem to provide them with all the leverage in the world to say something like "See!? They're apologizing for lying about Jesus." I know this because I have a "friend" who said this, and have heard similar anecdotes from others. Seriously. {{unsigned|LinusWilson}} July 2008

I think this article needs a lot of work to. not only are there so few arguments, there are some flaws in the ones already made. For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time, not by means of sexual reproduction, but my clockmakers making a time-telling device, and bringing more favorable traits to the next time-telling device they create. First there were sundials, then clocks which relied on weights, then wall clocks, and finally moving onto a pocketwatch. There has been a lot of work put forth into the evolution of a pocketwatch. In the cosmological argument, you give no reason as to WHY nothing could have been there for an eternity. You just state it. Work needs to be done there. Also, in the arguement for morality, you state that all humans are given common morals. I don't really get that. Some tribes in indonesia are cannibals. Many people around the world rape other human beings. Still others kill, torture, and fornicate. I don't see a common set of morals. What are they? State them in the article. Alot of work needs to be put into this article. There are still many flaws in the arguments. I'm not trying to christian-bash, im just trying to make sure you know where atheists would attack this article. This page should really be flaw free if it's here to convince! [[User:Itsafineday|Itsafineday]] 20:00, 14 Aug 2010

:Thank you for that constructive criticism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
::Itsafineday, "an atheist could argue". That's a good one. I see you have a sense of humor. We all know that prominent atheists/evolutionists are afraid to debate [[creation science|creation scientists]] (after losing debates to them in the 1970s) and that [[Richard Dawkins]] is afraid to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]], Rabbi Boteach (a second time after losing the first debate and denying the videotaped debate took place) and Dinesh D'Souza (see: [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Daniel Came]]). In addition, [[PZ Myers]] refuses to debate [[Vox Day]]. When is atheism going to evolve a spine? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

:::"''For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time..."'' not only that, but one could argue that one would only think the watch was created if they have seen other objects ''known'' to be created by humans to compare it to. And that complexity has nothing to do with creation. Is God not complex? Wouldn't that mean he was created according to that logic?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 14:41, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::""''an atheist could argue". That's a good one."'' I don't see you trying to refute any of his points, or change the article to make up for these flaws in logic. Instead you just post links to conservapedia's latest featured articles and resort to ad hominem attacks on atheism. Wheres that spine God gave ''you''?

Talk:Christian apologetics

2011-06-18T18:41:05Z

Jasonb242: /* Apologeticians */

== Apologeticians ==
this article has problems in content and style. It feels like a ad for a certain website. Apologetics has a historry of 2000 yeras, so the must be more than a website to refer to. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 21:54 (AEST)

:This article needs huge work. It tells me nothing about apologetics, and gives the results of a debate like a soccer game. This website should be able to do better. I don't know enough about the topic, although if someone wants to teach me, I'll do the writing, although I'd rather that someone who knows more does it.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 22:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Still pleading for help here.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think about adding content headings for some of the major issues in apologetics such as proofs for the existence of God, the innerrancy of the scripture, the problem of evil, etc. I would like to work on this page to expand on the issues covered by apologetics, but would they be better served on separated pages? {{unsigned|KDS1972}} August 2007

Speaking of the work that needs to be done, can we get an etymology section? Well, perhaps that's the wrong term, perhaps something explaining the use of the word apologetics/apologist. Was that term derived from Greek "apologia"? Did that word (apologia) have broader meaning than simply expressing fault, and did apologetics derive its name from that broader meaning? Or is it, quite possibly, used in the same context as the modern definition? I can't find ANYTHING (and I have looked), so I'm thinking this should be included somewhere. The name, to the average...idiot...would seem to provide them with all the leverage in the world to say something like "See!? They're apologizing for lying about Jesus." I know this because I have a "friend" who said this, and have heard similar anecdotes from others. Seriously. {{unsigned|LinusWilson}} July 2008

I think this article needs a lot of work to. not only are there so few arguments, there are some flaws in the ones already made. For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time, not by means of sexual reproduction, but my clockmakers making a time-telling device, and bringing more favorable traits to the next time-telling device they create. First there were sundials, then clocks which relied on weights, then wall clocks, and finally moving onto a pocketwatch. There has been a lot of work put forth into the evolution of a pocketwatch. In the cosmological argument, you give no reason as to WHY nothing could have been there for an eternity. You just state it. Work needs to be done there. Also, in the arguement for morality, you state that all humans are given common morals. I don't really get that. Some tribes in indonesia are cannibals. Many people around the world rape other human beings. Still others kill, torture, and fornicate. I don't see a common set of morals. What are they? State them in the article. Alot of work needs to be put into this article. There are still many flaws in the arguments. I'm not trying to christian-bash, im just trying to make sure you know where atheists would attack this article. This page should really be flaw free if it's here to convince! [[User:Itsafineday|Itsafineday]] 20:00, 14 Aug 2010

:Thank you for that constructive criticism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
::Itsafineday, "an atheist could argue". That's a good one. I see you have a sense of humor. We all know that prominent atheists/evolutionists are afraid to debate [[creation science|creation scientists]] (after losing debates to them in the 1970s) and that [[Richard Dawkins]] is afraid to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]], Rabbi Boteach (a second time after losing the first debate and denying the videotaped debate took place) and Dinesh D'Souza (see: [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Daniel Came]]). In addition, [[PZ Myers]] refuses to debate [[Vox Day]]. When is atheism going to evolve a spine? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

::"''For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time..."'' not only that, but one could argue that one would only think the watch was created if they have seen other objects ''known'' to be created by humans to compare it to. And that complexity has nothing to do with creation. Is God not complex? Wouldn't that mean he was created according to that logic?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 14:41, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Defense of Marriage Act

2011-06-18T04:06:50Z

Jasonb242:

Talk:Defense of Marriage Act

2011-06-18T04:06:08Z

Jasonb242: Created page with "I'm not sure of the proper ediquette for editing articles on this site, so i'll wait for a response before i edit it again, as it got reverted last time. In the opening paragraph..."

User talk:Jasonb242

2011-06-17T19:32:39Z

Jasonb242:

Please note that [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] is the place for discussing opinions with other contributors. An article talk page is only for discussion about how to improve that article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:36, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:I apologize, i will now leave the debates to the debate sections. But i would also like to point out that my posts were a response to your post that was debating in an article talk page. I don't know if you will ever see this, as i dont know how to repond to messages on this site, but it is just something i wanted to point out.

2011-06-16T22:33:46Z

2011-06-15T23:36:17Z

Jasonb242: Created page with "An open-minded liberal and atheist"

An open-minded liberal and atheist

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-15T23:25:49Z

Jasonb242: /* Liberal? */

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-15T23:25:30Z

Jasonb242: /* Liberal? */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2011-06-15T23:23:39Z

2011-06-12T02:57:13Z

Jasonb242: /* Neanderthals */ new section