Talk:Main Page/archive76

Please don't marginalize the killing of a soldier and wounding of another by using the story as a vehicle for cheap, unsupported potshots at others. It is in poor taste, to say the least, and isn't it exactly the kind of behavior you accuse others of doing (e.g. Liberal style #15)? Kallium 21:30, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

You've got it backwards. Liberals are the ones marginalizing this murder, and if you're a liberal then you might explain why.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

What is the basis for the claim that liberals are marginalizing the murder? Neither of the news articles linked to on the main page appear to say anything to suggest that the murder is being marginalized. --TommyAtkins 22:42, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

The silence by liberals about it is deafening, and only Fox News reported on the likely motivation for this heinous crime against volunteers.--Andy Schlafly 22:47, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

CNN reported it. The AP reported it. (And by the way, see Liberal style #8.) Kallium 23:06, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

As a Canadian, I'm not sure which US media sources are classed as 'liberal', so I'm using Liberal media as a source. The media groups listed there have a mixed record on coverage; I checked their websites, and right now CBS, the New York Times, and ABC have articles on the attack, while I couldn't find one for NBC or the LA Times. The Washington Post appears to require registration to view some sections of their website, so I don't know if they're covering the story; the BBC and the Guardian have no coverage, which is unsurprising as they are British media sources and thus not on the cutting edge of news on this side of the pond. While it is somewhat surprising that some of these sites don't appear to have an article, this is hardly a "deafening" silence. Nor is Fox News the only source reporting on the motivation: the NY Times and ABC are both also reporting that the attacks were targetted at the military. Furthermore, I am mystified by one question: what motivation would any liberal have for wanting to marginalize the death of a serviceman? --TommyAtkins 23:22, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

That's my point- you haven't demonstrated that it is being marginalized by others. However, turning a murder into a cheap partisan potshot is inherently so. It would be more appropriate and respectful to express condolences for the soldier's family rather than asserting "Soldier murdered -> Liberals are bad". I'm not suggesting the item should be removed, just revised so as not to be quite so petty. Kallium 22:59, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

I have demonstrated it, and this is not a "petty" point. It is a very important and respectful observation, and you're not going to censor it with your disingenuous argument.--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

You asserted, you did not provide evidence. How am I being disingenuous? Kallium 23:08, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

As conservatives, Kallium, we don't need to prove the obvious. Google both for news stories, and watch the evening news, where the killing of the soldier plays second-fiddle, except on Fox News. It is patently inhuman of you to suggest the stories are being treated equally. I would expect such a silly conclusion from TommyAtkins, who is from liberal Canada, where the government run schools have brainwashed their charges well. Godspeed to both of you...find somewhere else to disrupt. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:22, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Wait, isn't it, as stated above and many times on this site, that the burden of proof is on the claimant? No political view should exempt one from this rule. Remember, that before Christopher Columbus or Galileo, it was 'obvious' that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

As for the news story itself, nearly every major news company aired the story multiple times on their networks. The reason why Fox 'reported' the likely reason for the attack, not the reason as discovered by police officials, is beyond me. Most news sources would wait for an official release from the investigation before making such a judgment. He could have been a Soldier suffering PTSD. He could have been a left-wing extremist who wanted to stop the Army from recruiting Soldiers. He could have been a right-wing extremist against the government's stance on gay rights or abortion. Until the experts are finished, however, I doubt we'll really know what was going on inside this man's mind when he committed this heinous act. -- CodyH 08:57, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Cody, you've repeated the liberal canard that people believed the earth was flat until "Columbus or Galileo" demonstrated otherwise. That misconception is encouraged by the public schools and you've fallen for it. Your statement and view are utterly false.

From that nonsensical premise, it is not surprising that that you make absurd statements about the reporting of a current event, trying to deny the obvious. You're not fooling anyone here, that's for sure. Try a liberal blog, where you'll fare better.--Andy Schlafly 09:08, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

How is the statement that many news companies [Including CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, mainly because of the AP release] reported the story absurd? It happened, they reported on it, how can that be absurd? What I found absurd is that Fox News 'reported' his motivations, when no one else, not even the police in charge of investigating the incident, had given any such information. They can speculate, but how do they know?

If you don't prefer the Columbus analogy, then how about spontaneous generation? To many it was obvious that life could come from non-life, before the experiments of Redi and Pasteur denounced that. What the analogy serves to show is that nothing, without proper evidence, is 'obvious'. And Galileo was credited for refuting the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I stated their credited discoveries in order, bit I may have confused some readers. -- CodyH 09:46, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Cody, Copernicus discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun, long before Galileo. Do yourself a favor and admit that much of what you think you've learned (from public school) is false. Take our World History Final Exam and then learn the truth. And please learn her by contributing to encyclopedic entries, rather than simply ranting and awaiting a response.--Andy Schlafly 12:26, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

The name Doherty is misspelled. It should be noted that he won the nomination for a "state" senate seat. The article doesn't say that and I think a lot of people would assume it was a federal senate seat.

The Lonegan portion of the article sort of makes it sound like he won some sort of victory when in fact he lost. Even if he did "better than expected" he "only" had 40% of the vote. In reality he was whooped pretty badly. MikeAndrews 09:21, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

• The spelling comes from the news item. In reality, tell me, Mike, why do you bother to troll? Surely you cannot possible think people are so misinformed as to assume what you think they do....if so, it is yet another proof of liberal elitism. Your "contributions" here, by the way, seem to be slim, and your posts nothing but talk, talk, talk. Maybe the mob ruled Wikipedia would be a better fit for you..... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:06, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

By mentioning President Obama in the Tiananmen Square newsfeed, are you trying to imply he's supportive of all the mass murders by dictators on their countrymen? MikeyK 18:41, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

By asking that, are you saying people from the United Kingdom only sign up to CP to troll? How could a thinking person actually ask that question if not coming from bad faith? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Would you be able to give a reference for the 262 million people dying due to governmental causes? A quick calculation would estimate there were between 10 and 20 billion people alive at any point in the 20th century which would assume that between 1 in 40 and 1 in 80 people "were murdered by their own government" so a reference would be useful. Joldy 20:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

LOL! So another UK troll, from Oxford no less, signs up to ask. Shame on you for not knowing, attending as you are one of the world's greatest universities!

Joldy, a person with even a poor education, should off the top of their heads, name Mao, Stalin and Hitler as major contributors to that number. There was also a major genocide in Turkey, was there not? Several in Africa? Idi Amin ring a bell for you?

Our news items are not encyclopedic articles, as stated many places, but are intended to present news items the liberal MSM fails to present. I suggest you check the original news source, or Google. Or, better yet, ask one of the learned Oxford professors. Godspeed to you, and try to open your mind....the truth will set even you free! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:12, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Mao, Stalin, and Hitler aside, TK, I think Joldy just wanted to know where you got that figure. It's a very powerful figure, and I too would like to know where you got it for future reference. On another note, Joldy, I think your math's wrong. The world population during the 20th century was consistently under 10 billion (It's around six billion now). BlueMoon 16:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Aside? Talk about bringing back an oldie, BlueMoon...nothing like a twenty day delay in adding a reply! The current estimated population of Earth is currently 6,766,879,730 so 7 billion by the end of the month, give or take 100K. The U.S. population is 306,751,458. That is

• One birth every.................................. 7 seconds
• One death every.................................. 13 seconds
• One international migrant legal and illegal every 35 seconds
• Net gain of one person every..................... 11 seconds

Dictators/Genocide references, all low, IMO: [1], It looks like a tie between Mao and Stalin with Mao the probable biggest killer.and [2]
--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:25, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if someone might like to add a news item about the current UK political situation? The (historically left-wing) Labour party is imploding, while the Conservative party is making large gains in local elections. 'Conservative' in the UK doesn't mean exactly what it does in the US, but it might still interest your readers. See BBC News for detailed coverage.--CPalmer 11:31, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

agreed --Jpatt 11:56, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Saying the Labour Party's "dissolved" is too much of a misnomer, as technically it hasn't. Can you not change it to something like "falling apart"? MikeyK 12:06, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Sorry if I'm misreading, but isn't $400k in debt not bad when you have $1.2mil in assets, particularly when you include the mortgage as part of the debt? Thanks for any insights.--HaroldTurner 13:38, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

I think the main point that the main page failed to highlight is that she only has around $31k in the bank; combined with her $200k income, this makes her living from paycheck to paycheck. Obviously, without further information on the liquidity of her assets and the nature of her debts (how much is mortgage, how much in credit card debt?), we won't know the full extent of her financial situation. ATang 14:03, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

This is some further information from a Nasdaq.com article:

"The federal appeals court judge owns no stocks. She lists total assets worth $ 1.16 million, of which $1.02 million comes from property. She has $32,000 in cash, and other personal property worth $109,000.

The disclosure lists $418,000 of liabilities, including around $16,000 in credit-card debt and an estimated $15,000 in unpaid dentist bills. She has $318, 000 outstanding on the mortgage of her primary residence, and derives a small income from a condominium in which she owns a one-third interest."

This hardly seems like a person that is in bad financial shape. I suppose that you could argue the she has too much of her assets tied up in the house. Most financial advisors would be against it but many successful people do it. Also most advisors would recommend having more liquid assets but that is mostly to get by on in case you are unemployed for an extended period of time. It seems like she has a pretty steady job and will have one as long as she wants. Probably has great retirement and health care benefits too. MikeAndrews 14:31, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Assets do not include the amount she owes on her house, and the valuation on the house was taken before the economic downturn. They call this being "house poor". For a person of her income level, she is way over-leveraged, and it goes to her judgment, especially when she is a judge! I didn't make the observation for the news item, which is just that, a news item, presented on CP because the MSM usually fails to cover such things. Any financial planner will say $16,000 in credit card debt, carried over month to month, is irresponsible and living beyond one's means. The Dentist bills are essentially being treated by her the same as a credit card balance as well. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

I am a CPA and a financial planner. Her finances are not bad at all, but that's just my professional opinion. That doesn't mean that she's not a racist, though. --Wikidan81 12:38, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Hello, new Conservapedia soldier and humble servant here. Was browsing the news section, came across an item that's changed in the last couple days. The article about the Tiennaman massacre refers to "This iconic photo", but the photo seems to have been removed. Can we get a fix on this? GregP 23:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

It's fixed, and thank you for noting it. The photo it referred to was the one of the lone Chinese student facing down the column of tanks. We were not sure who owned the rights to it, so it had to be removed. Karajou 23:03, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Alright, thanks for the fix. Also, this might be a little off-topic I've seen a lot of edits tagged with your screen-name, and another one with TK. I know the site operators screen name is ASclafly. Are there any other arbiter-type editors on here who can tell me what articles need fixed or created? I have a big interest in exposing a lot of the stuff about the homoliberal agenda for this country, but I don't know where I'd start on this stuff! any help would be really useful. GregP 23:18, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

I look forward to your insights. You have over 30,000 entries from which to choose. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 00:23, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

GregP, take a look here: Wanted pages. Not all are really wanted, but most are, such as U. S. Steel, Puzzle, Haley Barbour, Harold Stassen or Henry Cabot Lodge, I saw at a quick glance. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:19, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

How do I edit the news paper on the right side of the front page? There is a true embarrassment mistake about recent EU elections I would like to correct but this page I am not able to edit! -- Rafi

Please explain your concern here. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 13:35, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

The item about the Euro elections, Andy, from euractiv.com news, had the headline about Conservatives winning big in the EU elections. Problem is, their entry for Greece showed that the (PASOK) socialists actually won (contrary to the other countries) more votes than the right-of-center governing party. I removed the offending entry, which was of great concern to some vandals. Of course given the upside down nature of Euro politics, they actually might be more conservative, as we define it here in the U.S., than what they label right-of-center! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Didn't Obama call off the war on terror? Or at least he renamed it. I think that the featured article should reflect that. --CJHallock 16:14, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, he christened it the "Overseas Contingency Operation". Yes, yes; very inspiring to our troops, I'm sure. Regardless of the name, it still remains the War on Terror, and I don't think the article should validate the whitewash (or black wash?) job. It's basically a term invented so liberals can keep their "integrity" intact, since their not "making war", they're just "utilizing a contingency". I'm sure it works better than Colbert and warm milk at helping them sleep easy. We don't need children getting cross-chatter when studying the Terror War. GregP 19:00, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

My thought was that there is a conflict in words used, someone should explain that. Thy will not be explaining it on in to the future, so we should. Otherwise we are likely to be confusing people while we should be informing them. --CJHallock 23:08, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

A minor misunderstanding. Your original post seemed to propose changing the name of the article. I've read the article as it stands now, and I think explaining the name-change is an OK change, but it should be made clear that the war remains, as it has remained the entire time, the War On Terror. The only tangible difference being that the war now has misguided leadership. GregP 16:29, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

We are conservatives here. There won't be any liberal revisionism or obfuscation allowed here. The Obama Administration, changing how we describe the War on Terror is reminiscent of President Clinton's parsing of the word "is". Liberals are good at that. Kids show learn that it is indeed a war, and one we must win or parish. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:13, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

It wouldn't suprise me if CJHallock still refers to the Korean War and Vietnam War as police actions.  :) conservative 01:48, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Given that this involves American reporters and a country generally branded as rogue and anti-American I find it strange that there is no mention of it in the In the News section. WallaceS 17:58, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

• I agree, BHarlan. I thought I had added it. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:17, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I do not believe you have as it has yet to appear. And I am not BHarlan. -WallaceS 22:21, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I do believe Al Gore has initiated his own, personal diplomatic efforts in regard to the two left wing "journalists", who are in his emply, so I don't want to undermine his efforts. Sorry about the name slip. I must have been reading something else. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:25, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I was in Alaska when "Trooper gate" hit, and it was long before anyone was tossing around Palin's name as a VP. The news makes it seem like it was manufactured for the purpose of hurting her in the polls. --CJHallock 12:28, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

• While the actual allegations were probably not the product of the Left-wing MSM, and more likely just some lone-wolf muckraker (or muck-maker?) attempting to derail a high-profile Republican, the seriousness of the issue and the gravity of the situation were entirely imposed after-the-fact as part of the smear campaign. I've read the news item several times, trying to see it your way, but I'm just not seeing it as anything other than factual. If you have any other ideas, feel free to post them on my talk page! GregP 17:40, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Response on GregP talk page --CJHallock 20:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

The "ethics charges" also included campaign-oriented ones, like her clothing allowance from the RNC. Trooper Gate was fueled by both parties, and especially by Republicans who were angry with Palin over her elbowing aside the more entrenched politicos in the legislature, unseating a sitting Governor of her own party, etc. Once she was chosen as McCain's running mate...the Democrats and radical left made hay out of distorting the original issues, and the local Dems had little choice but to go along with the DNC and Obama campaign. The MSM, being in the tank for Obama, were more than happy to repeat and showcase innuendo and half-truths. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:15, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Three months ago creation.com was a redirect to creationpodcast.com, so comparing their traffic then to their traffic now is a little less than illuminating. How does one get to edit the news? --CJHallock 12:35, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Your complaint seems nitpicky. Offhand, I don't know the answer and you Could ask User:Conservative.

