Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives


Contents

The summer that never was?

Sure WAS in Austin Wayne 15:37, 19 September 2009 (EDT).

and Vietnam. Wayne 15:38, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Oregon. Wayne 15:40, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Canada's northWayne 15:41, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and British Columbia (only 1/3 the amount of normal rainfall) Wayne 15:43, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Brownsville Wayne 15:48, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
And south-eastern Florida Wayne 15:50, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

It's a big planet Wayne. Somewhere on Earth it's the warmest summer ever, somewhere it's the coldest. In the planet's 5.4 billion year history, there have been periods when the Earth was warmer and cooler than today. Chippeterson September 19 2008

I thought the Earth was only around 6,000 years old. Am I wrong on this? KuonL 16:49, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Which is why calling this the "summer that never was" is at best a bit of a misnomer. Wayne 15:50, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Well it was certainly cooler then normal here in SE Wisconsin, one Ninety degree day in the two months of July and August combined. However such a summer does not disprove Global Warming anymore then if this had been a very warm summer would have proven Global Warming. One year is an indication of nothing, anyone in meteorology will tell you this. If there is a trend, it will have to be over multiple decades. --BMcP 16:19, 19 September 2009 (EDT)


And Minnesota Wayne 00:19, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

And you're an idiot. Honestly! One day does not an entire Summer make! Being a Minnesotan and a weather watcher, I can tell you straight up that this was one of the mildest Summers Minnesota has ever had. I have to note, too, that your own link disproves your assertions. Read the rest of it instead of just the headline. They had NEAR FREEZING temps in northern Minnesota that same day. That's the inconvenient truth you refuse to admit. Jinx McHue 13:44, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
And California Wayne 00:21, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
and Houston Wayne 00:22, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Australia Wayne 00:23, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Seattle Wayne 00:24, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Edmonton Wayne 00:26, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Viva Las Vegas! Wayne 00:27, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Alaska, too.

Just so you know, there is a trend in place. While this summer is unusually cool, the "cooling" trend began in 1998. I read the Global Koolaid alarmists counter claim is surface temps are cooler, naturally, sea temps still high. Still include no solar info to their man-made claims.--Jpatt 00:32, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

1. The "unusually cool" seems to depend on where you were. 2. I'm not making any argument re: global warming, cooling, or climate change, anthropomorphic, solar, natural or otherwise. But a claim that this was the "summer that never was" is suffering from a too-narrow viewpoint at best, and is deceitful at worst. Wayne 00:56, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Wayne, your dispute is with the facts, not with us. And the fact is that the temperatures are cooling, not warming. I randomly checked two of your cites at the top of this entry and found, as I expected, that your citations merely deal with an isolated hot day or so. The Florida article, for example, discusses merely the first day of summer there. The article cited on our Main Page deals with the entire summer. I trust you can appreciate the difference.
Your denial that temperatures are cooling prove the central point. Global warming is a lie, but of course liberals won't admit it. Al Gore and other liberal hucksters will just keep hawking their falsehoods as long as close-minded suckers continue to believe and repeat it. If you're not getting at least a small piece of the $100 million that Al Gore is making for his deceit, then you're really being taken for a ride.--Andy Schlafly 09:30, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
2008 of course, is the last year we have complete data. According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, however it was the 12th warmest year overall since measurements first been taken back in 1880. Ten of the twelve warming years occurred in a period of 1997 to 2008.[[1]] What does this mean? Well the last decade was very warm. Does this mean the Earth is warming up over the long period, not necessarily. However there is no indication of a real worldwide Global cooling either, even if 2009 is even cooler then 2008. It is not long enough of a period to make that determination. --BMcP 19:44, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanksgiving.

