Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Recruitment center shootings

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)

Wins by conservatives

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)

Tiananmen Square

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)

UK politics

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)

Debts

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)

Fix news item

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)

featured article "ongoing war on terror"

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)

North Korean Trial

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)

Palin and ethics

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)

Another misleadingly worded news item

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)

Suggested News Item

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

News Item: Hollywood values strike again!

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.

Tobacco to be regulated by FDA

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)

11-22-33-44 is arithmetic growth

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

Is shrinking such a bad thing?

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)

Liberals aren't monsters?

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)

News item grammar

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)

News item style

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)

Iran?

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)

Siding with Ahmadinejad?

""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)

Patricia Ann

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)

Safe Schools Czar

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)

Masculinity Essay?

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)

Incorrect News about Colder Temperatures

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)

Obama approval ratings continue slide

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

Walpin-gate

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

you tube front page story

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)

Sanford

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)

Left side of the main page

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)

Real, fake

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)

Fake change

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)

Celebrity deaths

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)

Oh.. Canada...

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)

Irish Government Ombudsman discusses Ryan Report

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)

Al Franken's "win"

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)

They're all liberals?

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. Anyone'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)

Can we feature two news stories on the main page?

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)

Palin

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)