Talk:Main Page/archive51

Moved discussion to Talk:Northern Illinois University on February 25, 2008. --Crocoite 12:18, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I hate to nitpick here, but why the reference to the school as an "atheistic college"? We have no idea about the spiritual composition of the students, faculty, or administration... Does the school have a mission statement about teaching atheism somewhere? Alexander 20:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

See the discussion immediately above. Philip J. Rayment 20:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see. I've made note of the reasoning given above and followed some links to talks on other pages where this was discussed. I hope I can offer a useful suggestion. "Atheism" seems to me more of a technical term denoting a positive philosophical viewpoint ("there is no God"). It makes a metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe. "Secular," on the other hand, tends to focus on "this worldly" concerns, and I suppose I might describe more as a posturing than a philosophical point-of-view. But then as Andy noted elsewhere, many of these schools do more than just remain "neutral" to religious influence; many are decidedly hostile to Christian ideas--yet this hostility need not imply atheism. There are many Jews, for example, who are hostile to open religious expression, but they remain Jewish in their faith-heritage and are not atheists. So I would perhaps use the term "Secularist" to describe both such Jews and public schools that take a hostile approach to religion in public life. By using the "Secularist" label, we are more or less just limiting ourselves to describing their methods, and are not making our reasoning bigger targets than they need to be by labeling them "atheistic." Know what I mean? Alexander 01:15, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I note that Kazmierczak "stopped taking medication recently", and this is suggested as a factor in the tragedy[1]. One wonders if this is the reverse of the 'Hollywood Values' effect - perhaps if he had stayed on prescription drugs the tragedy might have been avoided? Misterlinx 17:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

The main page currently says a student shot the students, which I think was what was first reported, but now they know it wasn't a student --IDuan 22:00, 14 February 2008 (EST)

The Washington Post cites campus police as saying he wasn't currently a student at the school. But does anyone doubt that the gunman was a product of our atheistic school system?--Aschlafly 22:06, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, I'm sure that there are plenty who do doubt it! (And no, I'm not referring to me.) Philip J. Rayment 01:12, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I don't think anyone doubts that - but that's not what the main page said (thanks for fixing that by the way), but if you want to put that in instead I wouldn't raise any objection--IDuan 22:08, 14 February 2008 (EST)

No surprise ... it was a former student.--Aschlafly 23:40, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Good find! That should quiet those in the section above--IDuan 23:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Andy, I am curious, how would you classify it if a student at a school such as Brigham Young University(Chosen randomly due to it's being a private, Christian University) went on a shooting spree? Would it be the result of "Atheistic public schools" or "something else"? Absentismens 23:12, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Don't know much about BYU, and whether it draws its students from public schools. In general, mass killings in schools receptive to religion are very rare ... unless by an anti-Christian bigot who is attacking what the school represents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

A hypothetical question that presumes something that the person you are questioning does not believe is rather pointless. Philip J. Rayment 01:08, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Conservative Vaclav Klaus was re-elected President of the Czech Republic today, after a failed election last week. While friendly to Russia, he is an Euroskeptic, against Anthropogenic global warming and critic of Environmentalism. Even wikipedia aknowledges that: [2]. Czech Republic is one of the countries where US missile defense sites are planned. --Leopeo 13:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

A bit for the news, perhaps. Conservative Christians are more willing to vote for a Democrat than for McCain, it seems. Huckabee remains the candidate of choice among this group, but it is getting more and more unlikely that he will get the nomination.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080215/31196_Christian_Poll:_McCain_Less_Popular_than_Obama,_Clinton.htm—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HermanH (talk)

I'm deeply concerned about McCain. BUT. Make no mistake, Obama or Hillary would pack our Supreme Court with more liberal justices who would ensure that Roe stays the law for years to come. I trust John McCain would not. He may be bad, but he's not as bad as a democrat win.-MexMax 14:09, 15 February 2008 (EST)

You're assuming any of the "conservative" justices would retire during an Obama or Clinton presidency. --Jdellaro 14:14, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I am not, actually - it's no secret that Justice Stevens (liberal) is reaching the end of his life, and it's also no secret that Justice Souter wants out. Those are two liberals who will be out. A liberal president could crown the next two liberal justices, to last for decades to come, but a conservative could finally break the Roe deadlock and toss it out.-MexMax 14:27, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Also, Justice Scalia is old, but healthy (thank God!), and Justice Roberts is healthy, but has some enduring health problems (to quote the Bard, he hath the falling-sickness). Regardless of their health, it's foolish to pass up a chance to potentially solidify the court. Mr. McCain may not be great - in fact, he's far from it (amnesty boy!) - but he's better than a liberal.-MexMax 14:29, 15 February 2008 (EST)

MexMax, regardless of your personal feelings about Roe v. Wade, the only way for the court to legitimately overturn it would be through a unanimous decision. This is because in making any decision regarding Roe the Justices must consider that Roe has superprecedent as the ruling was upheld by the SC in the early 90's. Also, from my experience with women, if the SC were to ever overturn Roe there would be nationwide rioting by millions of very, very, very pissed off women. But then again, I've been indoctrinated by this nation's atheistic public school system to be a black-clad, morally bankrupt, suicidal, killing machine with ridiculously easy access to firearms, so my opinions on anything are nothing more than hogwash.--ElliottRosewater 23:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, that's another stunning bit of liberal logic: Roe v. Wade can only be overturned if it is unanimous, because somehow it is "superprecedent"!!!! Yeah, right, and next you'll tell us that 5 is not a majority of 9 (Justices).--Aschlafly 23:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

ER, I've read Casey and I know what you mean by "superprecedent" - however, SDOC's long spiel about stare decisis was the hackneyed result of a "secret opinion" pulled off at the last minute by a minority bloc of justices, which barely commanded a majority of the court. I don't expect that a slim-majority opinion can bootstrap a 30-year old mistake into superprecedent, no matter how much Sandra Day may wish. Besides, if Roberts has taught us one thing, it's that Roe may not go with a bang, but with a whimper. There are easier ways to torpedo Roe than with a resounding "overruled" line.-MexMax 00:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

MexMax, while I do disagree with you, you do make an interesting and logical point. I thank you for your respectful and informed response. As for Aschlafly, while you love to preach about the superiority of your divine Christian ideals, your above comment is very much inline with the sort of hate, egotism, and unkindness which you so vehemently accuse liberals and leftists of. Also you seem to have a bit of a fetish for exclamation points.--ElliottRosewater 12:25, 17 February 2008 (EST)

MexMax--in my admittedly somewhat cynical opinion, it doesn't matter WHO wins in November, roe vs. wade will stay on the books. The Democrats will keep it because they want it, the Republicans will keep it because promising to overturn it gets them a lot more votes than actually overturning it ever could. (Otherwise, Bush would've done something about it 6 years ago.) --AlfredK 17:24, 17 February 2008 (EST)