Seeing as how the "first Thanksgiving" in America occurred more a century and a half before the Constitution came around (1619), one might want to clarify/insert a caveat that we're talking about the first federally-mandated Thanksgiving holiday, which Washington declared in 1789 in thanks for the way in which God had allowed the nation "to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted..." and not the "first Thanksgiving." Also, one might want to capitalize "Thanksgiving." Wayne 12:55, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

What are you talking about? I'm new here, so take that into account, but I can't seem to find the error you refer to. If it's there, why not fix it yourself instead of addressing it on the talk page? Also, I have sort of a despising feeling towards know-it-alls, but the first Thanksgiving was in 1621, since the Pilgrims arrived in 1620. RoyP 14:39, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
"If it's there, why not fix it yourself instead of addressing it on the talk page?" because only sysops can edit that page.Wayne 17:39, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
I've used Wikipedia before once or twice, so I thought everyone could edit anywhere. I just reviewed a lot of Conservapedia's rules and it seems you are correct this one time. And yes there is a factual error, and hopefully it will be corrected. RoyP 19:37, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
My understanding is that not everyone can edit everywhere on Wikipedia. I thought many pages are locked against editing, and anyone who inserts truthful but conservative information into certain atheistic or liberal entries (e.g., evolution, global warming) will be immediately reverted and blocked if he continues. So your comment about Wikipedia is baffling.--Andy Schlafly 15:06, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Public School Students Indoctrination Video

The link just goes to the Foxnews main page, just a FYI. --BMcP 16:20, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Anyone know why this video is getting attention now? I could swear that I first saw it months ago. Jinx McHue 11:46, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Today's (926/09) WP "Featured article"

A smear article about the Boy Scouts: Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Jinx McHue 12:36, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

How long does it take evolutionists to admit Darwin was wrong?