The bigger question may be this: does it bother you that most people reject the theory of evolution?--Andy Schlafly 12:54, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I am not an evolutionist. I know that it was a redirect because all of my links to articles on the old site stopped working. Thats like comparing the amount of time someone spends surfing conservapedia when the server is down to the amount of time someone spends surfing conservapedia when its up and running. Traffic has gone up considerably, but not 880% --CJHallock 13:08, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

How about the link? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/creation.com. Creation.com goes to CMI website. Alexa says that the traffic went up 880%. Unless Alexa is wrong, this is indeed the increase. AddisonDM 13:11, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Also to Andy, just to clarify your "most people reject the theory of evolution": Only about 40% of Americans are creationists. 90% percent reject naturalistic evolution, but then about 60% accept evolution as a creative plan of God. AddisonDM 13:14, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

It was a different website 3 months ago, It was empty, bereft of all content, people only stumbled on it accidentally. [3] It had been that way for a year. --CJHallock 13:42, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

• Had he picked today to write the news story it would have been up 1300% from 3 months ago. It's bad data and misleading --CJHallock 14:32, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

No, it would be up 880%. The Alexa link that says that is from today. Also, how would you represent the CMI stats? Now I'm confused :) AddisonDM 14:49, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

(undent) Go look right now (be sure to refresh to clear your cache) I just did and pageviews are up 1300% over three months ago. I think that the total number of people visiting (as shown by quantcast) would be a better measure, 25.7 K a month, up from 0.1 K 4 months ago. --CJHallock 14:56, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

But if you're saying that creation.com was not always CMI, then number of viewers will be misleading too, no? AddisonDM 15:35, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

.1 K/month is practically zero. In any and all cases total number is less misleadings than relative change. If you think that the news item shouldn't be up at all you are entitled to your opinion but I don't have to agree with you. As it stands the wording is misleading, thats all. --CJHallock 15:51, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

CJHallock, before you create tempest in teapots, you should do more fact checking and be less exuberant in your accusations. First, the main URL for Creation Ministries International (CMI) used to be creationontheweb.com but is now creation.com as can be seen here: http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Creation_Ministries_International&diff=176457&oldid=150678 CMI used to have low web traffic. With the release of their new movie, switching to a better domain name, and the nicer looking website, the web traffic for CMI has zoomed upward. I have heard from a former Australian Conservapedian Sysop named Philip Rayment (The parent organisation of CMI is the Australian ministry) that their new movie probably has created an upsurge in interest for Creation Ministries International. As far as your creationpodcast.com claim, you really haven't shown this claim to be true or significant. For example, was creationpodcast.com just some very temporary site while they were going through the transition change? I really don't know and you haven't told me much about this URL. Lastly, if you had done even a small amount of research like I just did (which took only a few minutes) before dishing out your accusation faster than a short order cook, you would have seen that the domain change occurred in February of 2009 as can be seen here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=70436181277 and here http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Creation_Ministries_International&diff=176457&oldid=150678 Now please pester someone else with your half baked accusations of being misleading. conservative 01:14, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I know that it is quite common for people to hate to admit mistakes. I think such an attitude is counter productive. I have been reminded by a friend of mine that Alexa data is not the most reliable. So I have decided to retract the Alexa post, although I will state that Alexa, Compete, and Quantcast all show significant upward recent trends in CMI traffic. conservative 02:43, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Should there be a news posting about the shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC? It seems like a pretty important story. - Cjohnston

I heard the guy who did it was an atheist. ConservativeCanuck 15:28, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I haven't heard anything about him being an atheist. But he was a white supremacist and holocaust denier. -Cjohnston

I wonder if "Barack Care" will pay for it? If people "feel" they are not the sex they were born as, doesn't it follow they are entitled to undo God's mistake, and have the government pay for it? (This is of course sarcasm aimed at the lunatic liberals out there.) --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:56, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure how this story represents 'hollywood values.' Countless people from all walks of life undergo sex reassingment. Could someone clarify this connection. Thanks. - Cjohnston.

Here's some excellent news from which I hope the rest of the world learns - President Obama will sign into law a bill regulating tobacco sales. Of course the lying tobacco executives are whining about "First Amendment Rights"", a total distraction from the issue at hand, which is the lethality of tobacco. May the battle against tobacco continue! TadghOB 13:14, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

• Although smoking tobacco is indeed problematic, it isn't something the Federal Government should be involved in anymore than it should be regulating sugar in its many forms, including molasses or corn syrup. If adults, fully informed as they are now, choose to smoke, the government doesn't have the right (actually) to tell them "no" regardless of the intent. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:32, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

I totally disagree. There's a huge difference between these - eating sugar or corn syrup, while it may be injurious to your teeth, possibly cause obesity, and isn't perhaps a really good thing for your diet, is in no way dangerous to you or others. Smoking causes cancer and heart disease, the connection is clear and long-established, no matter for how long the tobacco industry lied and manipulated the data. Not only this, but eating sugar has no effect whatsoever on the person sitting beside you - unlike tobacco consumption, where secondhand smoke is a well-established danger. As a result of these two factors there is a direct public interest in strict government control on the habit - deaths and ill health caused by smoking have a direct effect on the public purse through the increased load on the health system, and then there's a societal, ethical and health issue of your habit having deleterious effects on the health of those around you. The government very much has the right to tell people "no", and I believe smoking should be much more strictly regulated than it is at present. Who else is going to do it? TadghOB 07:30, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

The issues regarding tobacco use and poor diet are entirely linked, TadghOB. A person has the right, and, since this is a Western nation where such things are abundant, the opportunity to choose what they want to intake. Heart disease, reduced athleticism, frequent illness: Yes, these things pose a problem for a society as a whole, no matter what terms we're speaking in. Social progress? Yep. Productivity? Yep. Public health? Yep. So why are these symptoms *not* problems when they're experienced by fat people, or sickly people, but they're the scourge of a nation when the people happen to smoke? Why do you disregard the "splash-effect" damage to society done by any number of other pollutants? Individuals making up THEIR OWN MINDS, using their OWN MONEY to purchase a product, and then to USE that product however they see fit is something we should value in this country. The government launching broadsides against a crop that the country was built on? Now that IS sickening. GregP 17:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Two points, Greg P. #1 - The tobacco companies - and more recently the financial companies - have lied to the public for a very long time, and have only been able to because of a lack of very tight regulation of their markets. Between the 1940's and 1960's, tobacco companies lied to the public and even got the AMA to help them cover up the fact that smoking causes cancer. Denying the link to cancer is futile - not only for those who smoke, but for those around them. And no-one ever died from living with someone who drank too much Cola, or working with someone who ate too many burgers. #2 - I never suggested that poor eating habits aren't a problem - they are. In fact, I'd like to see the food industry regulated much more heavily - processed food consumption is costing society trillions, and making countless lives miserable. TadghOB 19:57, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

So your problem is that they're lying? How much regulation does it take to make a person honest? How much rubber-stamped paperwork is required to smother deceit? The thing is, that for people like you who think that all "bad behavior" (like having a smoke after work or eating potato chips) can be chalked up to false advertising and the lies of executives, no amount of regulation will ever be enough. This lack of restraint and trust in other people is mind-boggling, and will probably lead to calls for the banning of decietful brand names and packaging. ("When I hear the name 'Funyuns', they just sound so....fun! This masquerade shall not go on!"; "The colorful logo distracts me from the nutritional data! The nutritional data!") And since when has taking the control away from manufacturers and giving it to even larger, more corrupt, more inept institutions with even weaker track records ever, ever been a good idea? GregP 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you denying that smoking causes cancer in those who smoke, and also those around the smoker? That's a pretty tenuous position to take, and a pretty irresponsible one at that. Smoking kills smokers and others around them, and the tobacco companies have repeatedly lied about that fact. Therefore, regulating the habit and the manufacturers is essential. TadghOB 18:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, yes. "Tobacco is bad, and can kill people!" (For your future pro-regulation rant needs, may I suggest "Cars can crash, and hit pedestrians!", or, "Computers can have viruses, and give them to other computers!") I fail to see how your simple A=B viewpoint is helpful. Also, I believe what you meant here: "smoking causes cancer in those who smoke", was "smoking can sometimes lead to cancer which can sometimes lead to people dying". Don't look forward to future talk-page chats with me. The cigarette I'm about to have will transubstantiate my entire body to cancer. Pleasant travels. GregP 16:50, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

“

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. --Ronald Reagan

”

--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:27, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Disappointed as I am in your removal of a section of the above dialogue, I accept your opinion, TK. But I shall always believe that candy and fruit-flavoured cigarettes should not be on the market. Thanks for the 'discussion', I'll end it here. TadghOB 08:57, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

11-22-44-88 is geometric. --CJHallock 14:55, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

You're right. Thanks so much for catching the error. The entry has always been correct, but the front page misstated it. It's fixed now.--Andy Schlafly 15:19, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

I am so excited that the government is going to start telling me what I can and cannot do! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guypatterson07 (talk) --20:57, 22 June 2009

When one of Gods trees looses a big root one of two things will happen, either the tree will give up some branches, and live happily ever after, or it will struggle to hold on, and die. I'd rather follow the first path. Letting things go back to nature means more wild berries and game to eat, which means less imported from Mexico. Taking down empty houses also means fewer crack dens and brothels and other undesirable run down buildings. If they are smart enough to demolish only the shoddily built homes then they will be saving us many many millions of wasted man hours repairing the poorly built buildings that so many are producing these days. ---CJHallock 13:25, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

• Berries and Game from Mexico? Really? Products are produced elsewhere because it is cheaper on all levels to do so. That, in the simplest of answers, is due to our Government dolling out more and more "entitlements". The next step will be do "give" people a place to live. And there won't be any Game from the new woodlands, nor any berries. The leftist will insist on no hunting, and taking the berries for us to eat will starve birds and other herbivores. Wake up. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:40, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

We do get berries from mexico, and we do get meat from mexico, not game meat, but meat is meat. I suspect that the govt ripping down houses is a step away from the govt. giving us all houses, and I suspect that a hunting preserve would be more welcome than a suburb. Liberals aren't monsters. But you missed the main point of my argument, which was that we should take a clue from God and shrink when we need too. --CJHallock 15:25, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree that liberals aren't "monsters", but ideas and falsehoods do have real and tragic consequences. When 50% of public school kids are dropping out of high school (see recent news item), that's real harm that has real causes. And no one seriously disputes that liberals completely control public schools.--Andy Schlafly 17:43, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I am not arguing with your assertion that public schools are run by liberals, but what exactly does being "Atheistic" have to do with the drop out rate? seems like a non-sequiter to me. Also, another note on that news item: Secular =/= Atheistic. Though I imagine that you have had this discussion before, so I will refrain from continuing it, unless you don't mind. --MichaelJamesF 19:55, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

You're right that secular does not equal atheistic, but public schools are atheistic and not secular.

But since we agree that liberals control public schools, it doesn't matter what label is used. Liberal ideology is destroying millions of kids. Do you think liberals even care? Ideas, particularly bad ones, do have consequences.--Andy Schlafly 20:03, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Just curious, since I am a little new here, what makes the Public schools in America atheistic and not secular? --MichaelJamesF 21:06, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Secular means not endorsing a particular religion. Atheistic means censoring religion. Public schools do the latter.--Andy Schlafly 14:39, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Does atheism not refer to a disbelief in a God? To say that atheists "censor" religion may be a bit too general. TPatterson 14:57, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Atheism is often stronger than disbelief in a God. Your phrase would apply better to agnosticism. Atheism is a denial of God, and often results in aggressive censorship of references to God and classroom prayer.--Andy Schlafly 15:26, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, since there are many kinds of gods worshipped, wouldn't censorship of God and classroom prayer contribute to a secular enviornment? (Though I think removing "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is a little too much). --EmiaW 22:28, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

The periods following the dollar figures in the Durbin story should be removed. GregP 17:40, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks, will take care of it! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Do we really need to announce with an exclamation point that conservatives haven't grown as a group over the last four years? --JerriahD 21:27, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

That's not a "grammar" issue. Your edit summary was misleading.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I retract my comment and apologize. The wiki software evidently pulled in the "grammar" part from the prior heading and used that as a default edit summary. You simply failed to use an edit summary to clarify it. Your heading is a good one.--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

It was all my fault, I started to add to the Grammar post and then changed my mind about how I would go at the issue. Originally I had intended to point out that the post made it sound like liberal was a self identified group that hadn't grown, while the resource says that it grew 2% --JerriahD 23:12, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, in ten years (one decade) the liberals managed to claw their way up a whole 2%! I apologize for not making that completely clear.....although statisticians would argue that a net gain of only 2% over ten years, where a liberal one a major national election, is indeed pretty static...why quibble over that minor point, I say. :D --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 05:38, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

We should have more about Iran on the main page. This is an amazing display of the resilience of democracy!--HaroldTurner 15:01, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I hope so, it is very interesting what is happening there. I hope somehow the reformers are able to initiate change, it would seem the people are on their side. --BMcP 07:48, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

""Whether it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Weather Underground, Central Park rapists, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, welfare recipients, Palestinian terrorists, murderers, abortionists, strippers or common criminals -- liberals always take the side of the enemies of civilization against civilization." [14]"

When were liberals siding with Ahmadinejad? I didn't hear of this Tim111 22:50, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

You must not pay attention to the news, or at least nothing but the liberal media. The fact that Obama doesn't have the guts to say what we all know, that the elections was rigged, should tell you all you need to know about where they stand. Patriot1505 23:33, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

That still doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure it was the liberals that boo'd AJ when he spoke in New York, and mocked him when he said there were no homosexuals in Iran. Are you saying liberals are the ones who rigged the election in his favor?--IanG 09:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

You are pretty sure IanG? Where was the outrage at Ahmadinejad's complicity with the very apparent election fraud in Iran? Where are all the liberal blogs and MSM complaining at Iran's making nukes instead of feeding its people? There has been a deafening silence by liberals about the items Coulter discusses, but an unrelenting jabber about the the faults of the U.S., even though we returned freedom to the Iraqi people, once that fact was ballyhooed in the MSM. No more. As she said, liberals have always aligned against civilization. Another example: Hugo Chavez. Liberals associated with him, promoted him, only because their Bush Derangement Syndrome was so out of control. Nice to see, BTW, you are out of Euro Land now, and back in D.C. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Let us pray for Patricia Ann, the beloved wife of DeanS, that passed away on June 16, 2009. --Joaquín Martínez 14:41, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Amen. God rest her soul. AddisonDM 21:53, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Amen again. The Lord has welcomed her.--Andy Schlafly 02:13, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Sincerest condolences. May she rest in peace. Ajkgordon 09:17, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't know the user or his wife, but I do wish to express my deepest condolences - my thoughts are with you, DeanS. TadghOB 17:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family in this time of need. May God bless you and hold you in the palm of His hand. --Benp 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Should Obama be self-appointed Apology Czar? How's that Auto/TARP/Stimulus Czar's doing? When will we hear what the Czars are up to? Will America need a Czar to oversee all the Czars?--Jpatt 15:39, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Can I suggest that someone write an essay on the virtues of manliness and masculinity, particularly in modern America? I think this might be a good essay topic for a senior editor.--Bertcat 00:06, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

• Masculinity is so subjective, don't you think? I can almost foresee people saying the outcome of any attempt is that "It's brilliantly bad." Or "outstandingly bad". Or worse yet, that it is "a paradigmatic example of bad". We wouldn't want that, would we? You are an editor, Bertcat. Why don't you make an attempt? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:22, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by your response. I just thought that a senior editor could write a more insightful essay. Please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.--Bertcat 09:38, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

The ‘news’ story on the main page about colder temperatures is rather shortsighted and misinformed. Using one week of colder than normal temperatures as evidence that global warming is a ‘lie’ is actually rather silly. Looking at the outlook for summer weather in Canada, it seems temperatures will be near normal all across the country, with some above average temperatures in Ontario and Quebec, and slightly cooler temperatures in BC. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=2009summer_22_05_2009?ref=ccbox_homepage_top_related Perhaps you should do a little more research before using a one-week example as proof that global warming is a liberal conspiracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjohnston (talk)

I'd have to agree with this. During the same weeks in question, the South was suffering from a heat wave as is Great Britain right now. Does this mean that Global Warming is real, and that deniers should apologize for their deceit? I think not, so it would be wise not to make the same mistake in extrapolating a grand generalization from a small period of time in a small part of the USA.