The news column item regarding the NIU shooting also notes that "this was the 4th shooting at an atheistic school in a week". I ran across updates on two of those stories today, so I thought I'd post them here in the event ya'll wanted to include said updates in said item. In the Lousiana Tech shooting, police have found that the shooter had been living out of her car, displaying signs of paranoia, losing touch with reality, was suicidal, and bought the gun and a box of ammunition at a pawn shop the day before the shootings. In the California case, the shooter has been charged with a hate crime, because his apparent motive was that he was "freaked out" that the victim was a cross-dresser. Last, you might want to note that there'd actually been five (not four) shootings at U.S. schools in the past week--last Thursday, there was a shooting at a school in Portsmouth, Ohio.--RossC 17:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Moved discussion to Talk:Northern Illinois University on February 25, 2008. --Crocoite 13:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Seeing as how you are talking about a European Party, you should probably mention that Klaus is considered to be a moderate liberal, at least on the international political spectrum. Not to mention that his party, the Civic Democratic Party, is considered center-right in the Czech Republic[3] and advocates progressive policies in regards to social justice, labor and socio-economics. The CDP is also part of the center-right European People's Party and is a contemporary of the British Conservative Party, which, to the many raging reactionaries on this completely neutral bastion of non-opinionated information, advocates policies said reactionaries would consider Satanic. --ElliottRosewater 20:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

This really isn't news and looks strange amongst the other, genuine, news stories. RedDog 13:40, 16 February 2008 (EST)

It is a prime example of Liberal deceit, and probably of Liberal hysteria, Liberal logic, Liberal bias, Liberal denial, Liberal hate speech and all the other bad stuff those guys do as well. Sawneybeane 13:46, 16 February 2008 (EST)

My point isn't that the statement is incorrect, but that it clearly isn't news. RedDog 13:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I wonder what the supposed "reason" given for deletion was? Just another case of liberal censorsip I guess. Feebasfactor 14:13, 16 February 2008 (EST)

No, no. That's all fine. I'm sure you're right, I mean I wouldn't know. You still don't understand. By definition if it's "Just another case" then it I don't see how it can be news. This has it's place of course, just not in the news section. To include it as news just makes it look like Conservapedia has an axe to grind and actually makes it look a little paranoid. RedDog 14:18, 16 February 2008 (EST)

There are some grammar mistakes and the link doesn't work in the new headline--IDuan 13:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, Conservative - has it ever dawned on you that many of those hits may come not from people seeking information in good faith, but from people like me who heard how appalling the article was and wanted to see it for themselves - or just wanted a laugh? You really should read some good audience reception theory before blowing your own horn that loudly...Rodney 17:50, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Rodney, audience reception theory? Have you read Conservapedia's articles on the topics of Views on atheists and Global desecularization and Global decline of atheism and Declining interest in internet atheism?

"These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth." - the atheist Brendan O'Neill, The Telegraph, How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet, August 14th, 2013.

Put that in your audience reception theory pipe and smoke it!!!Conservative 01:25, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

I believe the general consensus is that, regardless of liberal mockery (who wouldn't likely change anyway), greater popularity on the internet means that Conservapedia is more likely to reach the potential editors/users that would sincerely appreciate the project and wish to contribute towards its growth. Feebasfactor 19:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

More specifically rhe rich people who, many if not most by virtue of birthright - including their race and gender - have a virtual monopoly on political and economic power. And that's why attacking big business is a good thing. Rodney 18:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure if that's an appropriate term to use, but regardless - should sneaked be snuck? (Or is either one acceptable?) Feebasfactor 21:02, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I would use "snuck", but perhaps "sneaked" is an Americanism? Philip J. Rayment 21:06, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Joaquin posted it correctly: "sneaked" is considered better than "snuck", which is more colloquial. See [4]--Aschlafly 21:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Now that I bother looking, my Aussie dictionary agrees (with sneaked) also. Philip J. Rayment 07:14, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I was shocked at the headline, and I simply can't believe the article. How can a professor, who has made that remarks for "years", not have been fired by this time. Surely at least some students must have complained, no? That makes me sick to my stomach.--IDuan 00:33, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Shall we mention that the children's book wasn't fiction, but the actual story of a real life event? Maestro 00:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

That would be liberal deceit. And in any case, the point of the story is that censorship is wrong. Or something...--KimSell 07:02, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Damn fascist parents with their censorship! Must be a bunch of liberal parents! --Jdellaro 07:54, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Any citation available for the headline?--Jdellaro 12:45, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for point that out. The citation was already in the Hollywood values entry.--Aschlafly 12:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

The Britney "news" item is out-and-out gossip, and doesn't belong here.--RossC 13:32, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Absolute agreement! An "article" from the New York Post that quotes her ex-husband who supposedly has became close friends with her and supposedly told her that she doesn't want the kids. This is outright hearsay and complete and total gossip so this no-name can get another 15 minutes of fame. --Jdellaro 14:42, 18 February 2008 (EST)

The litigation over Britney's kids is a matter of public concern, and Britney welcomes publicity. Her position in the case is of legal significance and not gossip. It's amazing how liberals defend Hollywood values and attempt to censor any exposure of how harmful those values are. Britney has made millions spreading her values to others.--Aschlafly 17:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, please...That's the lamest rationalization I've heard in many moons--Spears's custody problems are no more a matter of public concern or legal significance than your average (ugly) divorce. I'm not defending Britney or her lack of morals and judgement--I'm criticizing CP's stooping to the standards of the liberal media by repeating and showcasing sleazy rumor disguised as news. And "not gossip"? Let's go to CP's definition of same: "Idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." Check. "Damages the reputation of the object of the gossip." Check. "Perpetrates or encourages injustice or lack of charity towards others." Check. "Wastes time and distracts from productive endeavors." Check! That's 4 for 4--Couldn't ask for a better example of gossip. While (if true) this "story" may be a good example of Hollywood values, it's still gossip (even if true), and beneath the standards of CP.--RossC 17:59, 18 February 2008 (EST)

RossC, Hollywood values hurt many, many people. Liberal denial covers up that harm and censors criticism of Hollywood values. It's wrong to stand silently by and allow that harm to continue.