Wrong about what? The Appendix itself? Well of course he may have been wrong, but Darwin wasn't the first or final authority on the appendix and we are still not entirely sure that has a purpose. Some researchers propose it does a couple years back based on some of their findings which looks promising, however the jury may still be out on this. If the appendix does serve the purpose proposed, great, that is what makes science wonderful, discovering new things in light of new evidence, which allows the updates or new theories. Fortunately the appendix isn't essential in anyway since we all can live perfectly good lives after having it removed, which is just as well since the appendix is of such poor design. --BMcP 08:16, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, BMcP, for demonstrating how evolutionists never admit being wrong. This is why the Piltdown Man fraud was taught to two generations of students and it took about 40 years for that fraud to eradicated. It took 100 years for the Haeckel drawings fraud to be taken out of textbooks.
How long before the false claim about the appendix being a vestigial organ is taken out of textbooks promoting evolution???--Andy Schlafly 08:45, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Hmm, I already said he may have been wrong about the appendix. The article sited, correctly, that researchers may have discovered that the appendix has a purpose. I agree with the word "may", because further research is needed and other scientists need to be able to duplicate the findings before such can be accepted as "fact". It may be fact the appendix serves a purpose. What is fact is that we can live without it, we do know that, otherwise those of us who have Appendicitis and had it removed would not be able to go on living, but we do. It is also of poor design because it is so prone to infection and rupture.
Of course wither the Appendix has a purpose or not has little to do with evolution itself. Finding the Appendix indeed has a purpose would no more shake the theory then definitely discovering it had no purpose would somehow "prove" evolution. All that confirming through science the Appendix having a purpose would mean is that previous conclusions were in error, and that thanks to new efforts and new evidence by scientists, we know have more information on the organ and we can update our theories accordingly. This only shows me that the scientific method works. --BMcP 10:52, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you're now illustrating two characteristics of evolutionists: last wordism and refusal to admit errors. You avoid the undeniable fact about how long evolutionists taught the Piltdown Man and Haeckel drawings frauds, long after any open-minded review of them would have revealed their falsehoods. Now you persist in saying only that Darwin merely "may" have been wrong about the appendix. He was wrong, but evolutionists won't admit it.
Think it'll take another 150 years before diehard evolutionists admit Darwin was wrong??? Evolutionists have free will to cling to falsehoods, and it would not be surprising to see them do so.--Andy Schlafly 11:26, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
The issue I have is over how the post was worded in regards to the Appendix and evolution. I don't elect to talk about Piltdown Man and Haeckel drawings here because they not the subject at hand, and have their own talk pages. I already stated, twice, that indeed the century or so old conclusion the Appendix is a vestigial organ may indeed be in error. I use the word may, because the article cited in the original posting stated researchers may have discovered the Appendix serves a purpose. This view is collaborated by those at Duke University Medical School would conducted the research.[[2]] [[3]] Their research shows promise, may very well be true, but further research is needed for a more definite conclusion. If they are correct, then scientific journals and textbooks will need to be updated. It is also in all probability, these same researchers fully accept evolutionary theory.
I have stated my objection and will say no more here as endless debate should be avoided. Please, feel free to have the last word in response. --BMcP 12:52, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Hey, BMcP, you're missing the current evolutionist argument when it comes to the non-uselessness of the appendix. They move the goalposts by redefining the word "vestigial" and claim that the appendix's current use is different from its original use. Of course, there is absolutely zero evidence that the appendix was ever anything different in our alleged evolutionary ancestors and there never will be any evidence. Ever. It is something that evolutionists believe on... dare I say it?... faith. Jinx McHue 14:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Please inquire if I am or am not "missing" any argument on my personal talk page in regards to this. I don't want to continue lengthening this section of the main page, as I feel all I wanted to say here has been said. Thanks. --BMcP 14:50, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you're not fooling anyone here. Evolutionists always refuse to discuss and defend their beliefs when they might be outnumbered, as you now are on this page. Another example is how evolutionists never agree to robust public debates.
You've posted several times here but still won't admit that (1) Darwin was wrong about the appendix, (2) the Piltdown Man fraud was taught for 40 years, and the (3) Haeckel drawing fraud was taught for 100 years. Do yourself a big favor and revisit evolution with an open mind. Evolution was force-fed to all of us as teenagers, but those of us who reconsidered with an open mind are then able to move beyond it. You can too.--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I felt that if Jinx or anyone wants to discuss broader evolutionary concepts with me, they could on my personal page, which is viewable to all and wouldn't spam this page. I didn't want to continue here, because defending myself gets me accused of wanting the "last word", so I was going to sit back and let you who disagree have the final say. However now in doing that I am now being accused of not wanting to discuss my conclusions, which again is just about the subject of the article and the erroneous conclusion that 1)The appendix certainly has a use versus it may have a use 2)The idea that those who accept evolution thinks Darwin was perfect on ever point about every subject he held an opinion on, when we all acknowledge he certainly was not. Done. --BMcP 19:08, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you've confirmed the three points: no evolutionist will admit that Darwin was specifically wrong about the appendix, that the Piltdown Man fraud was taught for 40 years, and that the Haeckel drawing fraud was taught for 100 years. You can dance around those three basic points all you want, but the facts remain: evolutionists won't admit the truth on those three key points.
Now do yourself a favor and realize that evolutionists aren't telling you the truth either, and reconsider with an open mind what you were force-fed. You'll then find the truth and it will set you free, just as it has done for many others.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I don't see what You're saying. The Piltdown Man is regarded as a hoax. There was even an episode about it on NOVA, and NOVA favors evolution. As for the Haeckel drawings, I don't really know much about them besides that they were old. Anyway, the researchers aren't saying that evolution is wrong- they still think it is right. I really don't see what the big deal is that Darwin was wrong about the appendix- it was a long time ago after all, and he is bound to be wrong about some things. That doesn't really weaken the modern evidence for evolution. JakeD
I am somewhat new here, but I've never met anyone who has believed in Evolution who hasn't said Piltdown Man or the Haeckel drawings are wrong. However, just because people would place in hoaxes to try to further their goals doesn't meant the entire theory is wrong, does it? About the appendix, I try to remember that in science all theories are incomplete, even those with a staggering amount of evidence behind them. Darwin's theory has been expanded upon, supported with evidence and, on occasion, pruned to work with the facts found or presented. It's how a theory becomes stronger. -- JBenson 11:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

TK

Our good friend Terry is recovering from a six hour operation; prayers would be appreciated. --Joaquín Martínez 20:33, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure I speak for all of us at The Other Site when I say we wish him a speedy recovery. Wayne 20:39, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
>.> JacobB 18:21, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

G20 Protests

First, i want to say i really admire Conservapedia for standing up to the repression from the Obama administration. but i was just wondering why there was nothing in the news section about police repression at the G20 protests in Pittsburgh last week.

British girl's death shortly after vaccine.

Apparently, your front-page story needs updating. PeterF 20:18, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I think your critical thinking is what needs "updating", if you've really fallen for the cover up. Notice how the comments on the cover-up story are not so gullible.--Andy Schlafly 23:13, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
It would appear that her death was unrelated to the HPV vaccine after all.

"The deputy coroner, who opened and adjourned the hearing at Coventry Magistrates' Court, said: "It appears that Natalie died from a tumour in her chest involving her heart and her lungs."