Happy Father's Day, and God Bless. JDWpianist 12:01, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Worldwide temperatures have been decreasing rapidly for years. Your lack of awareness of this speaks volumes about your frame of mind. The cover story is simply illustrative, and is not "incorrect news" as claimed.--Andy Schlafly 14:22, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I wouldn't make a claim either until the year is over, or at least summer is over so we have sufficient data to compare 2009 with previous years. I know as someone who lives in the Midwest, temperatures can fluctuate wildly from week to week, day to day, and even hour to hour. I do remember early June being unusually cool, but this weekend it has been above normal temperatures and heavy storms. --BMcP 14:39, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I don’t see how the cover story is illustrative because it doesn’t say anything about global temperature patterns. I would also like to see the evidence that supports the claim that world wide temperatures have been rapidly decreasing for years. From what I’ve read global temperatures have increased by 0.5C over the last 100 years. I encourage you to take a look at the Environment Canada Website that provides a lot of useful information about climate and climate change which may open your mind - [4] - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by cjohnston (talk)

cjohnson, do you understand the meaning of the word "unctuous"? The "In the News" section is not encyclopedic, either in content or purpose. I would have thought someone of your displayed intellect would know that. Its purpose is to alert conservatives (obviously not you) to information or points related to issues, not likely to be covered by the MSM. If you took your own advice and opened your own mind, you would already know about legitimate scientific research (facts) and opinions by acknowledged experts from all over the world that has yet to be refuted, but is merely glossed over by warming proponents, most of whom have clear conflicting agendas. But perhaps you do know that, and your purpose here is merely to obstruct and sprinkle dissent around, here and there, as a child might sprinkle flower petals? By the way, we provide a button at the top of the edit screen that appears to be script writing. If you click it when finished with your post, it will add your signature. Use it. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I would have to agree with you on some of your points cjohnston. Like I said though, won't know anything about this year until it's over. I have heard that for the upper Midwest, temperatures are expected to be much below normal for the summer, and even if that pans out, a much cooler then normal summer for one year wouldn't disprove Climate Change anymore then a much warmer then normal summer would prove it. I am just glad they are saying the hurricane season is expected to be quiet. --BMcP 15:05, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, liberals, for proving the point: liberals do not and will not they were wrong about global warming despite the indisputable fall in temperatures in recent years. Refusal to admit the truth has some strategic advantages in other places, but not here.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Even if in the in the news section is not meant to be encyclopaedic, it should still make sense. By claiming that one weeks worth of temperatures in one area is evidence that global warming is not taking place does not make this website appear very credible. That was my main point in my original post. And to Andy, I think you are missing a word in your post. Liberals do not and will not what? Admit? Is that the word you were looking for? And I would still like to see some of the evidence that points to the ‘indisputable fall in temperatures in recent years.’--Cjohnston 15:40, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Good work, Cjohnston, you filled in the obvious word. No, I'm not going to give you more attention by trying to get to admit what you will never admit. Temperatures have been falling for years, and Wikipedia may be a better place for you to deny that fact, or to persist in ignoring the truth. Next you can predictably insist on your liberal last wordism.--Andy Schlafly 15:48, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Arizona has its longest stretch of days below 100 degrees since 1913. --Jpatt 12:08, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Whether or not you agree that the Earth is warming, it behooves all of us on this planet to take the best possible care of the one home we have been given. I'm pretty sceptical about some of the environmentalists' claims, but I compost all of my household vegetable matter, maximise my use of recyclable containers, cycle and walk rather than use my car, have all my lights attached to a daylight sensor, refuse to use plastic, turn off lights when I leave a room, etc etc etc. So though I may not buy all the claims, I choose to behave as though I was the most extreme environmentalist. I'm a child of a War-Child, and they were the most efficient generation practically ever lived, and efficiency is a good thing, for sure - I think it's the right way to live, and it's certainly better than profligate waste and pollution. Whether you believe Gore or not, I think behaving in a 'green' manner is the only responsible option. TadghOB 17:44, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Neither conservatives nor liberals want to swim in polluted waters. There is reality and then there is insanity when it comes to being green. We've transformed our nation since the 1970's when it comes to energy. We are on the continued track for more of the same. The govt starts mandating junk science and you will see me protesting. --Jpatt 17:52, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

You're right that some people take this stuff to extremes. But I don't think you're right about how much we've transformed our energy usage - cars in Europe still get only about 40-50mpg, and I think it's a lot lower in the US. And although we are indeed stretching more from every gallon of oil, the problem isn't gong away and we are still guzzling a finite resource, which simply makes no sense. While I don't for a moment believe the Peak Oilers, hippies and activists, I think there's a similarity between the hydrocarbons debate and the US Social Security debate that's not often made. Both are finite resources, and need to be preserved. We must reduce our dependence on them as much as possible. Whether or not the government is promoting "junk science" is kind of irrelevant - if you had only one stash of cash, you'd be wise to save as much of it as possible for a rainy day. TadghOB 18:09, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

It is relevant that many liberals refuse to admit that temperatures have been cooling at a relatively rapid rate for years now. This denial reveals that liberals are not interested in the truth, but want something other than a good environment, such as more government control or (apparently in the case of Al Gore, whose own home sucked up massive energy) lots of money and attention. If you turn a blind eye to deceit, then you open the door to ruin, and that's not good for anything.--Andy Schlafly 18:31, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with you there. The finite supplies the planet has of many different materials don't care whether anyone is "lying", and it's a distraction from the real problem. If two parents are punching each other out as they argue over who hit the child, the child is still hurt, but now the whole situation is getting worse by the minute. This whole 'green' issue always degrades into political debate, but in actuality political viewpoints are utterly irrelevant - it's about the need for us to strive to become the most intelligent and efficient users of our limited resources. Once the resources are gone, they'll be gone. Space flight won't solve the problem. We are condemning the generations ahead of us to death, and we have become the most appalling stewards of our own limited pantry. TadghOB 18:50, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

There's no logic to your comment, and you're essentially saying that you don't care what the truth is. The planet is getting cooler, not warmer, so it is wasteful and hurtful to adopt policies designed to stop alleged warming that isn't happening.

When you put gasoline in your tank, do you say that you don't care whether the tank is already full or empty? Of course not. You'd never put gasoline in your tank if it were full, yet you do want government controls to stop non-existent global warming. What probably motivates you, of course, is that you want more government control over energy no matter what the truth is.--Andy Schlafly 10:39, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

That's a surprising response. Of course I care what the truth is. But I make no claims about the warming or cooling of the planet - that's totally irrelevant to the issue and it has never been what I've been taking about, if you read my comments. The truth is that there is not an infinitely large supply of energy (and other) natural resources in this planet. They will, at some point, run out. That point looks like it could be any time between 20-500 years from now, depending on whom you believe. When that happens is mostly irrelevant to me - it will absolutely, with 100% certainty, run out some day. You have put words into my mouth - I never once argued for government controls - I said that I choose to live as efficiently as possible, because I believe it to be the right way. Yes,I believe that we should all choose to be good stewards of our limited resources, rather than simply emptying the pantry on what is the equivalent of one late-night raid - that is what I believe is "wasteful and hurtful", as you put it. What is wrong with using our resources as leniently and efficiently as possible? Finally, just about the only government regulation I approve of is tobacco controls. TadghOB 13:08, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

To borrow a line from another Administrator, TadghOB, I invite you to contribute substantiative edits to articles here, rather than argue fallacies here. This is not a debate site, but an encyclopedia project. Thanks. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:48, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

The correct question to ask politicians and other biased people on this topic is, "What is the relationship between temperature and the global warming theory?" The follow up to this, of course should be, "If the global warming theory is true, how much additional ice should be found in Antarctica?" (The correct answer to the second question is none, of course. Which is inconvenient for Al Gore and company, because the south pole has been accumulating ice steadily in recent decades due to cooler temperatures there.) --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm getting the distinct impression here that few at this site believe in thrift as our grandparents taught us. Fair enough. Again, discussion over. TadghOB 19:05, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I came back to tell you one final story that I think exemplifies my attitude to this entire debate. My 85-year-old father, a conservative weekly churchgoing man, turns the shower off once he's fully soaked to soap and wash himself, and turns it on again only to rinse himself off. He would never dream of keeping the shower flowing. When I asked him why recently (since I'm not so parsimonious myself), he said "Well, why would I waste all that water and energy?". THAT is the attitude I'm talking about, and I think it's a healthy one. The fact that it may or may not have an effect on global warming is totally irrelevant to him - and to me. And I think some of you could learn a lot from that apolitical attitude of thrift and sensitivity to our limited resources. TadghOB 12:52, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Ironically, an answer to my challange above was posted on my Wikipedia user talk page, but I don't plan to answer it there - unless it's related to actual article writing in their project.

To follow up here, another basic question is: "What observations could possibly disprove the global warming theory?" In other words, is the hypothesis falsifiable? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:26, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

BO's rating dropped once again since the mainspace story [5]--Jpatt 12:34, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Should it be Gerald Walpin (full name)? Thanks. ChuckK 18:57, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

That should be rewritten more encyclopedically. AddisonDM 13:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

• Predictably, YouTube bowed to what must be an extremely vocal (or bored) majority and reinstated him. GregP 16:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Dissappointing, but hardly unexpected. YouTube likes to think of itself as a rational community, but, like many liberal institutions, it is those who shout the loudest, rather than those who know the most that are listened to. Less a democracy and more a "krotocracy". LaurentC 14:43, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Why was he banned in the first place? For being an atheist? That's blatant censorship and he should have been reinstated. --IanG 09:53, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Youtube has this weird habit at banning people at a drop of a hat if anyone files a complaint against them. This happens to both atheists and Christians (and to most other groups). Of course this is why they have so many reinstatement also, because most complaints are more personal biases and someone not liking the message then any true violation of the terms of service. BMcP 11:13 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Can we have an "in the news" on the Mark Sanford scandal? AddisonDM 19:22, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

• Why? Is displaying the foibles of supposedly conservative politicians the main goal of this encyclopedia? If so, please explain. I added the incident to the article on Sanford. We are not a gossip site like Wikipedia. If people want salacious details, they can read the Inquirer or WP. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:30, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

I think you misunderstood me. I can only guess that if it were a democrat who engaged in the odd behavior that Sanford did, that we would mention it, especially it being a story regarding a high-profile state official. By not having the story on Sanford, it looks as though we're ingoring it because he is a Republican. But as true conservatives, we should address and condemn his behavior. AddisonDM 19:41, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Addison, I don't see any obligation to present conservatives in the same light as liberals, because the level of deceit between the two is vastly different. I don't divide the political world between Democrats and Republicans, because there is so little difference between the two, at least as far as their national committees go. If you do, fine. You have added news items before, as any Administrator can, so I don't understand the purpose of your posting here asking for what you can do yourself. Thanks. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:51, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh, okay. I actually have never posted a news item and was not aware that any admin could. Thanks. AddisonDM 22:18, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

It was litter with very strange personal messages and pictures of vultures and dead bulls. It is better now but there is still a personal message to Richard Dawkins there. I look him up and he writes about atheism, so why are you think he look at this website? What is the purpose of this on an encyclopedia? It appears stalker and obsessive. Please help me understand. Lexfundamen 13:41, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Is it possible the current administration IS engaged in secret operations in Iran? I mean, first of all, there has been no major sea-change in the Iranian system that can be attributed to Bush's "approval" of black ops, has there? And, from what I've read, it seems that the "communications equipment" does not amount to some James Bond-quality device, but just some radios. Was Bush's show of support so grand? I think Obama's an idiot for the gimmicky Twitter concept (What's next, making the Red Telephone a texting-only line?), but it seems the idea of A) telling our enemies that we're infiltrating them, as Bush did and B) having it not work, might just mean that the current conflicts are the result of clandestine activities that are taking place. Certainly not on Obama's orders, because directives like that require slightly more backbone than that of a Jellyfish, but perhaps a CIA or other bureau's attempt to correlate Obama's reign with - wait for it - CHANGE in the Middle East? Obviously, if this ploy works, years down the line people can say "It happened while Obama was president = he made it happen!" (Which, sadly, is the same logic applied in the "Fake Change" headline...) And by then, there'll be so few voices of reason left that the old "correlation does not imply causality, you know!" argument might fall on as deaf of ears as, say, "Change We Can Believe In" finds when it reaches us. GregP 18:04, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

• Well, that's gratitude for you! Barack has personally saved the auto industry, guaranteeing all the new car warranties, saved the banks and investment firms, personally assuming the hundreds of thousands of bad mortgages and giving houses to those who can no longer afford to make the payments on them! And after all that, Barack is going to give each of us health insurance and save the environment from global warming. Still that isn't enough for you! What more must he do to prove he cares? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:27, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it's pretty obvious Obama has continued the neocon policies of the Bush/Cheney cabal. I have a host of links to support this contention. Obama is continuing the policy of regime change against the axis of evil. Some change, a real peacenik, huh? Rob Smith 19:09, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Hm, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that at least some of those replies constitute sarcasm. TK, what exactly are you trying to get across? I even went out of my way to include the fact that I do not believe that Obama is capable of effectively or sincerely implementing a regime-change operation in Iran. So...you are trying to use humor to imitate an overly exaggerated Obama supporter. Oh, I get it. You're trying to show how reasonable and sound my "defense" of Obama is, by putting it in contrast with some fanatically loony defense of Obama, even though I'm flat-out stating my belief that he's a terribly weak leader who happened to inherit some of the military/policy people from previous administrations. Is this the logic train that leads to Sysop Station? GregP 19:52, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

No, but it is the logic train that leads others into self revelation of their true intentions and thoughts, GregP, and just some plain old-fashioned humor without any intention whatsoever. All "leaders" who base their foreign or domestic policies based upon absolutely no past experience, are weak. Obama's seemingly unshakable belief that GWB's entire foreign policy was a mistake, absent any evidence that Middle East and European countries and leaders would respond to Obama's so-called reasonableness has now been pretty clearly shown to be liberal poppycock. Sorry if you thought my response was aimed directly at you, but I thought given the fact my post was so over the top, slobbering Obama-centric, you would have known it was jest. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:01, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Ok, begin here Reports Suggest Obama Faces Early Choice On Iran Covert Ops Globalsecurity.org January 13, 2009 (one week before inauguration}. Seymour Hersch cited is the same fellow who broke the My Lai massacre story. Here is the David Sanger video cited in the article.[6]

I have more. Rob Smith 20:15, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

As someone from Chicago, I can testify those four neighborhoods on the list were dangerous places long before Obama became a senator in Illinois. One actually from Chicago or Illinois would not expect a single Senator in three years to do anything to turn those particular neighborhoods around, any rehabilitation will take decades. --BMcP 10:56, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

So as a community organizer, he failed? Rob Smith 15:59, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

I also lived in Chicago briefly, and I agree that those neighbourhoods were dangerous places prior to Obama. But, you know, that's why we have community organisers and senators. Those who voted for Obama have to ask themselves why in both jobs did he make no dent in the problems facing the city? The answer is simple; his methods were wrong. LeoS 17:18, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Community organizers and senators for helping those places? For the latter sure, if you can enough of them to agree to do something significant about those neighborhoods, a single senator isn't going to do it. Community Organizers may help to some degree, but truthfully the issues that drag those neighborhoods down are very deep; poverty, disinvestment, little economic opportunity, issues you can't just turn around in a few years. Those places can recover, like many neighborhoods in Chicago have, but it will take time as well as effort, from decades of neglect to a safe, prosperous neighborhood won't happen overnight, and really it is going to take private investment and job creation as much as any government help. --BMcP 18:02, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

I never claimed that government just throwing money at a problem could solve things. Liberals like you and Barack Hussein Obama think it can, and he gave it a go as both a community organiser and a senator. Almost a decade later, and no change. His methods failed. Leo Samuels 12:05, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Right. In fact, not only did Obama's methods fail, but he opposed policies that could have helped. For example, as a state senator Obama opposed a law designed to curb illegal gang activity. To take another example, Obama has sided with the teachers' unions who are destroying schools in these neighborhoods. And one more example: the Obama Administration has not supported state laws that limit the sale of extremely violent video games to children. Instead, Obama has made politicized appointments to the Dept. of Education that reflect no desire to improve schools; one pick was his crony, and another was a political payback to gay rights' activists who supported his campaign, shortly after they complained about inattention to their demands.--Andy Schlafly 12:38, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes indeed. Obama sends his kids to the elite and exclusive Sidwell Friends, but denies poor oppressed minority parents in the DC school district vouchers to excape violence, drug abuse, failing academic standards, and liberal indoctrination in DC public schools. And who is his employer that hires him to head the Chicago Woods Foundation, allegedly created to deal with the violence in these Chicago neighborhoods? a prime mover Chicago's Days of Rage. Rob Smith 13:52, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

His methods failed? You make it sound like the success of those neighborhood hinged on the abilities of one politician over a few years. Neighborhoods that have been suffering for decades, blaming Obama for the neighborhood's problems is no better then blaming Bush for the fact there are poor and crime ridden neighborhoods in Dallas and Houston didn't magically turn around, after all he was the governor for a time. That sound silly? Because it is silly, just like your insinuation that I am a "liberal", of course that pales in comparison to the fact you think liberal is some dirty word insult. Whatever, believe what you like, but really if you are going to demonize Obama over something make it something he has real influence in, like the GM takeover, or the stimulus package, you'll sound a lot less desperate. You can have the last word, I am finished arguing. --BMcP 22:03, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

I suppose the whole discussion comes down to priorities, like putting people first, or accusing GOPer's of neglecting domestic issues or lacking compassion. Since this area by Obama & apologists falls within thier self acclaimed purvey, we're only examining the record and holding him to account.

Oh yes, I know I know, results don't matter when looking at liberals failures, it's thier good intentions that count, regardless of cost and disasters t hey leave in thier wake. Rob Smith 20:55, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

It's never good news to hear that someone has died; today it's television pitchman Billy Mays. Our prayers go out to his family. [7] Karajou 13:50, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Billy Mays was a quintessential example of the American "can-do" spirit, a never-give-up example of how one can succeed though hard work and perseverance. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:24, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm very sorry to hear about his death. Billy Mays exemplified the inclusive ideal of the American dream, and the world is a colder place after losing him. Leo Samuels 14:29, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

So many deaths of true icons...it seems that the best indeed die young. R.I.P. Billy. AmericanPride 19:35, 28 June 2009 (CST)

Poster models and glittery perverts will get all the headlines, but people like Billy should be remembered for the unique and enthusiastic spirit he brought to his work. R.I.P. GregP 15:04, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Since there's an update on the Canadian Google thing, shouldn't you archive the previous posts about how Cp was ranked #12? JonG^{Tennisu no Boifriendo} 21:59, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

It appears to be a developing story and the Conservapedia evolution article recently seems to be bouncing between the Google Canada #9 and Google Canada #11 ranking for the search evolution. I am definitely not going to be making a post to the main page every 5 minutes and give play by play reporting of the "horse race".  :) As far as the archiving issue, I am going to let the day to day updates to the news section make the archiving issue be a moot point. conservative 01:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Very interesting article about a speech given today by the Irish Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, about the outcome of the Ryan Report. Worth reading. GayByrne 19:27, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Seems like there should be an article on the Ryan Report, no? An Irish friend of mine was explaining it all in detail to me the other day, and apparently it's been really really big deal over there. Horrible what happened to all those kids. --BHaines 11:14, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Quite a difference 8+ years makes, doesn't it?