Litigation by a public figure who profits immensely from her publicity is not a "private affair." When liberals admit that Hollywood values harm people and stop censoring criticism of it, then we can let up on exposing that harm. We're not there yet.--Aschlafly 18:06, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, was Jason Alexander's comments part of testimony in the case? Or was he just repeating something that he supposedly was told? Because if it's not actual testimony, then it's really not part of the litigation, and instead is just a chance for CP to get some of the crumbs from the Britney Spears searches. Call it liberal deceit, but it's a blatant attempt to get in while the getting's good. Glad to see CP doesn't have a basement for that bar they keep lowering.--Jdellaro 18:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Nonsense. Aschlafly makes some solid points above. I see the need for a whole series of articles exposing the havoc wreaked by Hollywood values. Gentlemen, start your engines... --Leda 18:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Jdellaro, you're in the wrong place if you think we're going to stand silently by as Hollywood values destroy so many lives. Liberal denial -- which what allows such harm to continue -- does not govern here.--Aschlafly 19:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Again, not denying that Spears is a harlot, a druggie, a bad bad mother, the very embodiment of Hollywood values. Not denying that Hollywood values are harmful. But there is also no denying that the article posted as "news" is not news--it's gossip, plain and simple. There are no facts there, nothing to enlighten us, nothing to demonstrate a point--It's just some guy saying something bad about somebody else for no particular reason, but it's lurid and juicy and the public eats it up, and CP debases itself by repeating it.--RossC 20:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Your statement is filled with gossip, but ours is not. Don't conceal how Hollywood values hold disdain for childrearing. Don't hide and censor that. Britney's disregard for her own kids is hardly gossip in Hollywood. it's SOP - standard operating procedure for this culture that pushes abortion on the rest of the nation. If the views of Hollywood actors and actresses in promoting abortion is not gossip, and it isn't, then their views about their own kids isn't gossip either.--Aschlafly 22:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Has Britney Spears promoted abortion? I don't think so. As far as I can recall, she did promote Abstinence, once upon a time. The article is gossip, in violation of your own 'Commandments'Sawneybeane 06:00, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Clearly Britney Spears is a victim of Hollywood values Sawneybeane; it's too bad, we could have used a strong, positive role model for today's young girls and women.--BlotchesRepent 23:24, 19 February 2008 (EST)

There must be plenty of positive role models around: surely the main blame should be attached to the popular media for endless salacious focussing on the disfunctional, rather than blame some invented, soundbite notion of 'Hollywood Values', as if these were specific to one particular aspect of modern society rather than an eternal problem (Sodom and Gomorrah, anyone?). Sawneybeane 06:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ideas do matter, and Hollywood values have a big -- and harmful -- effect on people. Britney Spears is only one of many examples. It's long overdue for liberal denial to end in this respect, and to stop covering up for Hollywood values.--Aschlafly 07:51, 20 February 2008 (EST)

What does Ms Spears have to do with Hollywood? I thought she was a singer rather than an actress. Or do you use "Hollywood Values" as a generic term for the entertainment industry? Ajkgordon 09:00, 20 February 2008 (EST)

It's a catch-all term applied to anyone who does anything that Aschlafly does not approve of--Jdellaro 09:47, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, you guys are really clueless. Britney Spears is an actress, see [5]. Moreover, your excessively literal interpretation of the term Hollywood is astounding.--Aschlafly 12:32, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, chill your jets. I was only asking a polite question! I know next to nothing about her and I am unfamiliar with the expression "Hollywood values". See? Ajkgordon 12:39, 20 February 2008 (EST)

So name calling is a technique characteristic of a bully. Hmmmmmmm. Sawneybeane 15:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

We need one on Kosovo - how's this? Recognition for New Kosovo Grows: "Recognition of Kosovo's declaration of independence has gained momentum with the US, France, the UK, Germany and Italy all pledging their support."--IDuan 13:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Update (also from the bbc - why does google always put that first?) Serbia has recalled its ambassador from the U.S.--IDuan 19:58, 18 February 2008 (EST)

The BBC is put first because it is a well trusted website, and thus gets lots of links and that is how Google works out its page rankings. Or maybe it's a liberal conspiracy. Who knows....--KimSell 13:48, 20 February 2008 (EST)

The new state is called Kosova - maybe the headline and article title should reflect this. Sawneybeane 06:01, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I suppose logically toy guns would be banned because they can be mistaken for real guns. I know for a fact cops and others have shot people(kids/teens/etc) because they mistook a fake/toy gun for a real one.

Mind you this isn't an argument against banning violent video games. It's just pointing out a logical reason why toy guns have been banned and violent video games haven't. Observer 09:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

The column is not talking about realistic imitation guns being banned by law, but ordinary toy guns being banned by parents. Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 February 2008 (EST)

It may be logical, but it sounds like liberal deceit to me!--Jdellaro 11:45, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I have a rather strange, radical idea about why we shouldn't ban video games. Its a very strange, untried idea, but it is called "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press". Let's give it a try!--KimSell 13:42, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Untried? Ha! How about other freedoms too, such as freedom to take any substance you like, or freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road? A society must have limits on those sorts of "freedoms". Why restrict where people can drive, what they can take, but not what they can watch and be influence by? Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 February 2008 (EST)

We restrict where people drive because if we didnt, there would be a direct increase in the risk to other people. As a conservative, I believe that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the people in the form of a military, and to pass laws that prevent YOU from endangering or harming ME (and vice versa obviously). Now, if you drive a car headed directly towards me, then we are endangering one another, hence there is a legitimate function for a law to regulate that. However, if I am sat at home playing XBox or Wii, then you are not in any danger from me and so there is no legitimate role for the government to play. --KimSell 06:33, 21 February 2008 (EST)

My point was that there is nothing wrong with restricting people's liberties where they affect others. Whether or not this particular activity does affect others is a separate question. The columnist was making the point that if we think children playing with toy guns is going to teach them bad values (which could lead to them endangering others), then why do we think that playing violent games is going to have no influence? Again, whether virtual violence does have this bad influence is a separate question. Philip J. Rayment 06:57, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Your use of the first amendment sounds like liberal logic. Careful, you're on thin ice trying to utilize that amendment. The only amendment that counts is the second. For the rest of the Constitution, just refer to the Ten Commandments for everything you need to know. --Jdellaro 14:18, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Besides, this item was from Australia, the First Amendment to the American Constitution does not apply for some reason. Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 February 2008 (EST)

The first amendment says congress can't pass laws that "abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press". I don't think the founding fathers of the US played video games, or could imagine such an invention. I think the purpose of the first amendment was to keep the government from silencing it's people and to keep the them from stopping the press from reporting on any possible wrong doings.

Having pointed that out, I think the ability to express yourself is a freedom we all should be allowed. In which case you could argue that video games are a form of expression. Observer 14:20, 20 February 2008 (EST)

It should be a freedom of expression of ideas, not a freedom to have a negative influence on other people. For example, you should be free to discuss the idea of using profanities in public, but that doesn't mean that you should be free to use profanities in public. Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Your comment is interesting phil. Though couldn't video games be considered a form of expression? and if not what are forms of expression that are protected by "freedom to express ideas"?

Also, Who is to determine what constitutes a 'negative' influence? Certainly you could argue that violent video games probably lead to desensitizing and what not, but thats not exactly confirm able. You could probably find cases in which the perpetrator of a violent act was a fan of violent video games, but you could also find cases in which nonviolent people are fans of violent video games. So might it not be a case of "Violent video games create violent teens" but a case of "Violent teens are attracted to violent video games"?

In any case thats totally ignoring the confirm able benefits of playing video games: better hand eye coordination, better problem solving skills, better team work, etc.

