Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Title IX Destroys Our Olympic Team

2008-08-14T17:35:39Z

PastafarianFSM:

Mr. Schlafly,
I read your latest essay with great interest. Although I agree with you that Title IX has probably reduced the competitiveness of our Olympic team, I wonder if this is a great enough cost to justify repealing it. I believe that women's sports at the collegiate level have benefited greatly from Title IX, and I wonder if reduced Olympic competitiveness is an acceptable trade-off for this benefit. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

What is [[private cause of action]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I will bet you $500 that if title IX is eliminated, almost all olympians will come from private teams, simply because those programs will get better funding and m,ost schools have loads of nitty gritty regulations about things like saftey. Plus, We lost the olympic gold because one gymnist fell once. Unlucky, but is completely irrelevent. We are currently in the lead with medels. If its been around since the 70s, then why is it only now that our tems are suffering.[[User:PastafarianFSM|PastafarianFSM]] 13:33, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Title IX Destroys Our Olympic Team

2008-08-14T17:33:02Z

PastafarianFSM:

Mr. Schlafly,
I read your latest essay with great interest. Although I agree with you that Title IX has probably reduced the competitiveness of our Olympic team, I wonder if this is a great enough cost to justify repealing it. I believe that women's sports at the collegiate level have benefited greatly from Title IX, and I wonder if reduced Olympic competitiveness is an acceptable trade-off for this benefit. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

What is [[private cause of action]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I will bet you $500 that if title IX is eliminated, almost all olympians will come from private teams, simply because those programs will get better funding and m,ost schools have loads of nitty gritty regulations about things like saftey. [[User:PastafarianFSM|PastafarianFSM]] 13:33, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Youtube.com

2008-06-14T23:21:26Z

PastafarianFSM: Redirecting to YouTube

#REDIRECT [[youTube]]

Youtube.com

2008-06-14T23:20:57Z

PastafarianFSM: Redirecting to Youtube

#REDIRECT [[youtube]]

Sick Puppies

2008-06-14T23:20:36Z

PastafarianFSM: New page: Sick Puppies is an Indie/Alternative rock band from Sydney Australia, currently located in Los Angelas.The band is comprised of Shimmon Moore on guitar and vocals, Emma Anzai on Bass, and ...

Sick Puppies is an Indie/Alternative rock band from Sydney Australia, currently located in Los Angelas.The band is comprised of Shimmon Moore on guitar and vocals, Emma Anzai on Bass, and Mark Goodwin on the drums. The band is probably most famous for their hit single "All the Same" and the "free Hugs" video, which has spawned 27 million views on the popular video hosting site [[Youtube.com]]

== Formation and early work ==
The band formed in 1997, when Moore and Anzai were attending high school. According to interviews, both were misfits, and met accidently once when the music room teacher double booked the room, Moore, then on the drums, claims that they united in friendship as a result of knowing all the same songs and being into the same music, most of which was from alternative punk at the time, such as Green Day. Later, with new drummer Chris Mileski, they formed Sick Puppies. There song "Nothing Really Matters" won awards for best live performance.

In 2001, they released there first full album, Welcome to the real world, which differs significantly from their other work, in that it seems to be a primarily metal album

== Free Hugs, All the Same, and Dressed up as Life ==
The band gained a suprise following shortly after coming to the US, with new drummer Mark Goodwin. The following can be said to be due to the success of the free hugs video on youtube, which featured their first single, All the same. The video is the story of Juan Mann, a man who believed that in giving Free hugs to people, by reaching out and helping complete strangers for no reason other than to be friendly, he could make the world a better place.

In 2007, they released their second Album, Dressed up as life. Three singles have so far been released from it, All the Same, My World, and recently, What are you Looking for.

The Band claims to be writing new material, and wants lots of fan input.

Talk:The Daily Show

2008-05-05T16:28:47Z

PastafarianFSM:

The current title of this show is ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'', as the narcissistic Mr. Stewart (nee Liebowitz) has insisted it be called. Please retitle the page accordingly. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 14:02, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Its just a more descriptive title. Also it differentiates from the original Daily Show with Craig Whatshisface. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I have trouble with the fact that almost all of the sources are from comedycentral.com[[User:PastafarianFSM|PastafarianFSM]] 12:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?