"Democrats applauded the state Supreme Court's decision Tuesday afternoon..."

These same Democrats complained to no end (some, like Keith Olbermann, are still complaining) when the U.S. Supreme Court "decided" the 2000 presidential election. I guess they're okay with courts getting involved in elections when it means their side winning. Jinx McHue 10:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Haha, are you serious? The situations are not at all equivalent! In 2000, a recount was halted by the USSC by a split margin, and George Bush (who would have won anyway, to be fair) was able to keep the current count which favored him; Al Gore promptly conceded. In Minnesota, the votes were counted, and recounted by hand, and questionable votes inspected and reinspected, without a significant difference. Seven months and multiple unsuccessful court challenges later, Norm Coleman finally took it to the highest possible court, and lost by a unanimous margin. It's really laughable to compare these two. JDWpianist 16:09, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

"Without a significant difference?" Surely you are not serious! Franken's total was behind Coleman's after the first count. Franken then took the Al Gore School of Election Theft route of selecting a tiny handful of Democratic strongholds in which to recount and boost his vote total. Franken gained over four hundred more recount votes than Coleman, which simply makes no sense in such a close race. (Their vote gains should've been far more identical.) This situation is every bit like the 2000 presidential election. Democrat is behind, cheats, and gets help from a liberal state supreme court. Jinx McHue 17:18, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I would buy your "liberal supreme court" argument if the ruling weren't unanimous, if the governor weren't Republican, and if it weren't at the end of a series of court losses. And yes, Franken did select the areas for recount that were favorable for him, just as Coleman selected areas favorable for him. Unluckily, Minneapolis was one of those "tiny handfuls," so the recount added Democratic votes. This is hardly cheating.

And not to pick hairs, but Al Gore didn't steal the 2000 election. If he did run a school of election theft, then I can't imagine it having any students! ;-) JDWpianist 17:51, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Why does a unanimous decision have to do with whether or not the MN supreme court is liberal, or the governor being Republican, or lower court rulings? Picking and choosing a small fraction of the state's counties in which to recount votes in order to boost your total may not be illegal, but it definitely smacks of cheating, just as it did in 2000 in Florida. Why not recount all counties? And Al Gore certainly tried his darnedest to steal the 2000 election, and the vast majority of Democrats in the country supported his school of dirty tricks. Jinx McHue 21:49, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't find this hard to understand. In a recount, both sides get the chance to pick counties where they want a recount, and in this case both of them did, picking the most favorable ones for their chances. That's not cheating, it's fair. Franken benefited from it more because a big city will always skew Democratic, and contains many more total votes. Assuming a similar percentage of errors in tabulation between urban and rural counties, and also that the percentage of votes for each candidate will remain the same, a hand recount in a big city will simply add more Democratic votes to the total. This is simple math, not cheating.

If a supreme court gives a unanimous ruling, that means that both liberals and conservatives agreed. Thus, the argument of partisanship becomes very weak. JDWpianist 10:05, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Isn't it logical to assume that perhaps some of the people who stated they'd rather live somewhere besides America are conservatives? We have a lib President, a lib Congress, and gay marriage laws are being proposed (pun not intended) all over the place. Of course, the example of politically-based expatriation we always hear about is something like, "If Bush gets re-elected, I'm moving to Canada" (typical insincere attention-vacuuming), but it's possible that some conservatives feel the same way, just in reverse, yes? Even if the points I just laid out are incorrect, still, how is it reasonable to assume that they "most likely all liberals"? I know plenty of conservatives who find the rest of the world fascinating (indeed, it is the only thing against which our views may be contrasted and perceived as correct) and, even then, do not merely have political/social reasons for relocating. AliceCurtis 18:09, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Conservatives tend to be content with their country more often despite who currently runs Washington. I seem to recall a small number of conservatives threatening to leave the country if Obama became president, but it was nothing like the number of liberals who not only threatened it, but followed through on their threat. Jinx McHue 21:38, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Alice, you immediately set my troll meter on alert. Who assumed what? Say what? Huh? The qualifier "most likely" means what, exactly to you?

So, just to be clear, you took a qualified statement, ran here to post about it, removed the qualifier and then set out an argument based on your false premise! My assumption is just that. Any one's assumption is just that, their own. Of course a few percent will likely be of all political persuasions, that is a truism, so logically correct as to not need to be stated in the company of people of normal intelligence....question is, why make an argument about something not arguable? There are Republican atheists, I presume. So? Does that mean they are a statistically meaningful group? No. And we aren't about Democrats or Republicans here, both get their fair share of disapproval from Conservatives. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:16, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone, especially the author of that piece. My point was that phrases like "most likely all liberals" aren't exactly useful to anyone in this instance. I didn't see anything in the news item about political ideologies, so I brought it up. With news items making reference to things like "Obama's control of the media", "liberal control of elections" "The Secular progressive / Liberal MSM"; and headlines like "More Americans See Democratic Party As “Too Liberal”" (that is the current ruling party, mind you), it seems Conservapedia's more aware than most when it comes to the fact that the Dems have their hands in every cookie jar this country's got. I have to say it is likely, scratch that, "most likely", that there are a few conservatives who have had enough of it. Personally, I'll stick around to do my part when it comes to exposing this corruption. AliceCurtis 14:50, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Alice, glad to see you agree with me! The bit about possibly some conservatives wanting to leave the country was already addressed above. As conservatives we don't need a blueprint for common sense, and no one, not even someone with limited capacity, would ever doubt the vast majority, when asked, not thinking about any particular administration, wanting to leave would be liberals. They have never been strong on love of country, preferring to constantly enumerate negatives. Thanks for clarifying! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:58, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

No problem, glad to clarify. I know this is a bit off-topic, but I was curious about whether the site principal, Andrew Schlafly, personally responds to posts on his "Talk" page. I'm trying to get a clear view on options for continued education in a conservative environment. The idea of introducing logical conservatism into one of those lib schools seems fun, but I know it would only hamper my advancement there. Are there any big conservative schools out there? AliceCurtis 15:02, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

The Young America Foundation's list is pretty complete, IMO. If you are already well-grounded in conservative thought, don't be afraid to tackle the Ivy League. Many conservatives like Bill Buckley, Phyllis Schlafly, Bill Bennett and our own Andy Schlafly attended pretty liberal institutions, and emerged unscathed and highly successful! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

While I don't disagree that the parenthetical comment that most Americans who would prefer to live outside of the states are likely politically liberal is likely to be true and anecdotally supported, I disagree with the idea that taking statements of the form "liberals are overwhelmingly X" as axiomatic is healthy for our success as an encyclopedia. Specifically, as valuable as intuition is, it's not, I feel, necessarily encyclopedic, because intuition can be wrong. Limiting printed information to truths verifiable with numbers rather than to things based on casual observation should be our foremost concern. While truth is usually kind to conservatives, it's not right to just assume the real numbers will work out that way. I realize that the statement is qualified, but why include it at all if there's no solid reason to believe its validity besides intuition? (I bring this up only because I work in the social sciences and it's not at all uncommon for sociological trends to fall differently than intuition or stereotypes would suggest they would, and I feel like it's more important for us to be as airtightly factual as possible than for it to take every possible swipe at our opposition.) DaveB7 15:52, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Additionally, I want to clarify that I'm aware of Wikipedia difference rule 10; however, I feel like it's possible to make a distinction between replicatable original research (I personally measured Shaq and he is seven foot five) and editorial comment based on casual observation. (Brits sure seem to love low-fat milk.) DaveB7 16:45, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

The "News" section on Conservapedia's Main Page isn't, and was never represented to be, encyclopedic. It is our effort to inform people of news items, or information pertaining to them, that the liberal, so-called MSM will not cover, or not cover in depth. While backing other topics, in other sections of this encyclopedia, with as factual material as is possible, it isn't the end-all and be-all. Fitting for today, let me give you an example:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

As Conservatives, we know that is true. We don't need proof of any kind as it is a truism, anymore than we need to prove the intrinsic deceit of liberals, also a truism. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:52, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Man pulls gun on woman outside Planned Parenthood

Washington Post Cancels Plans to Hold Costly Dinner for Lobbyists

Brown25 16:12, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

The C-BS link is a rude hit piece: "In a rambling speech..." Here's a Guardian.uk version. [8] Rob Smith 17:29, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

• I tweaked, it Rob. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:14, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Does anyone know what Mrs. Palin will be doing from here on out? I imagine I'm not the only one who believes she should knock Obama off the throne, but let me also be the first one here to wish her happy times with her family in the coming months. Get all the rest you can, don't let the libs call you lazy for it! AliceCurtis 20:38, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

This is just the beginning folks! I am confedent that we will witness a landslide victory for Republicans in 2010! B.H. Obama approval rates are dropping much faster than President Bush in his first year, and the trend has only just began. The fact is that a large majority of Americans are Conservatives and that will show in 2010, hopefully with Governer Palin at the helm!! Full steam ahead to a better America! Patriot1505 21:25, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd guess Palin will head up or become chief spokesmen for a high profile, non-profit advocacy group for children with disabilities, like the Special Olympics for example. This will make her virtually bullet-proof from liberal attacks and hate speech. And hoperfully this will help call attention to the mean spirited hypocrisy of so-called comedians, satirists, and other liberal hate mongers. Rob Smith 19:42, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Just noticed the Buzz Aldrin note on the Main Page. Buzz Aldrin is not the most reliable of witnesses. He claimed that he saw aliens on the Moon, but when another astronaut said the same thing, he suggested he didn't believe it. Make your mind up, Buzz. --BHaines 11:28, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Aldrin not reliable? What on earth are you talking about? Rob Smith 18:33, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

As usual, Rob, we have a liberal mis-characterizing what Aldrin said, slightly warping it to marginalize a MIT trained scientist, holding a Doctorate in Astronautics, which is, I am certain, more education than this liberal troll has. If anyone is trained in scientific examination it is him, not some fifteen year old troll/vandal site member. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:50, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Massachusetts is suing the federal government over the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act, stating it interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit[9]. This could potentially change the landscape nation wide over the issue of same sex marriage. -- BMcP 1:41, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

Challenging the definition of marriage under the federal law or saying that a state has a right to "regulate marriage as it sees fit" is pure nonsense. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the federal law is the law of the land. MA needs to get that into its thick head, but you won't see that anytime soon. The only thing troubling about the Defense of Marriage Act, which thank God hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court, is whether it interferes with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which but for the DMA would prohibit a state from refusing to recognize a gay marriage from another state. Just another loser frivolous lawsuit brought by special interests. JamesonD 14:00, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with both yous above. However, we live in strange times. Marijuana laws in Ca. are not enforced because state and federal laws contradict. That is the most moronic statement the republic can ever issue. We need to use that logic when abortion is prohibited by a state. We need to use that argument when they raise our taxes.--Jpatt 14:18, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I can't wait for the day that the 14th Amendment doesn't grant that particular "privacy" right, but I don't think it's the best analogy because the DMA probably is unconstitutional at the end of the day and we'll have to come up with a better strategy for protecting marriage. I don't know about the drug laws in California. Why is the federal gov't not enforcing the law when it has the ability to do so? JamesonD 14:25, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

Well federal law can be overturned if a state shows that such a law violates the Constitution, which the true, supreme law of the land. Massachusetts' argument is that not everyone who is married in the state receive federal benefits that one receives for being married, but only some marriages are recipients of these benefits, those who are opposite gendered. I believe the state has a case in this regard, either give federal benefits to all legally married couples or to none at all. Of course DOMA may be overturned anyway as I heard the present administration is hinting at asking Congress to do so. -- BMcP 3:20, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

...not America, despite the stereotype the media loves to push. It's France. [10] And I thought the French were supposed to be cosmopolitan? --Benp 15:53, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, "cosmopolitan" isn't a synonym for polite. It has been that way for the French since the end of WW II. My own theory is, they were so overcome with guilt that roughly one-fourth of their population collaborated with the Nazi's in one way or another, and were so shamed that the dreaded Brits (who they have traditionally hated) and the Americans (whom they always viewed as a little cousin, whom they helped win their independence) that it turned into surliness, self-loathing, much like a certain vandal site owner. Of course my theory about that is garbage, because the French have also disliked most other European countries as well, traditionally. They are, in the end, just being the French. Did you know that nearly half the Internet vandals are French? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:48, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Obama, was he or was he not looking at the Brazilian girl (Mayara Rodrigues Tavares)?

It seems that Nicolás Sarkozy was. --Joaquín Martínez 15:58, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

• Well there is nothing wrong with admiring the attributes of a pretty woman, so long as it doesn't involve Sin, I think. ;-) --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:52, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

He could be wondering why the heck she's not wearing any shoes. I doubt that's what Michelle's conclusion will be/was. Jinx McHue 11:00, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

If you watch the video, you'll see that he was actually turning around to help the woman behind him down the steps. It was a clever find by whoever first started circulating this screenshot, though. --Economist 16:57, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Wants to sue the FBI for removing an upside down American flag from someone property, because it's "a breach of the first amendment". yahoo news link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flagCholchester1221 20:37, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Liar. Story says:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is considering legal action against the village of Crivitz for violating Vito Congine Jr.'s' First Amendment rights, Executive Director Chris Ahmuty said.

Godspeed to you, troll. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Well said, Mr.TK. --JDelaney 20:42, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50819 --MichaelJamesF 21:49, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, pretty typical, if one bothers to scratch the surface, of the opinions of liberals, and their partiality for Eugenics. That is why they have such continuing support for Planned Parenthood, which was founded by eugenics devotee, Margaret Sanger. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:20, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

In Australia, he was asked about a British court ruling.

HEATHER EWART: There was also, though, a British judge who ruled that there were in fact, I think, nine errors when it was challenged in court?

AL GORE: Well, the ruling was in my favour. There have been a number of deniers trying to say that this isn't real.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2624723.htm

That wasn't the question he was asked. In fact, while the general ruling was in favor (inasmuchas the film was allowed to be shown in classrooms), the judge still found that the film contained nine significant errors and that it "promotes partisan political views." I guess Al didn't want to admit those inconvenient truths.

http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf

Liberal deceit shows itself again. Jinx McHue 11:05, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Actually, it turns out that beyond dodging the question posed, his statement is a flat-out lie. The ruling and a statement directly from the judge afterwards prove beyond any question that the claimant (the parent who sued against the film) won the case.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Jinx McHue 17:05, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

As someone who considers himself a moderate that thinks there are a lot of good ideas on both the left and the right, I found myself sympathizing with the author of this column (a liberal who enjoys dialogue with conservatives and finds the close-mindedness of some fellow liberals disturbing): [[11]]. Perhaps it could be posted as a news item. --Economist 16:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree! Hopefully Andy will do something with it. If not, I will add it to the news column later. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:21, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

I have the intent of tracking down citations for quite a few things that I noticed some people at places like RW poking fun at Conservapedia for. I recently acquired access to my university's complete library of pretty much everything ever, and will be able to start doing research to get everything well-cited where there is controversy or any doubt as to whether it is real. It would greatly help to know what the "Citation Needed" template is called, I tried {{cite}} and that wasn't it. JohnWittle 18:25, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Here you can find a list of templates. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:45, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter manages to get high resolution images of four of the moon landing sites: Apollo 11, 15, 16, & 17, very cool indeed. I though this would be nice to mention on the news section![12]--BMcP 19:11, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

While Americans are suffering and unemployment is skyrocketing, Obama can only thinking about vacationing: going to Martha's Vineyard in August --JDelaney 13:11, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

During the Vietnam War & Cronkite's tenure, Bernard Redmont carried regular reports as CBS News Moscow Bureau Chief, and later as Paris Bureau Chief during the Peace talks. What CBS never reported during the war with the Communist clent state of the Soviet Union was, Redmont was a KGB operative. Redmont was the only journalist able to secure an interview with his old fellow Comintern party friend the Chief North Vietnamese negotiator.