As for you mentioning not being able to use profanities in public, I think that falls under 'freedom of speech'. You know, the freedom to say whatever we want. Observer 09:01, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Like KimSell above, you are asking a different question. The columnist's point, at least the point quoted on the front page, was not so much that video games are harmful; rather that if we think children playing with toy guns are harmful (as many do), couldn't a much stronger case be made for video games? You could argue that neither are harmful at all, but that doesn't address the apparent inconsistency. As for "freedom of expression", I was not addressing whether or not that falls under the Second Amendment, but whether it was reasonable to have so much "freedom of expression" that anything goes. It's been said before that freedom of expression does not give you the freedom to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre: the point being that even under the Second Amendment, such freedom is not absolute.

Who is to determine what constitutes a negative influence? Is that really an appropriate question? Isn't the assumption underlying that expression the one that to go on to assert: that it is not possible to determine such? But why wouldn't it be possible? We determine the negative effects of all sorts of things, including "hate speech", so why not video games as well? Given that it is possible, then the answer to the "who" question is "someone qualified to do so".

Yes, any such research into the effects of violent video games would have to determine causality, not just correlation, but isn't that a standard part of any research? Why is this a special case?

And yes, profanities fall under "freedom of speech", which as I've said, is not absolute anyway, and I know of no good reason why we should be free to profane.

Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 21 February 2008 (EST)

The 'inconsistency' is caused by the assumption of the article writer. He assumes they've been banned because they're 'harmful to kids' and that since you could argue the same case for video games, then you should ban video games too.

I'm pretty sure the main reason behind banning toy guns would be because they can be mistaken for real guns. You can google it and find numerous stories of people (kids and teens included) being killed because a cop/person thought their toy gun was real. I don't think that can happen with video games. Observer 10:42, 21 February 2008 (EST)

You might be pretty sure of that, but I'm pretty sure from your comments that you haven't read my reply to you above (dated 21:08, 20 February), nor the column which explains that one of the problems with toy guns is (allegedly) that "Toy gun play has been associated with aggressive behaviour". Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Oh I fully acknowledge the association between aggressive behavior and toy gun play. Though the same could be said about a lot of things, especially in competitions like sports. I think perhaps activities such as that draw out our already existing aggressive nature, instead of creating one.

So if the argument for banning these games and such is that they create aggressive and violent kids. Then I'd say perhaps those kids are drawn to those activities because they're already aggressive and violent? Observer 08:28, 22 February 2008 (EST)

The problem with profanity is a) defining it and 2) enforcing it. Relatively easy in the media, nigh on impossible on the street. Besides which, the good reason to be free to be profane is that we are free (or should be). Ajkgordon 09:55, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, they are problems (but not necessarily insurmountable ones), but I was merely stating a principle. But since when are we free to do wrong? We are certainly able to do wrong, but should not be free (permitted) to do wrong. Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Of course not. But who has decided that profanity is wrong? I can get pretty ******* profane when I skin my knuckles on a rusted bolt underneath the car. I don't think that merits an arrest. Besides, it means that Billy Connolly would be illegal and that can't be right! Ajkgordon 10:19, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I guess that it's society that has decided that it's wrong. Your personal predilection to profanity is hardly an excuse however. I can tell you from my own experience that I never do that when I hurt myself, simply because I never use such words, so they are simply not in my vocabulary. As for the quite vulgar Billy Connolly, his vulgarity should be illegal! Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Society has decided it's wrong? Has it? Doesn't look like to me. You may have decided that it's wrong but society has a whole seems to consider it rather harmless. What society does seem to be deciding is that the much maligned political correctness is maybe a good thing if the profanity is attacking a race or sex or whatever. Profanity that attacks no-one seems to be becoming more and more acceptable as witnessed by the large amount of it in the popular media and the lack of objection to it.

Billy Connolly's vulgarity harms no-one, consists of primarily the f-word, and is hilariously funny to those who understand his background as a Glasgow welder and comic stand-up in some rough bars. He hurts no-one, doesn't mock the afflicted, is gentle in his mockery of others, and has a generosity of spirit that we could all aspire to. His vulgarity is part of his act and to make it illegal would be a travesty for tolerance, freedom and comedy. Ajkgordon 08:01, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I just read the article at the other end of the link; it's very poorly written. can we try to find better references for our "news" items? --Ben _Talk 17:05, 20 February 2008 (EST)

What's poorly written about it? Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I agree that the article is written in a rather informal, sloppy style. Nevertheless, it gets the point across decently. ~ Sharon^Talk 11:31, 22 February 2008 (EST)

When searching google for atheism, I get religioustolerance.org at 5 and conservapedia at 12, what gives? Do google rankings change that rapidly? HermanH 14:13, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Hmmm...religioustolerance doesn't rank that high on my search. It comes up on the second page, but notably, one spot BEFORE CP's entry. But hey, CP beat the Yahoo directory search entry for atheism on Google!--Jdellaro 14:20, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I disagree with the opening of the latest Conservapedia headline on Britney Spears. From most accounts, it would appear that she wasn't raised with "Hollywood values", but by what many would consider "normal values". I think it is more a matter of her fully embracing a decadent, immoral and aimless lifestyle fairly recently that led to her present condition. I think that is actually more scary than being raised with "Hollywood Values", if those kids go astray (like so many child actors)it is easier to forsee their self imposed downfall. Some like Britney, who it appears was "raised right" but completely lost her way, in part shows why, it is vital that as a society we remain vigilant about the kinds of material to which children get exposed and be active in their life to provide a constant good example. I know at the end of the day, that the decisions of any person are their own to make, we can't let that be an excuse not to try our hardest to make sure our children and loved ones stay on the right path. --Tordenvaer 16:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I was looking for a link to a fave song of mine a few minutes ago, and in the sidebar caught sight of this: video, put to a song by the same band (Casting Crowns). All self-proclaimed Cristians should listen to the lyrics carefully, after reading the comment above from Tordenvaer, and ask themselves if we're right to attack her in this way. She's been called a "slut" here by at least one senior sysop - the kind of thing that if you said it about my sister, you'd be hit so hard and so fast you'd think you were surrounded. Hate the sin, not the person. Hollywood Values and morals are wrong, but a lot of these people are pawns, victims. I feel a little ashamed that I haven't - till now - really stopped to think about this from a Christian as opposed to a "religious" POV... Pharisees anybody? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 22:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Interesting points. Britney Spears was pushed into acting as a child, and her sister (also an actress) is pregnant at age 16, so I don't think it's too far-fetched to conclude that they were raised by Hollywood values. Do you?