The inquest was told that the tumour had "heavily infiltrated" her heart and extended into her left lung. [4]

BrianNTS 10:18, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it would seem that other sources are also citing that it was a malignant tumor in her chest that killed her. The headline in the news section should be withdrawn or updated with this new information.[[5]] [[6]] --BMcP 17:37, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Both of you sure are quick to believe the far-fetched government "explanation". Read further: "We understand that further tests are being carried out to discover the exact cause of Natalie's death."[7]

Further tests are being carried out, so it would be wrong to definitively not attribute her death to the vaccine. However, the lack of concrete evidence that the vaccine was to blame also means we shouldn't connect her death to that either. I believe it best not to mention the story on the front page until some firm conclusions are drawn. Talk of a cover up, I must opinion, is wrong; there's no evidence that the British government is trying to cover anything up. As for "Notice how the comments on the cover-up story are not so gullible", many people believe the American government covered up alien landings on Earth. Doesn't make it so. There's as much evidence for the British government covering up, as there is for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists' beliefs that Bush was responsible for those terrible events. Breithaupt 12:40, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

It is far-fetched a malignant tumor killed her? I wouldn't say that. The evidence is leaning that way though and through further tests are needed, the conclusions will likely validate that. What there is no evidence of though is that the vaccine killed her. Without evidence all people have is another tin hat conspiracy "theory". --BMcP 14:06, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
Does anyone really expect a the very pro-vaccine British government or their social health service to admit that this vaccine killed this poor young girl? I think some people need a reality check. TESvestad 14:01, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Most Recent News Article

The most recent news article posted, regarding the loss of interest in war caskets, is particularly interesting. However, I have reread it quite a few times and feel it is a bit poorly written, or perhaps just poorly organized. I can't figure out the message its trying to send. Maybe its just me.

Spend some time learning and contributing here and it will expand your mind.--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Support for abortion falling in America - news item?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/01/abortion.poll/

From CNN, support for legalized abortion is falling in the United States. JacobB 18:19, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the news tip. I'll put this on the front page unless someone else beats me to it!--Andy Schlafly 13:12, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Kevin Jennings

Don't forget that he also founded GLSEN, a pro-homosexual advocacy group that targets underage children with propaganda and grotesque homosexual sex education. Jinx McHue 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Could someone rewrite this item so that it makes sense? AngusF 13:36, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

What's wrong with it? Karajou 14:06, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
For starters, it's not a sentence. AngusF 14:20, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Then what's wrong with it? Karajou 14:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
It does not make a clear point. And 'who's' should be 'whose'. AngusF 14:24, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

David Letterman's immorality

It's no surprise to hear of his behavior, but I think it would be a good story to feature as it shows just what liberals think of family values. TESvestad 13:55, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Google "Senator Ensign." I assume you think that shows what conservatives think of family values? Thecount 14:12, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Are you implying that affairs done by liberals are OK, but totally wrong when done by conservatives? I would wager they are totally wrong no matter who does it. Karajou 14:21, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Not at all. I'm saying that cherry-picking individual cases to draw conclusions about an entire group is erroneous. I don't think the Ensign situation says anything about conservatives as a whole, nor do I think the Letterman affair says anything about liberals as a whole. Thecount 14:24, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
The difference is that conservatives criticize this sort of behavior while liberals justify or defend it. Look no further than the Hollywood elite's continuing defense of Roman Polanski. DanielPulido 14:39, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying that no conservative has ever had an affair, but no conservative would ever defend such behavior. How typical of liberals like you to immediately jump to the defense of one of your own whilst trying to turn the subject to slandering conservatives.TESvestad 14:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension; at no point did I defend what Letterman did. I'm simply cautioning against slandering an entire political philosophy based on anecdotal evidence. After all, I could say that conservatives' continued embrace of Newt Gingrich, an adulterer and two-time divorcee, shows that conservatives don't value the institution of marriage. But I don't think that's legitimate. I wonder why you feel such an argument has merit. Thecount 14:53, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
If you don't think it's legitimate to bring up Gingrich, then why are you the one who brought him up in an effort to change the subject? Typical liberal style. DanielPulido 14:59, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
To illustrate my point. Same reason you brought up Roman Polanski. Thecount 15:00, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
And you've made my point for me. No conservatives are saying that Gingrich did nothing wrong. Hollywood liberals are bending over backwards to excuse Polanski, and have been for decades, just as they'll likely do for Letterman. Nice straw man. DanielPulido 20:05, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Adultery is adultery. A sin. My point to you was that in typical liberal fashion you tried to immediately get away from the current news story about Letterman and on to someone completely unrelated. TESvestad 15:03, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