Soooo...no wonder the American people, while listening to "the most trusted man in America," turned against the anti-Communist war effort, the US lost the war, and communist enslavement emerged victorious. Anyone still wish to dispute mainstream media bias? Rob Smith 14:06, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

This is about the News headline a while ago, about Chris Matthews asking whether Obama was a radical "Like FDR" or a Conservative. I haven't seen the video, so I don't know the exact context, but I'm guessing Matthews was talking about what I refer to as "Little c" conservative. Where Conservative is someone who follows a certain political philosophy, someone who is conservative (lower case c), could be someone who "Looks before he leaps", is calm and collected, and tries to stay within his limits. Though Obama is without a doubt a liberal, I believe Matthews was asking whether or not he was acting conservatively, not being a conservative. Though, like I said, I did not see the video, but it is how I imagine he meant it to be understood. If you don't understand what I mean, see definitions 2, 3 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative --MichaelJamesF 16:40, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

There is now porn of it --BVance 20:06, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

Try to be specific, with links. What? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:16, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

Be careful what you wish for TK. Due to my friendship with several, shall I say, "Internet savvy" people, I know what rule 34 is, and suffice to say, it is not appropriate for a website such as this. It is usually used humorously, for those with a sick sense of humor, but still, it is inappropriate. --MichaelJamesF 12:20, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

--The Christian YouTube producer, Shockofgod, who is well known by the Christian YouTube community for his anti-atheism videos has come out with a video on Windmill Ministries excellent anti-evolution article.[53]
Should be:
The Christian YouTube producer, Shockofgod, who is well known by the Christian YouTube community for his anti-atheism videos, has come out with a video on Windmill Ministries' excellent anti-evolution article.[53] (Note added comma and apostrophe.)
Or, to make it read a little better, could be:
"Shockofgod", a Christian YouTube producer known for his anti-atheism videos, has come out with a piece on Windmill Ministries' excellent anti-evolution article. --Hsmom 09:36, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

--Defense Contractor with close ties to Democrat John Murtha has agreed to plead guilty to taking bribes. CEO Ianiera of Coherent Systems Intl was the recipient of over $8 million in earmarks from D-Pa. John Murtha. There have been calls for Murtha to return more than $68,000 in tainted campaign contributions. [80]
Minor point - I would write Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) instead of D-Pa. John Murtha. I believe that's how it is usually done. (I'm not sure if publications usually use the postal-code abbreviation (PA) or the older style abbreviations.)--Hsmom 09:40, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

--Jana Dickson has been granted a child custody victory by the Utah court system. Her same-sex couple's relationship dissolved and Dickson decided she would raise her two-year-old son properly. She has since married and is a Christian convert. After a lengthy court battle- a righteous ending, for the child is in the best of circumstances. No relationship can compete with the love a mother and a father can provide. [21]
Another minor point of punctuation - "same-sex couple's relationship" would be better as "same-sex relationship" - it removes the problematic apostrophe and thus reads more clearly. I'm also uncomfortable with the punctuation in sentence After a lengthy court battle- a righteous ending, for the child is in the best of circumstances. but I'm unsure how to correct it - perhaps someone who is better at grammar can take a look. --Hsmom 09:45, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

--On July 19, 1869, naturalist John Muir set pen to paper to capture his experience of awakening in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Published in 1911, My First Summer in the Sierra is based on Muir's original journals and sketches of his 1869 stay in the vicinity of the Yosemite Valley. [22]
Another very minor point - Titles of books or articles are usually italicized or underlined or otherwise set off from the rest of the sentence. Thus:
On July 19, 1869, naturalist John Muir set pen to paper to capture his experience of awakening in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Published in 1911, My First Summer in the Sierra is based on Muir's original journals and sketches of his 1869 stay in the vicinity of the Yosemite Valley. [22] --Hsmom 09:49, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

--New health bill bans private new insurance: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the years it becomes effective, observes Wednesday's edition of the Investor's Business Daily.
Is there a reference for this? Or could someone perhaps explain it a little better? It's hard to understand exactly what the quote is from, what it applies to, etc. Is this a state bill or a national bill, or what? Does anyone have the bill number so interested folks could read it for themselves in context and advocate against it if they feel so moved?--Hsmom 09:55, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

I hope these corrections are taken in the spirit in which they are intended - to improve the front page and the impression it gives newcomers. None of us are perfect at grammar (I'm certainly not) so it can sometimes be helpful to have another set of eyes look things over.--Hsmom 09:49, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Obama & liberals Just Love 1984 Department: Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes. Yes, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee has approved a "health-care reform bill" that allows just that. The bill's official summary gives the details: "States may use funds to implement interventions...such as home visits". Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”? [35]

I looked into this. The bill's summary says: "Immunizations: Authorizes states to purchase adult vaccines under CDC contracts. Currently, 23 states purchase vaccines under CDC contracts. These contracts for adult vaccines provide savings that range from 23-69 percent compared to the private sector cost. Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits. Reauthorizes the Immunization Program in Section 317 of the Public Health Service Act."

So I took a look at the Community Preventive Services Task Force, to see what interventions they recommended. See here and here and, most helpful, here. The recommended interventions are:

Interventions to increase community demand for vaccinations

1. Client reminder/recall - Recommended
2. Multicomponent interventions that include education - Recommended
3. Vaccination requirements for childcare, school, and college attendance - Recommended
4. Community-wide education when used alone - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
5. Clinic-based education when used alone - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
6. Client or family incentives - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
7. Client-held medical records - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness

Interventions to enhance access to vaccination services

1. Reducing client out-of-pocket costs - Recommended
2. Expanding access in healthcare settings - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness when implemented alone, Recommended as part of a multicomponent intervention
3. Vaccination programs in WIC settings - Recommended
4. Home visits - Recommended
5. Vaccination programs in schools - Recommended
6. Vaccination programs in childcare centers - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness

Provider- or system-based interventions

1. Provider reminder/recall - Recommended
2. Assessment and feedback for vaccination providers - Recommended
3. Standing orders Adults: Recommended
4. Standing orders Children: Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
5. Provider education when used alone - Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness

It sounds to me like the idea is to enhance access to vaccination services by offering these services in the home for those families who do not have access to transportation to get to a vaccine provider. I think the language of "intervention" conjures up a vision of doctors invading a home and holding the kind of "intervention" done to alcoholics, pressuring the family to vaccinate, but that's not at all what I see in the documents. Home visits are suggested to "enhance access to vaccination services", and the term "intervention" is not used in the "alcoholic intervention" way at all. The CP item asks What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”? I would answer - give vaccinations to those who want them. Certainly there is the potential for problems, but I don't think we need panic over this one. --Hsmom 10:17, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't know what is scarier, Hsmom; the idea you buy into the liberal clap-trap, in a sort of Pollyanna ignorance, or that your existence here at CP has been one of constant liberal apologist, totally disconnected from the deceitful history of their past actions. How often have we seen "recommendations" made by government stretched to outlandish actions all in the name of "the children"?

I have tried, on many occasions, to approach you privately, without the grandstanding public argument usually produces, to no avail. So, I now invite you to contribute materially, substantively, without making liberal-slanted (and divorced from reality) posts like those above. If you cannot or will not, I believe Wikipedia might be a better fit for you, and I wish you Godspeed and best wishes for your future efforts. Per your own wishes, there will be no further communication, warnings or argument. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:32, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

I suppose "Pollyanna ignorance" is most accurate. I am sorry if I have gotten it wrong in my attempt to understand. Please forgive me. I will try to make more useful contributions in the future. --Hsmom 19:39, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Armstrong's quote on the moon was actually That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.--HaroldTurner 21:22, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Please read this. It's somewhat ambiguous, but right after the mission, Armstrong strongly asserted that he didn't miss the "a." Only years later, in 1986, did someone cajole him into believing he had messed up. Despite that, a computer expert working with the audio in 2006 found that Armstrong actually had said the "a." Jinx McHue 10:35, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Makes you wonder who truly is indoctrinated when it comes to the issue of God's existence - the children or people like Dawkins. Jinx McHue 10:46, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Congrats on the growing subscriber base. I was thinking, do you think you could add all the videos that have been featured on the Main Page to your "favorite videos" on the channel? --JY23 10:48, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

The haters have already targeted the account. Frustrate them to no end by moderating or turning off the comments and disabling the ratings for the videos. Jinx McHue 11:08, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

anyone really surprised? --Benp 14:08, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Wasn't there a Republican and a fair number of Jewish leaders arrested also?--IScott 19:37, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Help push Obama's approval rating among Americans below 50% and make him politically impotent by sharing the powerful video Stop Spending Our Future among your family and friends. Conservapedia is currently communicating with a leader within the Tea Party movement to help spread the video Stop Pending Our Future across America as well as other similar video content.
The second mention should read Stop Spending Our Future not Stop Pending Our Future. Could someone with edit rights change it? --Hsmom 08:38, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

[13]

Wow. Just...wow.

Someone tell me again how we have to respect other cultures and their values, even if they're different from ours.

Some things are just evil, and I don't care what rationale is offered. --Benp 19:26, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Although the author did state that "the 1920s annual warming trend is found to be larger in magnitude, that is, by a factor of 1.33, as compared to 1994-2007 warming", one only needs to look at the next sentence in the conclusions: "In contrast, the 1994-2007 winter warming was 1.7 times greater in magnitude over southern Greenland in than 1919-1932." (Winter warming is important as warm winter temperature leads to insufficient ice formation to offset the ice lost in the summer)

Also, the authors noted that the Greenland would likely become "in phase with the hemispheric pattern, as it did after 1923", and "an additional 1.0-1.6 ºC warming would occur." In conclusion, they predicted that, barring "major volcanic eruptions, cooling caused by a negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and/or NAO" and "strong decreases in solar output", Greenland is likely to continue to deglaciate. "It therefore seems much more likely that not that Greenland is and will be for the foreseeable future be a deglaciating Pleistocene Ice Age relic."

This paper neither proves or disproves a warming global climate model. It studies ice build-up or loss in a localized area. Letting others cherry pick their quotes to further their political viewpoints is not the reason the authors published.

ATang 11:21, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Some of these are unbelievable. Some comical. Some downright terrifying.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts

We need to get Republicans back in office so that Americans will be guaranteed to have control over their own health care. Jinx McHue 15:37, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Excellent link for comparison! Thanks, Jinx. It seems the "Blue Dogs" have been beaten into submission for the time being, so The One might still get his way.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:21, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Here's a better link (PDF file): Liberty Council's overview. My favorite line from the bill: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Can you find a better, simpler, more succinct illustration of the bill's absurdity? What else would we expect from Democrats? Jinx McHue 11:32, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

The link to the page following How do we know global warming is a problem if we can't trust the U.S. temperature record? is incorrect. It has a period after the html extension, resulting in a 404 error, removing the extra period fixes the link. BMcP 22:32, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Fixed, thanks for the correction. --Jpatt 22:40, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

How's this for a headline, Poll : Americans no longer cowards, believe Obama acted stupidly on race. [14] Rob Smith 12:47, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

If anyone wish to know how trading for public officials, especially the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, should be conducted, they have what is known as a blind trust whereby a random individual, which Ben Bernanke should have no contact with, does his investing. If Ben Bernanke did his own trading and investing, you can guarantee he would be a billionaire. Personally, I feel the chairman should be invested totally in domestic stock market indices only with an payout option based upon the unemployment rate. This absolutely is not the most profitable investing strategy, but it guarantees the chairman work on behalwf of America. Brown25 13:54, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

The electron may not be a fundamental particle after all. Scientists at Cambridge University have discovered that when placed in a very narrow quantum-scale wires, electrons can break into two smaller particles, called spinons and holons. If this is accurate and other labs reproduce these results, showing the electron can break down into smaller particles, it will change many implications for particle physics. News worth here I hope.[15] - BMcP 13:54, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

The "big" particles like the electron and proton are still "fundamental" to chemistry, even if they in turn are composed of smaller particles. Our pantheon of subatomic particles has a population in the dozens and is still growing. It's nice to know that God can get really intricate with His legos. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:47, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

There's a grammatical error in the latest news post about Obama. Where it says: "your going to destroy...", it should say "you're going to...". --OscarJ 07:30, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Fixed. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:18, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Sciencists with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory believe they can now study the Theory of Relativity in a lab setting using a new breed of artificial optical materials. Up until now we could only observe the theory in the sense that it explains and is demonstrated through the study of astronomical observation such as the bending of starlight by the sun, small shifts Mercury's orbit, and gravitational lensing allowing us to see very distant galaxies. [16]. I'd love to see more science stories on the front page. :) - BMcP 23:46, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Even many at Free Republic have accepted this as fake. The doctor's name is EF Lavender (seriously?) and Kenya was not a republic until August of 1964! Brown25 19:46, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

You are confusing your leftist and/or liberal propaganda, Brown25. This is not the same "birth certificate" story that occurred two or three weeks ago. And Kenya not being a republic, if you had followed the link, the certificate of birth is issued by the local province, and it is normal for those entities to pre-date national governments all over the world. Open your mind....the truth will set you free, and improve your spelling! By the way, we are not displaying anything but a credible news story. I know that isn't fashionable at the frothing leftist sites, but we don't seek or want their approval in any case. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:17, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

TK, I am a conservative, but I don't need to validate my conservatism by espousing theories that really don't pass muster. No offense, but your defense of this purported birth certificate is weak. Many people on Free Republic who otherwise support a theory that President Obama was born overseas feel that this "birth certificate" is a hoax. Conservapedia, I feel, serves as a trustworthy alternative to Wikipedia, which of course is infested with liberal unemployed community college dropouts. It is not liberal to suggest that we maintain this standard of trusworthiness that sets us apart. Also, please let me know which word I misspelled. Thanks, TK. Brown25 01:06, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I am not passing judgment on something I know nothing about, Brown, as you seem to be. Barack Obama, did he not, promise the most open and transparent presidency ever? I did hear him correctly? The article also links to dozens of other past promises, all unfulfilled at a breathtaking breadth even for a master politician, as one must be to actually get elected. A candidate with such a muddled background as Obama has, it isn't exactly insolence for others to ask about his actual (as opposed to an abstract, which a COLB is)birth certificate. Do you understand, Brown25, we don't actually know where Obama was born in Honolulu, if indeed it is, unlike ever other President in our history? Where, exactly, will the signs go, pointing out the Barack Obama Presidential Birthplace? Where will the tours show future generations, our first President of color was delivered, as they do with Jackson, Monroe, Jefferson or even Nixon. You could drive to Dixon, Illinois, and see the spot where Ronald Reagan lived, grew up, as well as Jimmy Carter in Plains, Georgia. Why don't we know, Historians know, these things about our current President? Because Obama has never said, and the adoring, slobbering press, never demanded he say. The real point is, the current White House handlers foster this stuff....circuses instead of hard decisions, loaves of air puffed confection instead of substance. Finally, tell me why Obama should be exempted from revealing the most intimate details of his early life, since no other occupant of the office has? So, yes, I don't think merely asking questions, hard questions, of our President is odd, or puts conservatives in a bad light. The real question needing an answer is why you, the press, and otherwise enlightened people, get squeamish when Obama is demanded to produce the same information all other men holding his office did. I apologize for the flip spelling crack, however the word in the section title, "Uncredible" isn't something I am familiar with. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 06:11, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I know that 2 birth announcements were placed in Hawaiian newspapers two days after President Obama's birth (unless you believe in the old Kenyan Prince birth announcement scam) and I also know that no congressional member has disputed the President's citizenship, either when the electoral votes were counted or when a resolution was passed commemorating Hawaii as the 50th state. Karl Rove, I believe, put it best: [17]. Do I believe that the Obama administration is egging on the far right here by bringing this conspiracy theory into the mainstream? Absolutely. But it is the fault of those who take the bait for marginalizing conservatives. As I've said earlier, part of me enjoys the fact that the current President has to put up with the same junk that our previous President had to put up with. However, I believe that any person or organization that espouses a very probable forgery brings discredit upon itself. Brown25 19:02, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm curious. I watched Keith Slobbermann tonight for a few minutes for laughs because I heard he was going to cover this and he showed the birth certificate that purportedly was used to create the alleged fake. Have document experts examined both? If not, who can say which one is real and which one is fake? Maybe the one that they're claiming is the real one is actually the fake one. Maybe they're both fake. I need more information. I did notice that the creases didn't match up. If you scan something with creases in order to alter it on a computer, the creases would show up in the scanned image. I mean, when Charles Johnson and other bloggers disproved the "fake, but accurate" (i.e. fake, but fake) Bush TANG memo, they easily reproduced and/or explained the methods in which the document was created and aged. Jinx McHue 00:42, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

A consequence of the "Cash for Clunkers" program is that poor people who can’t afford new cars – or expensive used cars -- will be crushed along with all those clunkers due to elite liberals being out-of-touch. If you can only afford $500 - $2,000 for a car, you’ll find many of these vehicles are now unavailable. The junk yards that demolish the clunkers aren’t allowed to pull engines and other usable parts before they’re crushed, making parts for older cars harder and more expensive to get. Yet another blow for the poor who need to repair what they have, rather than buy a replacement as Al Gore, a Congressman or members of their staff would do.