2008-04-30T21:00:34Z

PastafarianFSM: /* Corporate */

==Yes==
Except for FOX, which has a neocon bias. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is not a doubt about it, the media is liberal. Yes you can say FOX tilts right, but they offer the liberal counterpoint. Yes, you can say talk radio is conservative. The vast majority of media TV, print is operated by, employs liberals that promote liberal points of view. These medias go out of the way to deny a conservative point of view, not balanced. Maybe why FOX and conservative radio have a big following. They are the only game in town. Tilt a political direction and bias to one point of view, are two different meanings.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a difficult question because of shifting/tricky definitions of liberal & conservative. Conservative can variously mean neo-con (ie, big gov't conservative) to libertarianism. Populism can be an oppressive combination of the left & the right. If "liberal" means leftist (ie, secular big-gov't welfare state), then I see this orientation as a slight overall bias of combined radio, TV & print media. My personal observation is untrustworthy, but surveys of journalists show that Democratic Party orientation predominates. Of course, many individual sources will be exceptions. I believe the safest course is to seek reliable sources of different stripes to get a broader picture.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The media is not one monolithic entity plus Fox. Some media outlets take a more liberal perspective, some a more conservative one. Talk radio, for example, is overwhelmingly conservative. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think this should be rephrased as "does the MSM (Mainstream media) have a liberal bias?", because the big ones (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.) are pretty liberal. Should I move the page?--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The media has a bias toward making money. That is why even CNN is hiring people from Fox. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Interesting and relevant link--go to www.jibjab.com and click on 'it's what we call the news' (high speed only) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Reporters and other people in the media are generally better educated than the dudes who get together in the bar to complain about stuff. Therefore, the media has a different, more educated point of view: they know more history, they know more science, they know more about other countries, they know you get what you pay for. The complaining dudes in the bar who think we should just eliminate taxes and bomb all the people who protest against US foreign policy are the majority of the public, but that doesn't make them right. Therefore, yes, the media has a bias, but it's not a liberal bias. It's a bias in favor of an intelligent, educated, well-informed point of view. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I must say I do not share your faith in the media. In my experience they are often lazy and disinclined to do any but the most cursory research. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::I never said the media are intelligent and well-informed. I just meant to say that they are more intelligent and better informed than the average complaining dude in the bar, or the average Conservapedia contributor, or the average voter. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey!, I'm the average Conservapedia contributor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Reporters do tend to be liberal, but publishers tend to be conservative, so it all balances out. Editors generally try to have the media's opinion reflect the mainstream of their readership, because—obviously—the media are businesses and are trying to make money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is a fair call. Often I think it just boils down to economics - journalists tend to be on relatively low wages, and therefore tend to favour collective bargaining, government subsidies and other left-of-centre policies. The wealthier someone is (such as the publishers and executives) the more they favour property laws, tax cuts and other right-wing policies. This isn't necessarily an intentional bias, and journalists don't necessarily go out of their way to impose it. As for the Fox/everything else divide, it's true. But I think it's also simple social mechanics: journalists - just like everyone else - prefer to work alongside people they can relate to, ideologically or otherwise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)

==Yes And No==

The media is liberal. The media is also Conservative. The media is also Communist, Libertarian, Religious, Atheistic, moral, immoral, Fascist, etc. It just depends on where you look for your news. Depending on where you go for your news, you will get a different angle on current events.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 10:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

overall, the media seems to be fairly supportive of whoever is in control of congress, which is currently the liberals. It must be hard for media to be conservative right now, cause they have screwed things up so bad. George Bushes appproval rating was in the thirties not so long ago [[User:PastafarianFSM|PastafarianFSM]] 16:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

==Corporate==

All the major newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations are now owned by about ten large companies. [http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html] Said companies tend to slant the news in their own favor--when was the last time you saw a news article decrying [[corporate welfare]], for example? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. All media is corporate biased, not right or left
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?

2008-04-30T20:59:49Z

PastafarianFSM: /* Yes And No */