As to calling Britney a "slut", I didn't do that, but I also don't think Hollywood stars who profit from selling immorality are above criticism. Jesus and early Christians were quite blunt in calling sinners what they are, I think, and that may be a necessary first step to recognizing sin and combating it. Remember the Good Thief? He is universally still called a thief, and I don't see how that is any different from describing someone as a slut who parades her immorality in front of others and even profits from it. Britney, after all, was the one who put on a display in kissing Madonna to push an agenda on millions of unsuspecting television viewers. Must critics be censored?--Aschlafly 23:48, 20 February 2008 (EST)

No, Andy, it wasn't you that said that, and this isn't in any way a direct criticism on anybody. I am 100% behind the concept and aims of Conservapedia, and we should be acting as a clear and straightforward counterpoint to the trends that are dragging society at large deeper into immorality. Critics should not be afraid to speak out, and the Bible tells us that we should reproach our fellows. But sometimes we seem to lose sight - and in all fairness, a lot of it is fomented by provocateurs who visit and post here purely to confuse, with the aim of provoking a reaction - of what we're all about. Criticising eg Britney Spears is like shooting fish in a barrel. What about the media that effectively creates these celebrities to generate profits for itself, the public that supports that media, buying the CDs, the newspapers, the DVDs, watching the TV specials... then howls for more gossip and "Exclusive!" candid photographs to sate their hunger for scandal, their thirst to see someone "who has it all" torn down and stripped of any dignity. We're pandering to it too. Yes, Spears took the cash when the going was good, and so it might be right to say she entered a Faustian pact with the public and the media. "Fame" and "success" are not as clear cut as we think: Albert Einstein once said, "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew." Spears has very publicly imploded on all of our TV screens and newspaper front pages, and we are calling "Jew!" I don't have a solution to offer here to the dilemma I perceive, I just wanted to add a voice and say we should maybe think about it a little, decide what is our stance as conservatives and/or Christians towards this. I'd like to think we could still use it to attack the immorality of society and its liberal immoral slide, use it to point people to moral alternatives, moral guidance, reproach those who would condone that behaviour. But also consider what exactly is the source of the immorality: eg, how much profit has Rupert Murdoch made from Britney Spears, and is it in his best financial interests that she checks into rehab, cleans herself up and disappears into anonymity? I think we should be defining ourselves by what we are for, rather than what we are not for. In Iran, Spears would by now have her hands tied behind her back and her body put in a cloth sack, then buried in a hole up to her shoulders. People could then start chanting "Allah hu Akbar" ("God is great!"), and throw stones at her. Not too big and not too close, because that would cause death too soon. John 8:7 tells us what we should consider about that. I'm all for reproach, and I'm all for explaining clearly what is wrong with something, but I want to be certain that I am following Messiah's example. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 06:45, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Very well said. Philip J. Rayment 07:48, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I agree. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 22:14, 21 February 2008 (EST)

If you're somewhere in the United States, a lunar eclipse should be visible right about now. Just a friendly reminder :-) -MexMax 22:29, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Max! I just saw the tail end of it.--Aschlafly 22:51, 20 February 2008 (EST)

A startling allegation. Congrats on the scoop. But I think you mean Serbians, not Serbia. At least that is what the link says. --JohnStuartMill 22:13, 21 February 2008 (EST)

If it was themselves, the Serbian mob, who did it, without incitement from their government, then you would have a claim to changing the spelling. However, the news is plainly stating that the Serbian government did in fact cause the incitement of the crowds and held back police protection. The link stands. Karajou 22:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

So be it. It's war then! --JohnStuartMill 22:19, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Rather not have another war begining in the Balkans, or any other war for that matter. World War I began right there. Karajou 23:23, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Well sir, only for now shall I put my trusty Mosin-Nagant back under the stairs. But one false move from them and its goodnight Irene for those Slavic so-and-sos.

Oh, and I see that someone fixed it anyway. --JohnStuartMill 01:10, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I came across this article, about a study which compared the attitudes and morality of conservative and liberal teenagers. It's available here (I don't know how to make links) never mind, apparently they appear automatically - http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10717915

I found it very interesting. Perhaps it could be mentioned on the main page? Eoinc 13:36, 22 February 2008 (EST)

The research contains a serious flaw: see the conclusions drawn. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:43, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Notice the bit that describes Conservative as collectivism and conformity, making it sound like Communism. Whereas Liberal is described as individualism and confrontation making it sound like the American dream of the opportunity and freedom that allows all citizens to achieve their goals in life through hard work and determination alone. Confronting all those who wish to hinder it. It was also done by evolutionists so God's input was ignored. FredFirestone 14:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Liberals favor a collective government, while any (good) conservative would favor an individualistic society. For example, take a look at the United States and the liberals' health care plan. This is clearly an attempt at socialism and a collective government where everyone can "feel good" about themselves, while the conservatives oppose it in favor of fair and equal capitalism. Any study that states the left is "individualistic" is seriously flawed and should not be posted. We do not want to misinform the reader, who come to this site to get the truth. Wahrheit (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2008 (EST)

This news story about liberal and conservative teenagers has a misleading title on the main page. It suggests that it's a simple study in stress levels when its really about morals, and how Harvard inadvertently discovered the soul. It really turned out too be much more interesting than I thought it would be. --Steve 17:50, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Headlines have to be concise. It looks like it served its purpose in interesting you to read further! If you have an alternative suggestion that is concise, informative and just as interesting, let's put that up instead.--Aschlafly 17:54, 22 February 2008 (EST)

On second thought, it is a pretty enticing headline already! Challenging me to think of my own concise headline was something i didn't expect.  :-) --Steve 17:58, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for asking anyway! Hey, nice addition to the Good Thief!--Aschlafly 18:17, 22 February 2008 (EST)

What is the relevance of the origin of the driver? Does Conservapedia report all road accidents? This is just a tawdry piece of xenophobia. Sawneybeane 08:20, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Excuse me, Sawneybeane, but individuals illegally in the United States are a problem, and various state governments are ignoring it. Your argument is not with us for reporting it, but with the families of those who died in this bus crash...and I remind you, they would still be alive if a certain driver was not in this country illegally. Karajou 12:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Would a legal immigrant or a citizen of this country not have run the stop sign, Karajou? Are illegal immigrants the only ones who get in car crashes? Her being an illegal immigrant is only tangentially related to the article. The thrust of the article should be that there was a car accident. Her status is fairly irrelevant unless you can draw me a causation between being an illegal immigrant and auto accidents. Or show me specifically in this case how her being an illegal immigrant as opposed to a legal immigrant, led to the car crash as opposed to just a case of bad driving. Short of that causation, it becomes just another horrible tragedy, but no more so than the thousands of auto accidents that occur (though not reported on CP) each year.--Jdellaro 12:33, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Are you excusing her immigration status? She had no right to be in this country; she had no right to drive a vehicle in this country; she had no right to run that stop sign; she had no right to kill those kids. Her immigration status is an issue now, and so is this story here. The bottom line is this: if she came here legally; if her status was not ignored by state government, the left, and anyone else who let's illegals get away with it, then those kids would still be alive. If you got a problem with that story here, contact the families of those dead children first. Karajou 13:21, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Karajou, don't come here with your emotional hysterics. "Contact the families of those dead children first." Do you want to have an adult discussion or hurl irrational remarks at one another? Because I have no time for the latter. Nobody has any right to run a stop sign or to kill kids. But, follow me now, her immigration status HAS NO CAUSATION TO HER RUNNING THE STOP SIGN. Would you state "A gay man ran a stop sign today and killed eighteen kids on a bus," and follow it with, "If he wasn't gay he wouldn't have killed those eighteen kids!"? Or would you recognize that him being gay or not had no bearing on the kids being killed?