This is exactly what Obama and his Socialist buddies in Congress want. It's a cute scheme. First, they cripple the ability of people to repair older cars with spare parts, which causes people to have to junk their old cars (mostly likely under the same program), which is also good for the Democrats' buddies in the "green" scam, and finally it forces people to rely on government handouts more. Jinx McHue 10:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I will disclose that we took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers deal, along with Chrysler's matching $4500 rebate, and along with a trade in of a moderately aged car with a lot of miles, we got a good car for a very cheap price after your traditional negotiations (which went well even on top of all these rebates - we came down a little below invoice). I will concur that those that can't usually afford new cars were probably not able to use this program and will now have to deal with some upward price pressure on used cars getting under 18 MPG that were worth under $4,500. However, I think one of the major takeaways from the success of this program in generating new car sales is there is a difference between government spending that is demand-side stimulative (Cash for Clunkers, new homeowner tax credit, etc), spending that is for relief (greater earned income tax credit, lengthened unemployment benefits etc.), spending that is just useless (neither relief nor demand-side stimulus - building a $15 million airport for a village of 150 in Alaska), tax cuts that are supply-side stimulative (capital gains and high income tax cuts), and spending that is simply necessary for non-economic reasons (increase in funding for the War on Terror in Afghanistan). Cash for Clunkers, and similarly the new homeowner tax credit, has acheived their stated goals even if we may disagree with the overall efficiency of those goals (I might sound like a hippie for asking this, but do we really need more houses and cars to have a prosperous economy?). But just think what would happen if the Democrats wised up and realized they can do the exact same thing they did for new home and car sales in the employment space by reducing income taxes especially for the lower and middle classes like Ronald Reagan did in 1981. There would be a v-shaped recovery and, barring inflation, President Obama would be reelected in a landslide. If the Democrats actually understood economics, like the Michigan congressional delegation seems to, they could advance their agenda quite effectively (similar argument applies to Republicans as well). President Obama would not have to worry about funding his universal health care plan if he did not spend billions of dollars on bridges to nowhere. The other important takeaway from this program is I think car dealers may start donating to Democrats now (shows that "bribery" still works well) and the state of Michigan will probably also trend Democratic, even in the face of any Republican landslide. Brown25 16:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

The Cash for Clunkers idea was born out of FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration's First 100 days, i.e. create an artifical shortage, in this case an artificial shortage of used cars, and that will both up the demand for new cars and hurt poor people who now have to pay higher prices for the diminished nunmber of used cars available. As the AAA article says,

Due to the nature of the Great Depression, many United States citizens saw the AAA as cruel: while they were often hungering, the federal government was destroying crops and livestock

only here its applied to manufacturers & sellers, not agriculture. Rob Smith 21:14, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

But then I read this:

State Dems propose $10 minimum wage. Read the detrimental effects of a higher minimum wage. The Democrats are intent on making Michigan Bumcountry. Brown25 20:21, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

The "Minimum Wage" sham has been absolutely documented to reduce jobs available, not increase them. Net effect is negative on the poor. Higher Union wages are offset, for the most part, by higher tax brackets and mandatory union dues. Until people will read and learn the truth, they will continue to be enslaved by amoral politicians. The already planned next step for Michigan, Brown, is massive, so-called modern urban planning, which is just repackaged urban renewal. Now the leftists and tinkerers want to fallow the ground, reduce the size of the urban footprint, in effect reforestation and land use manipulation on a massive, federal government funded scale. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:33, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I am getting this message when I try to log in as Joaquín Martínez. Could some one help please? -- JMR10 Joaquín Martínez 19:09, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

• On it, my friend! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:11, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Will work on this also, Joaquin!--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Joaquin, please try it now. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 21:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

So sorry, it stills the same. User:JMR10

OK now, thank you so much. --Joaquín Martínez 21:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

We figured out the problem and fixed it. Thanks so much for your patience and especially thanks to you for all your tremendous contributions here. I've learned enormously from you, Joaquin.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I notice a considerable amount of debate about healthcare, and I want to contribute two contrasting stories to the debate. Form your own conclusions from these two stories, both of which are personal and entirely true:

1) In Ireland, an elderly relative had a bad fall and became very ill indeed. In hospital, she passed through two near-death challenges, had a PEG feeding tube implanted, and was finally released after six months into the care of a private nursing home. Total cost to family of her six month stay in hospital: $0

2) In California, a visiting friend from Ireland fell backwards 14ft onto concrete steps, and broke her spine. Taken by paramedics to one clinic, she was scanned for spinal cord injuries and released into public healthcare as she had no applicable health insurance. After five days she was released from public hospital, in a wheelchair and with a broken spine, into the care of her hosts with whom she had to stay for six months under costly private nursing care before she was able to fly home. Total cost to her: $120,000.

Both healthcare systems have flaws, and both have benefits, but the way some loud people in the US are portraying government-run healthcare is very distorted and their distorted and biased arguments are clouding real debate. JOBrien 11:48, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh, so the "Total cost to familY: $0" does not include societal costs, which incidentally, are costs to her family. Get outta here with this commie rot. Rob Smith 12:56, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

By now it is merely laughable, the Euro Socialists and the American Socialists (like Obama) selling the same old story: "It will cost you nothing!" Where is NHS getting the free medical treatment? Are their workers unpaid volunteers, all? The cost is in enormous taxes, like their VAT, as it will be here in the United States. I dispute the story on the face of it, because I have had friends from the UK hospitalized here in the U.S., and in California, and NHS covered their emergency treatment. And of course Brits are advised to purchase short-term emergency medical insurance as U.S. citizens are for travel in the E.U. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:53, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think you'll find that most, if not all, people in the UK are well aware that the NHS is not "Free"; it's paid for out of general taxation and National Insurance contributions. However, and this is a very well known concept in the UK, it is FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY. This means that, irrespective of your individual financial circumstances, if you are a UK or EU citizen you get health care at the time you need it without having to pay any additional money for it and you won't be sent a bill afterwards. Naturally, just like private health insurance in the UK and I suspect the USA, there is some finite limit to the particular services on offer. However if you don't wish to use the NHS you're welcome to pay for your own private treatment via an insurace company or any other means. What private insurance does not provide in the UK is any emergency treatment; for that you will need to use the NHS. Of course if you're not a UK or EU citizen you'll still get emergency treatment in the UK from the NHS (no one is turned ever away no matter what their financial circumstances or nationality if it's an emergency) but eventually you'll get a bill for it. Oh yes, just for the avoidance of doubt, there are some services one gets from the NHS for which one is expected to make a contribution towards the cost...dental and perscription charges for example. The bottom line is ...if you're sick the NHS will, hopefully, cure you and it won't cost you anything other than the taxes and NI contributions you have already paid, or if you're a minor your parents or guardians have paid. In the UK, the depth of your pocket does not determine whether or not you get medical treatment.BrianNTS 10:27, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

To both RobSmith and TK, some fact checking: I am an Irish emigrant (and now American citizen), and can confirm, that as a self-employed person, I pay 1% more in gross taxes in California than I did in Ireland (48% vs. 47%). Ireland is most certainly neither a Communist nor Socialist country - Ireland has very much looked to America for economic leadership, and took to deregulation like a duck to water almost twenty years ago - prior to that your argument might have held some water. VAT is not levied on health charges, services or oral medicines. TK - I can absolutely certify the complete veracity of these two stories. And the 'Brit' reference is a little off base - you should know we Irish aren't 'Brits'. Perhaps you're confusing the British NHS with the Irish health system - we are two separate nations, so the NHS isn't relevant in this case, and it's amazing to know the NHS would cover your friends. Certainly the Irish health service didn't. Yes, of course she could have had travel health insurance, that was indeed her mistake - but at what a cost! RobSmith - what are the societal costs to which you refer? JOBrien 11:27, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Let's start with TK's point, "Are their workers unpaid volunteers, all?" Now, an Act of Congress will not produce in two years the requiste number of physicians and other assorted healthcare professionals to service an additional 50 million consumers placing demands upon the system. No way. No poss-i-ble way. No possible way can the same level of care be given. No possible way can the same numbers of doctors, who devote ten minutes to a patient, be able to devote maybe three or four minutes to 50 million new patients. No possible way can a sitting Congress, in a two year term, by an act of legislation, produce enough physicians with eight years of medical training. Pure fantasy. Beyond fantasy. Pure deception.

Secondly, now with an overburdened healthcare system, given the same number of workers, and the number of facilities in the same limited space, will expand to cover 50 million new consumers placing demands on the system without adding to costs. Right, healthcare professionals are willing to work harder, for the same amount, or actually, less pay. This whole discussion frankly, is offensives and insulting if you expect a person of average intelligence to swallow any of these bogus arguments. Rob Smith 22:59, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

Rob - yes, it's possible, and today is a good day to start. You can't bury your head in the sand and claim something's not worth doing because it's hard. That's not the American Spirit that took this great nation to the Moon. Yes, it's a complex challenge, and yes, it can be met by this amazing country of resourceful people. JOBrien 00:59, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Poor analogy. The American Spirit that took this great nation to the Moon was a parallel to the Manhattan Project during WWII. America's leaders in the 1960s emulated what FDR & the Democrats did in the 40s, that is, fight a great war & fund an ambitious technological program simultaneously. It was the only economical model Democrats had at the time that in thier view worked. Landing a man on the moon was integral to the Cold War and defeating communism. I was of the highest national priority.

So, we did not make all those sacrifices in the 1960s , spend billions (which incidentally, diverted money away from other projects, like creating jobs foe less fortunate and less educated people) so Communism could triumph in 2009. No, we made those sacrifcices to defeat the scourage of the human species--communism. Rob Smith 11:30, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

I must admit as a Brit I really don't see what the huge fuss is about and why the Republicans are so against this Bill. Could someone explain in simple terms why they are against it (avoiding terms such as Socialist and Orwellian). I have seen it mentioned in the media that people can spend about $500 per month on health insurance. Is this the right kind of figure? From my wages I pay less than £100 (~$150) NI contributions to the NHS per month. Surely an American version would mean that those with Med-insurance could stop that and save around $350 per month. I don't see anyone that looses out(apart from pharmaceutical and insurance companies and the wage packets of doctors)! The NHS is not perfect but it is one of the fairest being free to everybody at point of use.JSmith2

I agree JSmith - I can't see what all the fuss is about, it makes no sense, not to me anyway. All know is that despite the fact that I live in the US (and love doing so, I might add), I'm delighted my elderly widowed father lives in Ireland. With free public transport throughout the country, free prescription drugs, and free medical care, he leads a wonderfully happy life, filled with the confidence that his needs are looked after by the State and that nothing that could happen to him could ever deplete his life's savings. Here in the US, I see nothing but sadness and horrific expenses for the elderly parents of my American friends, and they gasp when I tell them about excellent public health care in Ireland for the elderly. JOBrien 17:37, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

I really don't see what the huge fuss is about and why the Republicans are so against this Bill. Could someone explain in simple terms why they are against it

Certainly. The only arguments put forward appeal to a persons own supposed self-interest. "It will save you... bla bla bla..." "It won't cost you... bla bla bla." Do you have any idea how insulting that is? appealing to self interest and greed? Especially given the unfair and false characterizations liberals routinely make about Republicans & conservatives --that their only interest is self-interest.

As if to say, Republicans & conservatives have no social conscience whatsoever, that their attitudes are "damn the torpedoes, we don't care what permanent negative impacts socialism has on job creation & economic growth, the fact we can save $500 bucks out of pocket is all we care about."

Please, just go elsewhere and preach your hate, we're not having any of it. Rob Smith 13:37, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

I am sorry that I put a self interested "you save this much etc" slant on my previous post. Despite that my query is how people can consider a system where many people cannot have proper health care because they do not have the financial might to afford it as better than one which is available to everybody, regardless of their financial might. Personally I consider the way the NHS works to be similar in some ways to the parable of the Good Samaritan - even the most undesirable get treatment. Although I personally do not use the NHS due to being healthy the tax I pay goes towards helping those who are not so lucky as me who quite possibly have nothing in common with me. It doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor, everyone is treated fairly. Secondly is it not an act of charity to help those less advantaged in life.

There is a reason that it is political suicide in the UK to call for the destuction of the NHS and it is not because we are all closet communists or like state control, it is because we like a system that treats people on their clinical need not the depth of their wallet. Despite the failings and mountainous bureaucracy the NHS gives good care to most people and those that are not happy with it can always 'go private' which is similar to the US system. Oh and by the way Andy it is dangerous to fling around selective statistics to prove a point when the life expectancy for Americans is less than most European countries.JSmith200:55, 19 August 2009 (GMT)

I see. So it works like this: some people don't have financial might, probably because they are stupid. So let's imagine they have $10, but their too stupid to spend it wisely. So let's take the $10 from them, charge them $2 for handling their affairs, and give them $8 back as a gift. Shouldn't they be happy! They got $8 for free, no charge, and we've relieved them of the difficult burdens of life.

Yep, this might be a good sell all over the world, but I want no part of being a target, neither do I want it done in my name (remember the anti-war group, "Not in our name"?) I don't U.S. government bureaucrats taking advantage of the most vulnerable, oppressed, and downtrodden in my name.

Do we now understand each other? Rob Smith 00:18, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I was reminded by a friend tonight of another true story close to me. Given the circumstances, I'm ashamed I didn't mention it earlier. A 30-something year old surfer colleague of mine in California, with a good, corporate job and standard corporate health insurance benefits, was flipped by a wave a few years ago and his neck was snapped, instantly causing him to become a quadraplegic. He spent a year in hospital in emergency care, on a breathing machine, until he learned to at least breath again, though he would be in a wheelchair and paralysed from the neck down for life. After this, he was transported to a clinic specialising in such cases. A few months after this, his health insurance lifetime cap of $2m was hit, and without the ability to continue to pay for the massive health care his life required, he moved home with his family, where he died a month later from respiratory complications. We were all utterly horrified at the way this had come to pass, despite numerous fund-raisers to help, and I was shocked at how the system could let an American die so easily. Under the various European healthcare systems, he would have had continuous care for the rest of his life. JOBrien 22:26, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

European, government-controlled health care systems ration care far more than the U.S. does. You present a tragic example, but there are hundreds of times as many examples under government-run systems where persons needing care die while on waiting lists. In fact, it's such a big problem that the standard notice in England or Canada to patients include a statement like, "if the recipient of this notice (concerning scheduling medical care) has passed away, please accept our condolences."--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I'm not sure about that at all. I grew up in Ireland with a friend who had MS, and who has lived in a State-run clinic to this very day under medical care, as she has been utterly incapacitated since she was about 18 years of age. She's now in her late forties, and although her life is unbelievably limited, she is and will be cared for until her time comes, for free. And I have certainly never come across statements like you describe - our own family's experience before the death of my mother was that of caring nurses coming to the home every two days to change dressings. Again, all for free. When she finally passed, there were no dramatically impolite messages as you describe. JOBrien 22:54, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at the survival rate for prostate cancer in the U.S. versus England. The survival rate is nearly 100% in the U.S., and only half that in England. The victims in England can't get care in time.

In the U.S., I know someone with MS who does very well with the innovative care that is available here, and thrived later than her forties. That care is not available under a government-run system. Sure, care may be cheaper under government systems (at least to the patient, but not the taxpayer). But what matters most is that you get far worse (and rationed) care that way. Free enterprise always provides better services than government does, for obvious reasons.

I bet you like government-run care not for medical reasons, but for political ones: you probably like government control, period. Big supporter of gun control and higher taxes too?--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

The prostate cancer issue is much more complex than it seems at first glance and one needs to be very careful before throwing around medical statistics without deeper analysis. As you probably know, medical opinion is seriously divided on whether or not there is any actual benefit in treating a man for prostate cancer at all, since it has become evident that many elderly men die with, rather than from, the cancer. And the much more aggressive focus in the US on detecting these cancers using PSA tests has meant that more men are diagnosed with the cancer than they are in Europe. However, this simply means that the pool of people who are known to have prostate cancer is larger, and therefore the fatality level is lower. As a result, the American Urological Association is now recommending against yearly prostate screening as they fear the condition is being over-diagnosed, and treatment may not, in fact, help a man live any longer than he otherwise would, and certainly puts him through great pain and discomfort.

As someone who has lived under both health care systems, it's very clear to me which is the better system. And it's not the US one. And I have had the misfortune to have myself and my family extensively exposed to both. The main problem in the US healthcare system is that while excellent health care is indeed available - the best in the world, doubtless - it is only available to those who can afford it. For those who cannot, health care is appalling. Look at the stories from the thousands of locations around the US where an organization originally intended to provide health care to disadvantaged foreign nations has turned to provide emergency free health care to American citizens. The idea that such emergency MASH-style care in stadiums for the poor even has a place in the US is a terrible reflection on the health of this nation.

As to the other issues, gun control isn't relevant to health care. And as I noted above, personal taxation in the US is roughly the same - higher for me personally - than it is in Ireland. Where everyone gets treated for free, unless you elect to pay for health insurance, in which case you can 'go private' as we say, and jump the queue - the choice is yours. JOBrien 00:53, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

"Where everyone gets treated for free".