And my point to you is that adultery is not unique to either liberalism or conservativism, which was what your initial post claimed. As Andy is fond of saying, the truth will set you free. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with this issue. Thecount (changed name re: Ed's request) DonnyB 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

It is telling that when discussing the story of a liberal celebrity committing adultery, rather than condemn him you try to condemn a completely unrelated conservative.TESvestad 15:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

It shouldn't be mentioned on the front page because, really, it is just tabloid TV material, nothing more. --BMcP 23:27, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Typo

"Copenhagen" is spelled wrong in the news item on unemployment. Can someone fix it? --MarkGall 15:23, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Thousands of American Samoans died while Obama flied

Why is there no news mention of Obama's apathy for the American territory American Samoa? Instead, Obama sees fit to fly to Copenhagen. Brown25 21:55, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Thousands of American Samoans dead? The last death toll I saw for American Samoa was 32, plus a few people still unaccounted for. Perhaps you meant thousands left homeless? AdeleM 23:44, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
Good question. Let's not exaggerate. --Ed Poor Talk 00:46, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Michelle Obama's big fat lie to the International Olympic Committee

Narcissism trumps truth every time with these people.[8]

From Michelle Obama’s failed pitch to the International Olympic Committee: “Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection.” Um. Ew. Oof. Mrs. Obama was 20 years old when Lewis first competed in the Olympics in 1984.

I wonder if the committee members saw right through the Obamas' self-serving horn-blowing and lies and that's why Chicago was booted out of contention in the first round. Jinx McHue 10:22, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the alert, posted appropriately.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

She was 8 when Olga Korbut debuted in the Olympics and 12 when Nadia Comaneci was competing. Perhaps you might read the sentence before rushing to judgement. JJBenitez 18:51, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Or perhaps you should. 8 years old is one thing; the ages of 12 and 20 are something else. He's got a record of lying; he's trying to force health care down our throats and penalize us if we refuse to pay; he's got a list of radical, socialist/communist cronies working around him in Washington, one of whom admires a proven NAMBLA child abuser; he's got ties to a pair of terrorists, one of whom murdered a cop. Then there's the recent video of a Chicago kid being beaten to death with a railroad tie; did Obama try to gloss that one over when he made his bid for the Olympics in his "safe, crime-free" hometown? We have a Messiah, JJ, and no, it's not the one at the church of Obama; I strongly suggest you follow Him. Karajou 19:10, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Well stated. Thank you. Rob Smith 14:37, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Uhm. How do I say this? Eh, the quote is from Michele Obama, the section header, main page item, recent changes notes and discussion clearly specify this issue is to do with Michele Obama. Methinks your obsessions are showing. JJBenitez 19:18, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, the quote is from Michelle, who is still a part of Barack, and both have a history of lying. And it's your obsessions that are showing here. Karajou 19:36, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Are you saying that it's probably a lie that as an 8 year old girl, she sat on her Father's lap and watched Olga Korbut at the Olympics? You're not even bothering to read the quote you're attacking her with. You might as well just make up things she said and attack her with that. JJBenitez 19:43, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Did she sit on his lap as a 20-year old? Karajou 19:50, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
I take it you're familiar with the use of the comma in punctuation, and what it does to the meaning of this sentence? JJBenitez 19:54, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Obviously, you can't or won't answer that. I leave you with a quote that countless many of you pushed in American's faces through the media: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt Karajou 19:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Please try sticking to the point we're debating. The accusation is that Michele Obama sat in her father's lap at age 20. Ignoring the hilariously literal interpretation of a transcribed speech for the moment, here is the Chicago Tribune transcript of the speech that Malkin cites in her article. You'll notice that Malkin added a comma that isn't in the original transcript. It makes the sentence clearer. It's a shame Malkin elected to edit the transcript to suit her story. JJBenitez 20:07, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
And you still didn't answer it. JJ, just what is your point for coming here? Do you sit at your keyboard and monitor the site, coming in whenever you feel like under assumed user names just to push your agenda? I feel you've been here before doing exactly that. Karajou 20:21, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Michele Obama said she remembers sitting on her father's lap when she was 8. It is idiotic to accuse her of saying she was sitting on her father's lap when she was 20, unless you don't understand basic English grammar. Also, the quote is mis-transcribed, further rendering Malkin's original point farcically absurd. I like good grammar, and I enjoy a debate based on facts, not ludicrous assertions and blatant misquotations. Your argument is with the source of your news items, not with me. JJBenitez 20:30, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
No, JJ, it's your argument, and you chose to bring it here to argue with us about it, intead of arguing with the source: Michelle Malkin herself. You wanted to bring in a grammar and punctuation problem with us instead of bringing it to Malkin. Karajou 20:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
No, it's on your Main Page as a lead "News Item", with the mis-transcribed quotation and false interpretation. That is Conservapedia's responsibility to fix, not Malkin's. JJBenitez 20:36, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
I leave it to the reader. The quote here on the main page is transcribed exactly from the source, which anyone can see, and which contradicts you, JJ. You like a good debate based on facts, but between the posting and the source it is you who twisted them. Take your problem up with Malkin. Perhaps you feel you can correct her? Karajou 20:42, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
JJ, you really worked overtime to defend what is obviously another Obama lie. No one is fooled here, that's for sure.--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
They sure come out of the woodwork, don't they? Jinx McHue 14:42, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
re: punctuation: Exactly what is the difference in meaning between "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection" and "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection?" There is no more difference than there is between "I'm going to the game with Bob and Carol, Mike and John" and "I'm going to the game with Bob and Carol, Mike, and John." Michelle Malkin is not dishonest in adding the comma as its inclusion changes nothing. Jinx McHue 14:56, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