Will you guarantee me that everytime someone crashes into a school bus that it's going to be posted here? Because if you don't, then you should contact the families of all the children killed in those school bus crashes first. Explain to THEM why their kids don't count because they were killed by citizens running a stop sign and not an illegal immigrant doing it. Are one set of kids worth reporting on and enough kids to fill a school not worth reporting on? Hmmm...I guess I can play the hysterics games too. --Jdellaro 13:49, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Might it have something to do with the driver, being illegally in the country, hasn't gone through the normal checks, such as making sure they know the road rules, know how to drive a bus, etc., and are therefore a greater risk than someone born in the U.S., naturalised, or otherwise there legally? Philip J. Rayment 16:43, 23 February 2008 (EST)

One would think that it would be a good idea for bus companies to check that their employees can drive before setting them off. Indeed they do, so, Philip, your attempt to excuse this treatment, although admirable, doesn't really cut it.--JOwen

Perhaps my assessment was off (although TerryH's post below suggests otherwise), because I was making some assumptions based on they way I believe things are done in Australia. I would not expect a bus company to "check that their employees can drive". Rather I would expect them to check that the employee holds an appropriate licence. And I would expect that in order to get that licence, they would have to prove their identity, which would have shown up that they were an illegal immigrant. So if they were driving the bus, either the company didn't check, or in order to avoid the identity check, they had forged their identity or the licence itself. Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, we've been assuming that the illegal alien was the same as the school bus driver. In fact, she was driving a regular vehicle--and driving without a proper license. She was also using an assumed name.

Now here in the State of New Jersey, an illegal immigrant probably couldn't get a driver's license. A motorist needs to prove citizenship (with a passport or a birth certificate), identity, and address in order to get a license. But that's not the case in many other States. Licenses can also be forged (though again, in New Jersey, that would be extremely difficult).

The problem is that we have an awful lot of people driving on our streets and highways, who have no business driving, and whose contempt for the law, as demonstrated by illegally crossing a US border, contributes to their being behind the wheel of an automobile when they shouldn't be.--TerryH^Talk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I believe the point of this is that the driver of the car who wrecked the bus should not have been in this country. Had she not been here, there would have been no accident this time. We can't avoid every accident, we can't stop death every time, but we could have stopped this instance. That's why her status has everything to do with it. CMacloud 22:53, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The counter-point to that, as has already been stated, is that the fact the driver was an illegal immigrant is actually irrelevant to the crash. There is nothing to say that, if that driver had been caught at the border, and turned back, the crash would have failed to happen. It may have still happened - but with a legal immigrant, or even a born and bred American at the wheel of the van. It has already been stated that her illegal status has 'something to do with the driver, being illegally in the country, hasn't gone through the normal checks, such as making sure they know the road rules, know how to drive a bus, etc., and are therefore a greater risk than someone born in the U.S., naturalised, or otherwise there legally', and that, 'the problem is that we have an awful lot of people driving on our streets and highways, who have no business driving, and whose contempt for the law, as demonstrated by illegally crossing a US border, contributes to their being behind the wheel of an automobile when they shouldn't be'. Unfortunately, this argument only really holds water if you can absolutely guarantee that no-one 'born in the U.S., naturalised, or otherwise there legally' will ever get behind the wheel of an automobile when they shouldn't be, or that they'll ever cause a crash by failing to stop at a stop sign, which I can't really see how you can. This is not to say that illegal immigrants should be here, but trying to somehow connect this fact with the cause of the crash is clutching at straws. Urushnor 08:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

You seem to be implicitly accepting that an illegal immigrant is a greater risk than others, but dismissing this because the others are still some risk. Is that correct? Because it if is, I can't see the logic. Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Very well said, Philip!--Aschlafly 09:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I am somewhat amazed by what you've said there, as I was more or less making the exact opposite point. I'll see if I can put it even more simply than I did above - the fact this person was an illegal immigrant has ZERO bearing on the causes of the crash. The cause of the crash was seemingly that she jumped a stop sign. Many other people, including legal immigrants and born and bred Americans, also jump stop signs, and cause crashes by doing so. Urushnor 09:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The reason that I said that you "seem to be implicitly accepting that an illegal immigrant is a greater risk than others" is that you said nothing to refute that. If I got it wrong, then your argument seems to be that illegal immigrants are not a greater risk than others because others also have accidents. But that says nothing about the relative likelihood of the two groups to have accidents, so is not addressing the claim at all. Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Well, the main reason I said 'nothing to refute that' is that it's kinda hard to refute evidence that simply isn't supplied. Urushnor 08:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You refute an argument, not evidence. There was an argument there to (potentially) refute, and you didn't do it. Philip J. Rayment 08:57, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Well, I assumed you were referring to evidence, as I did refute your argument (which is, in fact, an unproven assertation) - you said this was down to her being an illegal immigrant, I said that had no bearing on the cause of the crash. In fact, I'm at a loss to name something that my statement did other than refute your argument. Urushnor 20:26, 27 February 2008 (EST)

No, you provided an opposing assertion, but my assertion, which yes, was unproven, was, nevertheless based on reasons that I provided, and which you have not refuted. You did not refute that illegal immigrants would not have gone through the normal checks, and did not refute the logical conclusion that they would therefore be a greater risk. Philip J. Rayment 06:34, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Well, in the absence of evidence, you can't really refute an assertation without more or less simply saying, 'no, you're wrong', which is exactly what I did. Secondly, if you genuinely think I haven't addressed your 'reasons', I suggest you re-read my first statement more carefully than you apparantly have. Maybe this time you'll actually understand it. Urushnor 18:56, 28 February 2008 (EST)

You can refute an assertion based on reasons by demolishing the reasons. Where is the demolition of my point that illegal immigrants would not go through the normal checks? I've reread your post, and can't see it. Or do you accept that point? Where is your demolition of my point that someone who has not gone through the checks is therefore a greater risk than someone who has? Perhaps you did try to demolish that point, by if so your argument amounted to saying that non-illegal immigrants can also cause crashes, which in no way refutes that someone who has not been through checks would be a greater risk. By saying "greater risk", it is implicit that people who have been through such checks are still some risk, so pointing out that people who have been through checks could still cause accidents is not at all contrary to what I said, hence not a refutation. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Still not seen it? Fine, I'll point it out to you - 'Unfortunately, this argument only really holds water if you can absolutely guarantee that no-one 'born in the U.S., naturalised, or otherwise there legally' will ever get behind the wheel of an automobile when they shouldn't be'. You see, if someone who is an illegal immigrant were to apply for the job as a school bus driver (as you were erroneously assuming at the time - the illegal immigrant was, in fact, NOT the bus driver, in case you missed that point), they would be subject to exactly the same checks as anyone else. If they get through these checks that, in itself, is really an indication that the checks themselves are flawed, or simply not being done correctly, or maybe not being done at all. This means that, if someone who is NOT an illegal immigrant were to apply for the same job, but should fail these checks for some other reason, they would be just as likely to pass these checks. Urushnor 19:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)