This is a subconscious response..."free", and the heart of the matter, really. Some people, in particular Europeans, have been so conditioned over the years to the welfare state, they really do actually think of it as free. They no longer value self-reliance, the concept of they know better how to spend their money, and are willing to trade personal freedom and choice for "security" and "free" healthcare. It has become, regrettably, a cultural thing. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 04:58, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

TK - that's possibly a fair point for some people, but for myself I don't believe it applies. I moved to, took citizenship in, and love living in the US because of the free, open market, and I consider myself a capitalist. I think deregulation has worked very well for most industries, and I wish some industries in the US were even more degregulated - cable TV and telephone service are obvious examples where the market is not free and people do not have a fair degree of choice. But when it comes to health care, government-run health care is the right way to go, and not for business reasons, but for philosophical ones. The principle of preserving and enshrining life simply cannot be achieved by looking at the bottom line - it is a philosophical decision a State makes, that it desires to preserve and protect the lives of its citizens. The problem with private health insurance as a methodology is that it by definition cannot act in your best interests as a patient - at a certain point, the 'cheapest care' option for the insurer is to just let you die. That the cheapest method of treatment is usually a pill has led to an entire culture in the US wherein a visit to the doctor often involves the patient asking the doctor for a prescription to a drug which the patient has seen advertised on television - that is simply an upside-down health system, and has led to the hegemony of pharmaceutical companies in the care of our bodies - this is rarely the correct response, and the doctor's listening ear is usually a FAR better way to treat a patient.

The bottom line is that one of the ways you define a civilised nation is that living there guarantees the health of ALL of its citizens. It's a decision we all make as a society together, and we should all agree to pay the price so that you, me, your neighbour and my neighbour are all able to avail of the same degree of care, regardless of income or status. JOBrien 11:19, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

No, JOBrien, the bottom line is that you expect and demand that someone else pay for the contents of your medicine cabinet. Don't push that philosophy here. Karajou 12:23, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Well put, Karajou, and I might add that JOBrien's government care is not really effective medical care. The most effective medical care -- the kind that really improves the health of the patents -- is provided in the free market without government controls, rationing, and limitations.--Andy Schlafly 13:08, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

One might also add that those who pray, and are prayed for, who believe in God, have been shown in study after scientific study to heal more quickly and completely. JOBrien, open your mind, the truth will indeed set you free! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:39, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Having lived under both systems for many years, I know I'm right about which is the better and more effective system. Open your minds and allow the possibility that a system you've never actually experienced might actually work very well indeed. JOBrien 11:07, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

No, you're not, and I know that from experience. Have a nice day. Karajou 12:08, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

He should be giving thanks that the "good sheriff" showed up first. :p - --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:31, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

I seem to have been banned for "talk, talk, talk" and a suggestion has been made that I go elsewhere. Pardon me - I must have misread the Main page tab that says "Talk Page". I will be off elsewhere then. JOBrien 23:18, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

As the Democrats falsely accuse anti-Obamacare protesters of being bused-in "astroturf," they themselves have no qualms about busing-in their own astroturf:

Obama Town Hall: Supporters In New Hampshire Bussed In

Plus they are orchestrating the town halls with planted questions from friendly faces:

Little girl at Obama town hall has not-so-random political connections

And this is just straight from the realm of the bizarre:

Mysterious woman mouths the words as 11 year old asks question at Obama ‘town hall’

Jinx McHue 00:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, the mysterious woman was his campaign's operations manager for the 2008 election. Hardly mysterious or unbiased. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:08, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Woah! Where can I find info. on that? Jinx McHue 00:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I found two woman who worked on his campaign who are blondes: Anita Dunn and Betsy Myers. Myers is listed as the "chief operating officer." Jinx McHue 00:29, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm no good at comparing faces, so I can't tell if it's one, the other or neither. Jinx McHue 10:45, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Regarding this news piece: "How many domestic terrorists does Obama plan on putting in his cabinet? Meet Van Jones." The position Jones was appointed to is not a cabinet post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephM (talk) --- 09:32, 14 August 2009

It's not the Legislative nor Judicial braanches of government that Obama appointed this man to, but that's not the point. What is the point is the fact that Obama has placed subversive radicals with affiliations to known terrorists in high positions of government. Karajou 12:36, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

And one does not need to be a Department head to hold cabinet rank; in fact, the president isn't even required to disclose publicly who he depends on for advice. And who the president depends on for advice or to perform a task doesn't even have to be government employee. Rob Smith 23:06, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

And a silly argument and point, unsigned poster. "The Cabinet" is just a term, actually. They haven't any real, official, collective duties other than offer advice. When asked, and only if asked. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 05:03, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

The point is that the news piece implies that Van Jones was appointed to a cabinet position. He wasn't. A "Trustworthy" encyclopedia should strive to get these basic facts correct. For an official list of cabinet positions and cabinet-level positions see http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/ and note that neither Van Jones nor his position is listed. Couldn't the news item simply be changed to read "How many domestic terrorists does Obama plan on appointing as senior advisor? Meet Van Jones." That would be more factually accurate.

The point is a cabinet position is not necessarily a Dept Head. In fact "Czars" can be even more powerful than Department heads because they have overlapping interdepartmental jurisdiction. Rob Smith 16:51, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Well put, Rob.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Along similar lines, he is not a "convicted felony" as claimed in the In The News Item "...Obama’s Green Jobs Czar, the convicted Felon and self-declared Communist, Van Jones, has direct ties to the organization that’s trying to shut down Glenn Beck..." Yes, was arrested during the Rodney King riots and spent some time jail as a result, but the charges were dropped has was not convicted of even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony. What's the excuse this time for maintaining patently false information on the main page? StephM 15:04, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

The original souring on Jones being jail is extremely ambiguous; [18] in fact, it can be read in such a way as to say he had been in jail 10 years prior to the Rodney King case. This is not an uncommon, or surprising technique of communist authors. Do you have any other sources than truthout.org? Rob Smith 15:28, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

• How about we just plain ban all uses of the "Rules for Radicals" on the part of CP editors when posting to talk pages especially? Or perhaps we should use a short-hand response, like #5, #2, #8, instead of wasting all this typing time? The user might as well have cited the Daily Kos as a source. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:01, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

• Good suggestion. It's been a full day and no response after I expressed willingnesses to work with them. However, as we've all discovered now, the internet cite we have is from a communist publication.

This isn't surprising. Recently, while reading Frank Marshall Davis FBI file, I was struck by the fact that the FBI found no record of him ever being arrested anywhere, not in Chicago, nor Hawaii, or ever. Yet the earlist cite we can find showing a relationship between Davis and the CPUSA is a 1936 article (if I recall) in New Masses saying he was arrested in a raid on another commie publication's office.

So commies aren't afraid to lie about arrests when it maybe never happened, they sure are capabale of distorting the facts when it really does happen. And as I said earlier, you can read the commie article about Van Jones & get the distinct impression Jones was sittting in jail a decade earlier in 1982, not 1992. Rob Smith 00:11, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Rewrite

Indeed the Van Jones article needs a rewrite. This is the consequence of using a commie source, truthout.org. The bio info we have is linked to this site. It says he converted to Communism in August of 1992, yet we know he was involved as "founder" of the commie front organization, STORM, "a group protesting the first Gulf War (i.e. 1991)."

This explains why another commie site, Machete 48, oversighted its link that Trevor Louden wrote on in Obama File 72. Rob Smith 19:01, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I am not understanding how the Braney Frank retort to that audience member ties into Obama's minor faux pas possibly referring to Austrian as a language, instead of a dialect (is it also possible he was referring to the dialect, which is different then standard German). I certainly do not understand why Hitler is being unnecessarily tied to all of this, other then the coincidental fact he was Austrian. Should the two stories at least be separated (although I not sure the later qualifies as newsworthy), and the Hitler reference be dropped? Especially the latter, it comes off as completely flippant and unnecessary. Anyway I just wish to voice my concern. --BMcP 17:07, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

How do you spell "pototo" in Austrian? It's like talking to a dining room table if I need to explain the connection. Rob Smith 17:28, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

A comment or two about pooooor Bawney Fife, and "concerns". Ten thousand smears against Sarah Palin, it's political discourse and free speech! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:32, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

This isn't even really about Barney Frank himself, just questioning the idea of tying the retort to Obama's lackluster speech possibly misunderstanding Austrian as a language instead of a dialect. Yeah I know, the woman was using Nazi allegory, which personally is just as ridiculous as comparing Bush to Hitler and will do nothing for the conservative cause. Of course when people do or say terrible unjust things about Palin, how is mimicking that for Obama any better? Whatever, I stated my concern, no one has to do anything about it, and this is starting to wander off topic. Done. --BMcP 19:36, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I plead guilty, I'm as big a dunce as Dan Quayle & Barack Obama -- I misspelled Potato. Go ahead, shoot me. Rob Smith 19:46, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I did see that, but I didn't want to draw attention to it because I don't want this conversation to degrade into nitpicks and insults. Besides, I have to edit my work all the time for grammar mistakes, so I see it as no big deal at all, we all do it. --BMcP 19:53, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

The two issues are entwined, Frank making the point rather rudely that his consituent was ignorant of certain basic facts of history (although who was in error is highly debateable). And Obama, once again, displaying himself rather ignorant of certain basic facts of history. The whole post-World War II generation learned indepthly there are certain things that needed to be understood from the German experience, how such atrocities could occur in a 20th century modern. Western, allegedly civilized society. Obama it appears, was sleeping in class. He appears to extraordinarily ignorant of certain basic facts of history, like his statement "how we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat each other" in disproven by the German and Nazi experience. Barney Frank can't understand why some people oppose a totalitarian takeover of their families healthcare, thus holding the health of their families and all posterity hostage to the whim of politics. George Bush might have been an advocate of big government, like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin, and Mao Zedong, but grassroots conservatives hold to their principles and beleifs. And we sure as shootin ain't putting up with liberal namecalling and slanders anymore. Rob Smith 20:16, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Maybe the main page could say something about the traitor Tom Ridge. Something like:"Jobless RINO Tom Ridge now claiming that he was pressured by Bush to raise the terror threat level.[19] Is there nothing this traitor won't do to sell more copies of his autobiography?[20]" Just an idea... StephM 19:27, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Your news section says: "Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown may have played a decisive role in releasing the Libyan terrorist who blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky..." (my emphasis). I think you should be considerably more circumspect about this story.

There is now ample evidence that the trial of al-Megrahi and al-Fhima, the two Libyan officials accused of the Lockerbie bombing, was based on fabricated evidence and that witnesses were heavily bribed to give a answer that suited the US and UK governments of the day (those of the loathsome Clinton and Blair).

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has investigatory powers, found six grounds for considering al-Megrahi's conviction unsafe and recommended a retrial. As a result of al-Megrahi returning to Libya and dropping his appeal against conviction, this evidence will now not be heard in Court (conveniently for Blair, Clinton and others).

The grounds on which the Commission recommended a retrial are not yet known publicly (their report is formally the property of al-Megrahi's defence lawyers) but newspapers in the UK have reported that they may include at least some of the following:

• The Maltese shopkeeper who fingered al-Megrahi was a totally unreliable witness because he changed his story several times and didn't recognise al-Meghrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop until he was shown a picture of him in a story headlined, "Is this man the Lockerbie bomber?" It has also been reported that the Maltese guy was paid "millions of dollars" by the FBI for giving evidence against al-Megrahi.
• The engineer who made the timer chip has now stated that he lied in court in return for a hefty bribe.
  • Note that these two witnesses provided the only concrete evidence against al-Megrahi. If they perjured themselves, there is no evidence that al-Megrahi was guilty.
• The label on the bag which the FBI said contained the chip was changed from "Clothing" to "Debris" but this change was not properly witnessed. In Scots Law, this means that the contents of the bag are inadmissable as evidence (because it is reasonable to suppose that they may have been tampered with).
• The crucial chip was examined by the FBI, not an independent lab, but this was not stated at the original trial.
• The police dropped their investigation into a Palestinian group which was known to have the means, motive and opportunity to plant the bomb, with no good reason.

Now, the result of the trial may well have suited Blair and Clinton, by banging up a convenient scapegoat for the Lockerbie bomb. But I don't regard injustice, scapegoating, lies and hypocrisy as conservative virtues and I hope you don't either, even if none of us like the government for which al-Megrahi worked.

Perhaps the most shocking thing about the Lockerbie trial is that the people who really did plant the bomb - and many responsible commentators have stated that the UK and US governments know exactly who they are - have been walking free for over 20 years. JosephMac 16:55, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

You argue an interesting new angle, but without any citations. Are you saying that the surprising release is due to the innocence of the prisoner??? I had not heard that, and wonder if you can provide some citations (if indeed that is your argument).--Andy Schlafly 18:54, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'll add citations. They're in newspapers, so it's not that easy to give a permanent reference. I'll try to find citations to on-line sources so you guys over there can read them. I'll try to do it over the next couple of days.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, described al-Megrahi in his statement on Friday as "guilty of murder", suggesting that he (publicly at least) believes the Lockerbie trial was fair. However, many others who have followed the case closely don't agree - and I definitely don't mean conspiracy nuts. I mean serious journalists writing in proper newspapers and magazines and also many of the relatives of the British victims, notably Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter was killed on the plane, and also the official UN observer at the trial, a law professor from Austria.

So if you take MacAskill's words at face value, no, al-Megrahi wasn't released because the Scottish Government believes he's not guilty. However, there's a strong suspicion in much of the UK press that there was something of a stitch-up (1) to let al-Megrahi out of jail because there's now no credible evidence of his involvement, (2) to do so quickly because he hasn't got long to live and (3) to make sure the re-trial didn't get to court so the public don't see embarrassing information about the fabrication of evidence and the ease with which the Scottish police and judges (who normally enjoy a good reputation) were duped by the prosecution. Gaddafi's son has claimed that (4) there was also a commercial angle, i.e. to do with UK-Libyan trade but New Labour denies this and the Gaddafi family is one of the few organisations less trustworthy than New Labour, so I wouldn't place too much reliance on his statement. One thing I've seen questioned is (5) why Obama condemned the decision instead of just accepting that a man who's almost certainly innocent should be let out of prison to die at home; my answer would be that he's just playing to gallery in the USA, which seems very much in line with his shifty character.

NB, you used the word 'surprising'. It wasn't - it's been trailed for several months that this was likely to happen. The surprising thing was al-Megrahi dropping his appeal against conviction. Perhaps that was part of the alleged stitch-up. JosephMac 20:22, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if there are any figures available relating to this Scottish "compassion" for mass-murderers? How many others, in recent decades, have they released? And our FBI Director, how would one explain his letter? What is his incentive with going along with Obama, and how would they pressure him? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:44, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

The link on the front page to "Your Life, Your Choices" is dead. Did the VA move it in response to our criticism? (I didn't think we were that powerful.) There's a copy of the same pamphlet at [21] but I don't know how recent it is. Is it the old 1997 version? --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:56, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I rather imagine that due to Fox News having the story on their Web page and featuring it on all of its newscasts on television, and given the outcry from half a dozen United States Senators, they have removed it, once again, pending direction from Pennsylvania Avenue. I fixed the link to the one you have, Ed. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 12:06, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

"Homeschooled Girl Ordered to Attend Public School Over Her 'Rigid' Faith: Amanda Kurowski is a 10-year-old homeschooled girl who performs well academically and is socially well-adjusted. But her strong Christian beliefs were reason enough for a New Hampshire court to order her out of homeschooling and into a public school."[22]
This is another divorce case, but interesting none-the-less, as the mom had tried to address the dad's concerns by meeting him half-way (according to the article). --Hsmom 13:06, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Interesting indeed, which is why we posted it on the Main Page many days ago. Thanks anyway.--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh gosh, I didn't see it! Sorry for wasting everyone's time. I did a quick scan of the front page but didn't read carefully - serves me right! Will do my homework better next time! --Hsmom 19:13, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Can we collect items like this in a Legal aspects of homeschooling article? --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

That's a great idea, Ed! Your proposed entry will be sure to grow and grow!!!--Andy Schlafly 10:45, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Watch this video:

Kennedy Grandson Prays for Quality Health Care for Every American

It's patently obvious this kid's "prayer" was written by someone else. These people are sick! Almost nothing is sacred to them. Not someone's death, not kids, not prayers, not funerals, not church. The only sacred thing is their dream of a socialist America. Jinx McHue 10:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Caution: Connecticut lawmakers at “work”

Any other job, they'd have been fired as soon as word got out.

They also have an excuse:

Solitaire-playing lawmakers defend their “momentary diversion”

Jinx McHue 09:12, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Great catch! Posted as suggested.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi guys,

Do you think the current headline on Obama's remarks about Islam are appropriate? There are over one billion Muslims in the world, and to judge them and their religion on the worst of Islam's political/cultural/social qualities seems unfair.

I don't judge Christianity on its modern barbarity (Christian phalangists in Lebanon mass-murdering Palestinian refugees), and imperialism (invasions of Muslim countries).