"Efforts to restrict schoolchildren from reciting..."

This doesn't seem to accurately portray the case. According to the linked story in the Christian Scientist Monitor, a student didn't want to recite the pledge, and the school forced him to. So it seems the case was the opposite of what the headline claims. No one wanted to restrict schoolchildrens' rights to recite the creed; they wanted to force schoolchildren to do something against their will. Do we have this story wrong? Isn't this a case of big government forcing citizens to stand and recite a government-approved creed? What if students were forced to sing Obama's praises, and they didn't want to comply? Would the headline be "Efforts to restrict schoolchildren from singing Obama's praises were struck down by the Supreme Court"?

The student challenged the Florida law that states that students must stand and recite the Pledge unless excused by a parent. Why didn't the kid just get a parent to excuse him instead of challenging the teacher over the recitation and then challenging the state law? Two reasons: (1) he obviously wanted to draw attention and controversy to himself and (2) he wanted to challenge the recitation of the Pledge. Had he won, what do you think the outcome would've been? Do you honestly think other kids would not have been restricted in reciting the Pledge? And how is this any different from, say, government mandated sex-ed classes where they allow students to opt out. Do you think you'd have the same attitude if some Christian student had stomped into a sex-ed classroom and made a big stink about not wanting to participate without first getting a parental excuse? Jinx McHue 17:09, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Well put. If the student had won the right to sit down during the Pledge, then before long other students would be engaging in similar disruption and the school would next avoid the "divisive" issue by not having the Pledge at all. The Pledge has enemies, and this time the court system sided with the Pledge.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
I think that the news item is a tad misleading. Would the case have eventually led to the restriction of the recitation of the Pledge? Probably. However, the case itself did not deal directly with restrictions. Seeing as how the case will never be heard, we'll never know the outcome. I would like to see the wording of the news item tweaked slightly, though. Honestly I think an analogue of Andy's last sentence "the court sided with the Pledge" or something along those lines. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:56, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Did the case give a reason for the student's refusal? Where I went to school, there were a significant number of Quaker students, who as a religious matter do not Pledge. School authorities were respectful of any students who chose not to Pledge, so long as the students were respectful of those who did Pledge and weren't disruptive. Students knew they could decide not to Pledge, but that it would not be treated as any kind of a big deal political statement by anyone. Now and again someone who wasn't Quaker chose not to Pledge, but it usually didn't last long as no one made a fuss over it. It was seen as a matter of individual conscience. It did not become divisive at all, and the vast majority of students Pledged every day. --Hsmom 00:16, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Football player penalized for his faith

Here is a story from local news in my area:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Raiders-cornerback-thinks-he-was-flagged-because?urn=nfl,194364

Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:16 pm EDT An Oakland Raiders cornerback claims he was penalized on Sunday for making a religious display while celebrating an interception. After picking off a pass in the end zone, Oakland Raiders cornerback Chris Johnson celebrated by dropping to his knees and raising his arms in triumph. He was instantly flagged for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration. Johnson later complained that he was whistled for thanking God: "I'm just getting on my knees giving my respect to God. I don't see how that's a personal foul or anything like that." It's not OK for Johnson to go to the ground in celebration/prayer after an interception, but Jared Allen can fall to his knees during his lame sack dance? And the Lambeau Leap is fine, but players can't coordinate a touchdown high five? And what's the difference if a player raises his arms in triumph while on a knee but not while standing on two feet?

Taj 19:06, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

No, he just got caught being excessive in the endzone after a touchdown. Now he wants to cry persecution? Bull, the ref isn't out the crush people's beliefs, he is there to enforce the rules. Chris Johnson needs to act like the professional he is suppose to be. --BMcP 07:57, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, am I right in inferring that you're an atheist? Your comment displays a common atheistic hostility to public displays of Christian worship.--Andy Schlafly 11:00, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Good news! "Update: Over at Yardbaker, Alana G dug up an old video clip featuring the NFL's vice-president of officiating explaining that a player is allowed to drop to his knees if it's in prayer. Mike Pereira told the NFL Network last year that there would be an exception to the "going to the ground" rule for players who did so to "praise the lord". He said he'd allowed this because he didn't want to be "struck by lightning".
So much for those who are trying to remove our right to give thanks to our Creator and keep our faith in our daily lives. Taj 11:43, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Well since you asked, not that my personal beliefs on the supernatural is anyone's business, no I wouldn't call myself an atheist. If I had to call myself anything, I suppose it would be agnostic deist, although that is more of a description then any sort of title.
People can worship whatever god or gods they like in public, as long as they are not disrupting the rights of others. However when you are playing for the NFL, you are an employee of a private organization (the Raiders specifically, and the NLF by extension). Therefore you have to follow their rules, and one rule is no excessive public displays or celebrations after a touchdown. As the great Vince Lombardi once said "Act Like You Been There Before". --BMcP 13:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, I guess you missed the entry above yours "Update" (follow the original link for the whole news story) - He didn't break any rules. The organization's own stated rule is that players are allowed to give thanks to God. Increasingly these days, there are those who seek to censor any public show of faith - but it's a personal belief that should not be restricted. And, I repeat, the football player did not break any rules, and should not have been penalized in any way (read the update above, thanks). Taj 15:28, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Or here, to make it easy to find: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Raiders-cornerback-thinks-he-was-flagged-because?urn=nfl,194364 "NFL's vice-president of officiating explained that a player is allowed to drop to his knees if it's in prayer. Mike Pereira told the NFL Network last year that there would be an exception to the "going to the ground" rule for players who did so to "praise the lord"." Taj 15:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Well if the NFL sees it that way (not a violation), then case closed. The referee and I were mistaken, fortunately such issues can be and are addressed, as the vice president of officiating demonstrated. --BMcP 15:43, 7 October 2009 (EDT)


He was fined for excessive celebration. This is by no means a new penalty. The penalty is also not incurred for the CONTENT of the celebration. That he was praising God (whether he was being sincere or not, and he probably wasn't) is neither here nor there. The call would have been made had he praised a bologna sandwich. Jros83 13:56, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
You are incorrect. The organization's own rules state that what he did was acceptable. As it clearly says in the update above. It sure would be nice if you actually read the news story and comments before adding your own opinion. Taj 22:31, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Within the article

In the external link ("Praising the Lord Is a 15-Yard Penalty" -- Back Porch Fanhouse), the embedded YouTube video has one swear word dubbed a repeated number of times. Perhaps we can find another article on the same subject and post another clip of the video without said word? EricaC 22:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

The link I posted: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Raiders-cornerback-thinks-he-was-flagged-because?urn=nfl,194364 does not have a video. ? it is just a news story. Taj 09:25, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

ACORN wins second grant for "fire prevention and safety"

Unbelievable!

Firefighters lose large U.S. grant to ACORN

Nearly $1 million in Homeland Security funding typically earmarked for fire departments has been awarded to ACORN, despite a clear signal from Congress that it intends to cut off federal funding to the embattled group.