If you don't like the news articles about illegal immigrants ... too bad. Stay tuned, because you will continue to see stories about how illegals are harming America. --Crocoite 09:58, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Erm, what? I did not say whether or not I 'liked' the article, I reiterated the point someone else made that the driver's status as an illegal immigrant had nothing to do with the cause of the crash, as CMacloud seemed to have missed it. As such, this article utterly fails to demonstrate 'how illegals are harming America', as you seem to imply. It demonstrates how bad drivers can kill people. Urushnor 11:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Illegal alien with no driver's license. Pretty much is a no-brainer, liberals. Let's spell it out, shall we? Illegal alien = no driver's license = no formal driver's training = ignorance of our driving laws = accident waiting to happen. No doubt there are more illegal aliens on the road who also do not have driver's licenses. The cold, hard, undeniable facts are that (1) she shouldn't have have been on the road, (2) she shouldn't have even been in the country in the first place and (3) those kids died needlessly. Jinxmchue 13:18, 2 March 2008 (EST)

That's going a bit too far. Just because they haven't been through the driver testing process in America doesn't mean that they've had no driver training. They might well have, in their home country. But that doesn't mean that they are conversant with America's road rules, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the training they have had is to the standard expected in America. Philip J. Rayment 19:06, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Moved discussion to Talk:Obama on rifles on February 25, 2008. --Crocoite 10:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Anyone catch Mike Huckabee (yes, really him) on Weekend Update last night? The dude can laugh at himself, I'll give you that. Maestro 20:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

A 15 year old Florida boy shot dead by a classmate for not conforming to peer pressure. Here is the link - it would make a sad but telling front pager. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/25/wteen125.xmlDukeAra 17:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Peer pressure? I would think this would be a perfect example of hate crime.--Jdellaro 17:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

But clearly getting sent home for wearing jewellery is far worse. DukeAra 17:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The only in-depth story says it was the victim who had been doing the teasing. [6] But I don't expect the facts to matter to those who want to exploit this tragedy to push the gay agenda.--Aschlafly 18:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)

"Hailey Day, 13, said she regularly heard Brandon calling Larry derogatory names the week before the shooting. She would tell him to stop, and Brandon would walk away."

The article says that the victim, was in fact the one being teased. Aschlafly, it looks like you didn't read the entire article (and I don't blame you, it was quite long). And who is exactly "exploiting" a gay agenda? The facts in the case, albeit, mostly drawn from school gossip, indicate that his death was a result of his sexuality and one boy's (Brandon) inability to deal with children thinking he himself was gay.--Claypool 20:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)

You omitted the more relevant facts that occurred in closer proximity to the shooting: "Eduardo Segure, an eighth-grader, said he saw Larry looking at Brandon the day before the shooting and saying he liked him. Brandon turned to Larry and told him to "F--- off" before walking away. At lunchtime that day, Hailey said, Larry went up to a table where Brandon was eating and asked to sit down. Brandon and his friends ran away, mocking Larry as they left." [7] It appears that, tragically, Larry went out of his way to provoke Brandon.--Aschlafly 21:00, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Oooh, yeah--the dead kid looked at the killer, said he liked him, asked if he could sit down! Why, he was positively begging to be murdered, wasn't he?--RossC 21:20, 25 February 2008 (EST)

You revert to sarcasm when the facts are not what you would like. Notice how the liberal accounts of this tragedy omit the key facts about the victim having harassed and provoked the accused.--Aschlafly 21:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

This is one of the most disgusting things I have EVER seen written on this "encyclopedia". Are you HONESTLY try to say that sitting down at a table, and saying you like someone is "harassment" and "provocation" in a MURDER? It looks awfully like you are trying to shift blame from the murderer to the victim who dared to look at someone and then have the disgusting nerve to sit down at a lunch table.

I'm not sure there's really anything the boy could have done to deserve being murdered, gay or not. HelpJazz 21:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)

That doesn't excuse people lying about what actually happened and omitting key facts.--Aschlafly 21:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Andy, I readily admit that the victim may have teased his eventual killer somewhat in retaliation for the teasing he received. I was a fat kid in Jr High and High School and was teased often, but sometimes I would tease back out of sheer frustration. Did I deserve to be shot for teasing back? SSchultz 22:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, your analogy doesn't fit, and it misses the point anyway: why are liberal accounts lying about the facts?--Aschlafly 22:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

How exactly was Brandon provoked? By a kid that he did not like sitting near him? By a "gay" kid telling him that he liked him? This is a reasonable provocation to murder? What key facts are omitted from the narrative that could possibly mitigate the heinousness of this crime - a crime as heinous as any other school shooting? Aboganza 23:15, 25 February 2008 (EST)

How does my analogy not fit? I was fat, he was gay. One could argue that I chose to be fat and he chose to be gay, or that I was born with fat genes and he was born with gay genes. Both of us were apparantly unpopular and were teased, and both of us occasionally antagonized our tormentors (in my case out of frustration from being teased). Did I deserve to be shot for teasing back? If your answer is no, then you must admit that the victim in this case didn't deserve to be shot either, and the question of him teasing his tormentors back becomes a moot point.

Incidentally, it seems a rather harsh judgment to say that liberals are lying about the facts. The facts are only just coming out and so liberals may not be fully aware of the facts. Moreover, the fact that the victim may have teased his tormentors in retaliation in no way gives the other child the right to shoot him. Perhaps if the gay child had been carrying a gun then he could have shot his tormentor first. Would you agree, Andy? SSchultz 23:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The students in the article were suspended because the principal saw their crucifixes as gang symbols and, when asked to remove them, the students refused. Seeing as, according to the police, crucifixes had been used as gang symbols, this appears to be a reasonable course of action to protect students from gang activity and not an attempt to push a religious agenda. Blinkadyblink 00:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Using Conservative Logic, they obviously harrassed and provoked the school administration into suspending them by wearing crucifixes.. Why are you lying about the facts?--KimSell 06:20, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Since when are opinions on blogs newsworthy? I know you agree ideologically with the points, but is it really newsworthy?