The barbaric laws that you reference come from the Old Testament, which is as Christian as it is Islamic.--Claypool 11:21, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

If you can prove that the modern barbarism of Muslims is unrelated to Islam, I think I would change the headline. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:28, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

No, I in fact do not think Obama's remarks about Islam are appropriate. This guy thumbed his nose at the ecumenical National Day of Prayer, but was quick to recognize Ramadan and praise Islam.

But he's not a Muslim, right? Right. Jinx McHue 11:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Personally, I would add Nicholas Berg and 9/11 to the list of things mentioned in the front page section. Jinx McHue 11:38, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Here's an explanation (primary source is from the WSJ) as to why the healthcare debate has been such a fiasco. In 2005 focus groups revealed that the current reaction by the public was to be expected. This was uncovered by liberal-funded research. The liberals apparently confused themselves by having their hired pollster "paper over" this important, but upsetting, at-least-to-liberal-democrats, fact. --RickD 09:51, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Your point is fascinating but the link is to comments. Your headline is right on target: amateur hour with Obama, who stated that surgeons charge $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a limb! (an absurdity)--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

• building hundreds of new settlements in the West Bank

Do we have an article explaining the background of this issue? I'd like to see some objective history on this tangled topic, or at least a good description of the liberal vs. conservative views. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:39, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Check out this news report from Massachusetts: [23]. Pay close attention to the powers granted to the governor and health commissioner at 0:40. "...to close or evacuate buildings, enter private property, isolate or quarantine people, to get and distribute meds and vaccines." Plus a list of "volunteers" to carry out these orders and $1000/day fine and prison for people who refuse to comply. Kind of puts Maine's declaration of a "state of emergency" is a frightening light, doesn't it? Jinx McHue 00:32, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Indeed it does.--Andy Schlafly 07:30, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

This is sickening (pun intended). It appears many in America, and Maine in particular, are facing social oppression in the face of these new "boogeyman" diseases, and personal oppression if they resist. The government would like you to believe that a minor case of the flu will destroy the whole of the nation and ruin your life, but somehow being beaten into a coma by the National Guard is the cure. MICasey 10:51, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

I just noticed a minor spelling error; perhaps someone with the appropriate privileges can change it? "Will prosecuting Dick Cheney for putting a catepiller on the big toe of 9/11 terror attack mastermind and mass murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, help save President Obama's sagging poll numbers?"
Instead of "catepiller", it should be spelled "caterpillar". --Hsmom 22:44, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Can someone fix the layout on this? Disregard this comment if it appears well and normal on your monitor, but mine has the image distorting the natural flow of the text, with the word "Conservapedians" set aside on the right, and all the other text mashed beneath the image. Also, if someone affiliated with the event can provide a source for the number of self-described Conservapedians attended (or to what level, if any, Conservapedians coordinated the event), this would greatly help the news item. MICasey 08:03, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

That layout was intentional. We dare to be different in the presentations here. Do you think it obscures the substance in any way?

I don't have the data on the precise participation Conservapedians in this event, but I was there and it the crowd seemed to be several hundred. I was alerted to it by another Conservapedian.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Very well. I didn't mean to over-step my bounds by requesting such information; it was purely with the intent of fomenting better headlines if a similar event were to occur. For example, if you were to attend or speak at another protest (in conjunction with any cause, not purely Teabag related), the headline may as well include your name, or the name of any other CP editor/sysop/admin and a short summary of their remarks.

Also, regarding the format of the news item, it seems to have been a bi-product of my monitor specifications, and it has been rectified. I did not mean to imply that it was a result of shoddy site-crafting, which you may have been falsely inferred based on your statement of "dar[ing] to be different". I apologize for the mis-communication. MICasey 19:18, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

"There are some reason to believe that Palestinians would be relocated to the United States but that has been proven false." This is a terribly written sentence. First of all, it should either read "there is some reason to believe" or "there are some who believe". Secondly, if the potential resettlement of Palestinians to the United States is an unjustified claim, why is it even in the news feed? I was unaware that the idea was even circulating in Washington. It would probably be better to remove this sentence to prevent misunderstanding. At the very least, it should be rephrased to something along the lines of "The rumor that Palestinians would be relocated to the United States has been proven false."--Adel 22:38, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for finding that grammar error. The idea isn't circulating in D.C., you are correct. It was buried along with many other stories. The reason I include that statement, you'll notice my original post. A relative that had alerted me to the story and I did some research and posted. Soon thereafter, I corrected it with the appropriate information. So anybody who read the original would see the mistake that was made, was corrected. As far as the rumor statement, I am fine with how it reads. Snopes has been known to be wrong and the President has been proven to be non-transparent.--Jpatt 23:05, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

The Vanishing: Why Did Obama Suddenly Nix 17 Millon From Tally of Uninsured?

Very telling. They got caught and are now backtracking. Jinx McHue 12:59, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Barack Obama Takes Veiled Swipe at Sarah Palin Over Death Panels

Obama's bogus claims:

1. "kill reform at any cost" - Blatant lie. Republicans want reform, not Obamacare.

2. "power to kill off senior citizens" - Straw man. No one's argued that the death panels will "kill off senior citizens."

3. "illegal immigrants" - Then why was the figure for uninsured Americans revised from 47 million down to "over 30 million?" 17 million falls within the range for the official estimates of illegals in America.

Jinx McHue 13:14, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't think a list is the most useful news section format, but if you can locate an article which categorically and systematically dismantles Obama's B.S., then please add this, as its quite a good scoop. MICasey 19:26, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Can someone please remove the line about Google "giv[ing] allegiance to Sputnik"? We're talking about a logo decoration that is two-years old here, and this is akin to saying that Conservapedia pledges allegiance to MS Paint because of the old emblem. I fail to see how Sputnik anniversary = evil, anyhow. It's no more evil or anti-American than their Halloween-themed logos, is it? I've actually switched to Bing.com as my preferred search engine, not for any percieved "allegiance" issues, but because it is a better engine, and I was deeply moved by their digital memorial to the September 11th attacks when I got online today I'd nearly forgotten about the beautiful towers of light that they erect each year at Ground Zero. Thank you. MICasey 14:02, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't buy your analogy. This is a consistent pattern with Google. I could have used some other recent comparison but 9/11 is officially America's day that we will NEVER FORGET, unlike Google. Now if your are a commie leftist that doesn't honor America, than you honor Russian achievements, like Sputnik. Getit? --Jpatt 14:13, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Google is one of the most ferociously capitalist organizations of recent memory. Conservapedia's own article on the company talks about the sick things they resort to for the sake of revenue (pornography, etc.) Your allegations of communism make you sound like you're wee bit clueless as to the definitions of the words you are using.

Now, secondly, in what sense is 9/11 an "officially" unforgettable day? There is no document which states it must be observed or acknowledged in any way other than the half-staff flying of flags. Even the moment of silence (which less and less Americans claim to observe each year) is optional. I mean, to be honest, have you read up on anything you are talking about?

Finally, no, I do not "Getit", wherein "it" refers to arguments like this: "Now if your are a commie leftist that doesn't honor America, than you honor Russian achievements, like Sputnik." First of all, I am not "commie leftist that doesn't honor America". Also, anyone who is a "commie leftist" does not automatically become a worshipper of Russian achievements. That is one of the worst logical fallacies I have ever come across, and while I appreciate your conservative passion, you're dim mind hampers the cause of intellectual conservative progress.

I highly doubt that, 8 years after Pearl Harbor, anyone of intelligence was whining at IBM for not including pictures of the sunken U.S.S. Arizona in their advertising. America is a resilient country, and to ignore that fact (as you do, by suggesting Americans are America's enemies and we should dwell on misery to prove we love America) does a disservice to the memory of those who died. To pretend a national tragedy must be bombarding our psyche's any more than those of the past out of some perverted sense that our generation is more important or more Christian, or more Patriotic reaks of a ego-fueled zeitgeist which I will PROUDLY not take part in. Put your nose in a book, PLEASE.

MICasey 15:39, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Maybe you should frequent some other website. We don't mindlessly lash out here. Contribute or be gone. --Jpatt 15:48, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Now, I'm new, but it seems to me that MICasey is being a bit agressive here! After all, there are two reasons why anyone whouldn't honor 9/11. And accusing a fellow American (and, I assume, a fellow Christian) of taking part in a zeitgeist seems the least bit disrespectful! Michael

To be fair, Google is involved in an online 9-11 memorial project. Wayne 17:52, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

That's an interesting tidbit, but knowing Google's less-than-patriotic track record, this project is probably more of a token than a true message from the heart, especially when compared to bing's efforts. --MichaelsonM 18:04, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

You might be correct, but probably not: after all, Bing IS owned by Microsoft, which is owned by Bill Gates, a notorious liberal whose foundation supports "family planning", a euphemism for abortion. Wayne 18:11, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree atheist / agnostic individuals don't deserve additional shout-outs (Bill Gates). In his case, he married a Catholic. I am hoping she will help change his views before he passes. His vaccine efforts need more detail on his article, anyone? --Jpatt 18:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Do you mean the vaccines that are linked to autism and other health issues? Wayne 18:20, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't know the extent of his work, but I believe even Buffet donated billions to that foundation of his. --Jpatt 18:22, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Jpatt, I will admit that the tacked-on insults within my post were over the line. However, I don't appreciate your broad-stroke accusation of "mindless[ness]". By definition, everything you said was, for whatever reason, quite illogical, and I only told MY opinion of what I would do to rectify that (i.e., read up on the topic at hand - have you done that yet?). If it is mindless to promote familiarity with the debate's topic, then I suppose I am quite the Abecedarian village idiot, yes?

Also, I must say it's a bit perplexing that a particular searches "Google hits" is often used as a basis for a subject's notability on CP, yet we now seem to be coming down on the side of "Google is useless" (a point I'm inclined to agree with). If Google is a bunch of overwhelmingly "commie leftist", Chinese Internet-censoring, pornography profiteers then why do we contribute to their # of users, and thus, their ad revenue potential? I suggest CP forbid the use of Google as a searching tool, a boycott if you will, until they begin to change their ways (perhaps a Bible-themed logo will show they have had a change of heart). Google is notorious for plasting the first page of results with Wikipedia entries anyway. MICasey 08:41, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Hello, I'm new here. Please let me know how things work if I'm doing anything wrong. I just wanted to correct an error in a news item. Unfortunately, the "2 million protesters" number is wrong (Seems like it was more like 100,000). See Michelle Malkin's post for more information: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/celebrating-the-912-rallies/ -- she worries that repeating misinformation like this will be used as a tool for liberals to discredit a legitimate protest. Aroth 11:19, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

I noticed this, too, but I think it's more important to just leave it as written. The reason these Americans united in DC is important, not the "figure" of how many were there. MICasey 11:46, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

But isn't it a stronger news item if it is corrected to be true? As you say, the figure isn't important. But we should be able to back up the things we say. Otherwise, why not update it to say 5 million? Aroth 12:04, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Because numbers like that are exactly as outlandish as something has to be for libs and secular progs to start decrying them. The strength of a news item is, I believe, entirely based on the strength of the information it has. Which figure sends a stronger message? MICasey 20:37, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

"... experts say the counting itself often becomes politicized as authorities, organizers, and attendees often come up with dramatically different counts." [24]

The point is that the rallies arguably attracted more people than those in 2003, where liberals protested the US involvement in the Iraq War. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:51, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I have to agree with MICasey, there are no accurate numbers on the 9-12 Rallies. I have heard ranges from 60-70,000 to 2 million, but every estimate is little more than guess work colored with the biases of whomever is reporting. The number of 2 million should be removed as it isn't verifiable. Even the link provided with the news item gives no tally of the amount of people there. --BMcP 08:04, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Does somebody want to put something up on the news page about the awful killing of Annie Le at Yale? She was strangled to death just days before her wedding. This might be a good warning about the values at bastions of liberal thought like Yale. Aroth 17:29, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

While I was looking into the "compromise" for requiring health insurance and saw that Mitt Romney proposed that in Massachusetts a few years ago. [25] [26] CNN even calls that model 'Romney care' [27] In 2004, Romney wrote an article titled "My plan for Massachusetts health insurance reform" [28] in which he writes "We would apply "carrots and sticks" to encourage everyone to purchase." It sounds like the proposal in congress now is indeed a compromise with a plan that was introduced by a conservative. --JohnnyS 23:55, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Conservatives disapproved of the Massachusetts plan long ago. Please see our entry about it, which predates current events.--Andy Schlafly 09:28, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Erm? This Obama story is from the Daily Telegraph, which is as impeccably conservative a journal as you could hope to encounter. I don't know if somebody is joking around here, but that is like calling The National Review a liberal magazine. --Jdixon 14:17, 17 September 2009 (GMT)

Thanks for the local flavor, but the British press as a whole is quite liberal and I don't know any conservatives who think the Daily Telegraph is truly a conservative publication. It fights for liberal market share in England just like the other newspapers.--Andy Schlafly 09:27, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

They are entitled to their view. But I have yet to meet a conservative who doesn't view the Torygraph (as it is known) as a conservative publication. Columnists such as Simon Heffer have been among the few positioning themselves well to the right of the current "Conservative"party and identifying David Cameron as the fraud he is. Anyway, there is certainly no way the Telegraph is a "liberal" publication. Call the Telegraph that and the word loses any meaning. How do you, then, refer to The Guardian or the New Statesman? --Jdixon 14:45, 17 September 2009 (GMT)

I've learned from your comments. Thank you. That said, the Main Page refers to the "liberal press" as a whole in Britain. The Telegraph may well be on the right side of that group, but a brilliant 3rd grade student is still a 3rd grade student.

Moreover, the race-baiting column cited is plainly and undeniably liberal. Surely you don't think it was printed by a mistake at the Telegraph?--Andy Schlafly 10:03, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

The first part of what you say makes sense (though the Murdoch-dominated print media is much less liberal in the UK than the leftist broadcast media). As for the article, I don't think the conclusions drawn are particularly liberal. Consder this extract:

"Has America really turned around and stumbled back into the sulphurous swamps of racial hatred? The short answer is no. Mr Obama is becoming a much less popular figure than he was when he entered office, partly because of the usual laws of political gravity, but also because of the unrealistic expectations he encouraged and the number of mistakes he has made."

I would have thought this could appear unedited in some corner of Conservapedia. Don't you? --Jdixon 15:26, 17 September 2009 (GMT)

While correct, it couldn't appear unedited here, as Conservapedia is not a dumping ground for editorial opinion. As for the article, it explicitly describes Tea-Party protesters as racist, and denigrates anyone who demands proof of Obama's questionable citizenship. These do not appear to be liberal conclusions to you? DouglasA 10:30, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

I opinion that talking about the British liberal press, and then highlighting the Telegraph, was not the way to go. Read a few of the Telegraph blogs written by Telegraph writers and assorted guests, including Nile Gardiner from the Heritage Foundation (one post here today: [29]), and you will see that the Telegraph is anything but liberal. The editorial highlighted on the front page isn't liberal, but the Telegraph isn't always conservative. On balance, though, the Telegraph is conservative. Breithaupt 10:54, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate the insights above, even by the critics of our news posting. I've learned from the criticism. However, there has not been a specific suggestion of improvement and honestly I don't see any need to change the headline. The British press is undeniably liberal as a whole, and the linked article is outrageously liberal. The fact it ran in one of less liberal papers may say more about how liberal the British press is than anything else.--Andy Schlafly 10:59, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

That seems fair enough, Andy. Just thought I'd mention it. If you want assurance that the entire paper has not veered leftwards then check out Heffer on pathetic liberal nanny-state efforts to stop decent people from accompanying kids on school trips. "[Ian] Huntley murdered thanks to police incompetence: and if we really wanted to protect our children, we would hang people like him." There is still red meat here. Jdixon 16:34, 17 September 2009 (GMT)

Actually, the article linked to is saying the opposite of what Conservapedia's news item says it does. It says, for one, that liberals "have the wrong man" in targeting Wilson as a racist, and that his anger at Obama's speech "reflected a manifestation of genuine anger felt by many ordinary Americans about the wholesale state intervention of the Obama administration that amounts to an ambitious and radical transformation of the country," adding "crying racism can be a cheap way of shutting down debate." While your point about the British press being liberal is true, there's nothing "outrageously liberal" about this article. In fact, it reads largely like something Bill Kristol would write.

I'd give a specific suggestion of improvement for the news item. Remove it altogether, as it's blatantly false. JDWpianist 15:12, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

So we agree that the British press is liberal. That's a good start. The article itself is a race-obsessed diatribe. You're right that, after tarring with the racist brush, the author then backs off and says that perhaps not every critic of Obama should be called a racist after all.

If you're fine with that approach, then would you welcome an article explaining that liberals are not as dimwitted and close-minded as it appears? I doubt you'd defend such an article as strongly as you defend the race-obsessed rant.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 17 September 2009 (EDT)