Articles exposing liberal views are welcome here and they don't need to come from the mainstream media. We believe in freedom of speech by conservatives and sometimes the blogs have articles which expose liberals and link nicely to our articles on Conservapedia. --Crocoite 13:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

But they're not breaking news. You should consider changing the label to 'News and Views' or something like that. DukeAra 13:51, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Very well put, Crocoite. What's the real problem here: that liberals don't like how the "American Thinker" criticizes Barack Obama? I don't know anything about the publication, but see that it is critical of Obama's views on Israel.

As to DukeAra's comments, "Breaking News" is "breaking" in the sense that readers are probably not fully aware of it. Even the liberal New York Times publishes as "news" stories that it has held on its shelf for many months.--Aschlafly 14:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I appreciate that but still see a difference between 'news' and 'views'. DukeAra 14:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Here's a really interesting study you might consider for Recent News - a study published today by the Public Policy Institute of California about crime rates of immigrants in California vs. those of native-born Americans. It seems that, in California, American-born men have an incarceration rate ten times that of foreign-born men, among many other statistics in an excellent study that seems to unreservedly puncture the notion that hordes of immigrants are criminalising American society. There's great depth to their research that can't be glossed over here, so I advise a scan. Very interesting indeed! Misterlinx 13:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

What an interesting article! It certainly does destroy the stereotype of the criminals surging across the border. Maestro 21:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Is being in this country illegally a crime or not? Karajou 23:44, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, what has that got to do with anything? This study, if you looked at it, had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It simply compares incarceration rates, arrest rates, and general crime rates between foreign-born and American-born individuals. In all cases American-born individuals have a far higher offending rate than immigrants. For example, the highest-educated group of American-born individuals has a higher offending rate than the lowest-educational standard group of foreign-born individuals. It also points out that the cities in California with the biggest decline in crime rates are the cities with the highest rates of immigrant population growth. Have a look at the study, it's very interesting indeed and shatters a considerable number of preconceptions. Finally, since you asked a question, yes, being in any country without the proper papers is illegal. Misterlinx 12:30, 27 February 2008 (EST)

The report waters it down to just "immigrants," as if there is no difference between a legal and illegal immigrant. Where's the evidence from this report detailing a difference between the two in crime rates? What's the percentage of U.S. citizens comiting crimes vs. legal immigrants commiting crimes vs. illegal imigrants commiting crimes (besides these people breaking through our borders)? Karajou 13:48, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Actually no, they go into this matter in great detail - I recommend you read the report. The report points out that "California prisons contain 30 percent of all noncitizen inmates in state prisons nationwide". There is an entire section dealing with this issue on Page 12 - "Noncitizens". It discusses the issue in far greater depth than I could synopsise here, and although the Census data does "not reveal the precise immigration status of the foreign-born", it concludes that "However one measures it, Mexican-born men are dramatically underrepresented in California prisons and other institutions." Misterlinx 14:08, 27 February 2008 (EST)

So I understand the Oscars were a ratings disaster - since I don't own a television set, I can't really comment on the show; but it seems to me that the leap from that factoid to America being sick of "Hollywood values" is specious - there are many reasons why people may not have watched the show (high number of foreign films and intelligent films that don't appeal to your typical American NASCAR/WWE/American Idol/Fox Television fan that were nominated; writer's strike adding an on-again off-again feel to the proceedings; the fact that changing entertainment technologies like DVD, internet, WII, etc. are changing viewers' habits...) It seems to me that the shelves full of tabloid magazines at the news stand where I buy the Economist, Atlantic Monthly, New York Review of Books, London Book Review, le Monde Diplomatique, are full of tabloids dedicated to Britney, Paris, and whomever else is the star du jour, and mainstream news outlets seem to have a healthy appetite for their coverage of the same people - and their values. Something about co-relation not implying causality, peut etre? Aboganza 18:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Correlation does often suggestion causation, though the tobacco companies successfully and falsely denied it for decades. Of course it is debatable whether the string of high-profile Hollywood self-inflicted deaths, crimes, 16-year-old pregnancy and generally offensive behavior was a cause of the disinterest in the Academy Awards. But many would agree with our headline that the public has had enough of Hollywood Values. It wouldn't surprise me if movie attendance is also declining, but you can check that out if you're still skeptical.--Aschlafly 18:46, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Correlation does often suggest causation - in statistical probability. Even then, it really requires a track record of the two allegedly related factors showing a like-for-like movement for that correlation to be proven, rather than the two being similar due to coincidence (such as the frequency of lung cancer repeatedly being shown to be lower if the number of people who smoke in any given sample is lower). So far, I haven't seen any statistics actually somehow putting a number to Conservapedia's definition of 'Hollywood Values', then tracking that over past years, and comparing that to Oscars viewing figures for those years.

You've also seemingly missed that the headline states that something you admit is debatable is definitely the case. The solution is quite simple - drop the first part of the headline and stick to the facts, that being, 'The Oscars was a ratings disaster.' Urushnor 20:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The solution is quite simple - leave the headline the way it is. --Crocoite 20:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Why would you leave a headline that even Aschlafly seems to admit is not entirely accurate the way it is? I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia? Aren't encyclopedias supposed to be accurate? Urushnor 20:46, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Great news!!! "2008 Home School Science Fair" I think CP should definitely publicize it, and it would give great recognition to CP if one of the students here won! --Jdellaro 20:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Of course you like it Jdellaro... because I can tell a LIBERAL wrote the article. --Crocoite 20:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I just think a Home School Science Fair would be a great idea for CP, regardless of where the idea came from. --Jdellaro 20:15, 26 February 2008 (EST)

It's been ages since I went to a science fair... our schools never run them anymore. It's certainly neat to hear that homeschoolers are organizing their own, I'm actually a little envious. :p EDIT: I think we could probably find a better, less biased source then that, though... :/ Feebasfactor 20:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

What a totally worthless and moronic article. Bohdan 20:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The article isn't the focus here Bohdan, it's the event which the article reports. Absentismens 20:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Everytime I see Hillary Clinton on the television I want to hurl something. I will not be sad to see her go. MetcalfeM 21:51, 26 February 2008 (EST)

As much a I dislike Hillary, I dislike Obama more, so I actually would like her to win the nomination. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 22:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Its a moot point for me, not being in the US. Something about Hillary makes me want to cringe. Something about the way she looks......hmmmmmm Anyway, we have an election here in NZ soon. I am looking forward to mulling over my options MetcalfeM 22:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, disliking a candidate based on their looks. Good thing Lincoln's not running now, he'd never stand a chance. Maestro 23:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I'd vote for a guy with a big beard. (and Lincoln didn't grow his beard until after he was president.)--Steve 23:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

He grew it during the campaign at the suggestion of a little girl. [8] Maestro 18:51, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You can tell a lot by looks. Watch their eyes. MetcalfeM 15:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Like how Dick Cheney NEVER blinks? Maestro 18:51, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Shifty old Cheney eh? I have never trusted that guy. Also Rumsfeld, he is always got a squint going on. Very shifty. MetcalfeM 18:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)