If anyone can explain to me what ACORN has to do with Homeland Security/fire prevention and safety, I'd welcome it. Jinx McHue 15:07, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

FEMA awarded $997,402 to ACORN in New Orleans on Sept. 4 as part of its Fire Prevention and Safety Grants program. The group plans to use the money to assess fire safety in the homes of low and moderate-income families and hand out smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other fire prevention gear... [9] This link also states the grant was rescinded.
The FEMA grants for 2008 are listed here. [10]
There is a precedent for awarding ACORN grants, the Bush administration had no problem with them a short time ago. [11] --MichaelJB 21:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

By "a short time ago," you must be referring to a time before the massive voter registration fraud and documented tax evasion advice for confessed felons. If you're willing to defend an organization like ACORN, then why are you even here? JacobB 22:08, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

By 'a short time ago', I meant exactly what the reference stated, 2007, the year the Bush administration gave them the grant through FEMA. A person asked a legitimate question and I posted factual references that were devoid of opinion, or as you put it, 'defending ACORN'. Please stop misrepresenting my contributions. --MichaelJB 00:58, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

You're right, I overreacted. I have a sort of knee-jerk when I see anybody saying saying anything positive about that group, or even something which contradicts a negative thing. I have re-read what you said, and visited your links, and I owe you an apology. JacobB 01:08, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Who are the "confessed felons"? Rob Smith 16:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

When I say "documented tax evasion advice for confessed felons," I'm referring to the video which shows two undercover agents posing as a prostitute and her manager (confessed, as far as ACORN knew, felons) received tax evasion advice from ACORN. JacobB 19:21, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Presidential Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize

The article states "Obama follows in footsteps of former presidents Wilson, Roosevelt with Nobel Peace Prize — but historians say his win is an 'embarrassment' to the process." Carter should also be listed among the past presidential winners, as he also won a Nobel Peace prize in 2002. --BMcP 22:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Or distinguish between sitting- and former- Presidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterF (talk)
Why? The article is talking about following sitting Presidents, not former ones. However this might make a good "Affirmative Action" entry, being since it is pretty much agreed Obama was awarded, as were Carter and Gore, to spite George W. Bush. Once again, Obama is merely benefiting from Affirmative Action rather than any accomplishments or talent of his own. Pitiful, I think. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

I respect the beliefs of those who find comfort in some version God (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.), but I find it very disingenuous for those people to find fault in those who have differing opinions. Above all, I am appalled by those who so easily denounce science, since that is the the only mode that we humans have for discovering what is really going on in this world/universe. Whatever anyone "believes," sciences is the only realm of human endeavor that actually tells us how this society/world/universe actually works. The fact that every religion we know has either died off or suffered continuous strife because its believers have splintered off into various microcosms of belief should be evidence enough that most of what we "believe" is man-made. If there was an ultimate truth and/or creator, it would be a universally acknowledged fact built into our very being, and most of the tensions of the world would have never have occurred.

We should distinguish between sitting and former presidents. Stclaire 08:18, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Obama and the Heisman

In case people don't know, it may be "funny" to write in Obama's name for the Heisman trophy, but there is zero chance he will win it, even if the headline hints otherwise. The "public vote", that Nissan is sponsoring will equate only one vote out of the 924 total cast, so at best Obama might appear as the candidate with the least votes, as the other 923 actual voters won't be so farcical in their decision. --BMcP 11:04, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

But many of the other "actual voters" may, like the Nobel Prize committee, also think Obama should win the award. It will be "historic"!!!!--Andy Schlafly 11:13, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Rewording?

"Liberal hatred for First Amendment rights began this year with actions against talk show host Michael Savage by linking his name to a list of murderers and terrorists - "for balance" - in the United Kingdom."

I believe this needs to be reworded. How can the First Amendment be linked with a country which does not fall under the First Amendment nor has any influence over it? Breithaupt 08:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Health Reform:

I am curious as to why there hasn't been a story on Health reform yet. This is rather confusing.

Good suggestion. I'll put one up now.--Andy Schlafly 09:11, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
As it stands, the entry wont be re-worded, but the explanation from the Savage show is that he intercepted emails from one or several Obama Administration officials asking Britain to add him to the list. These emails are collected in his up-coming book Banned in Britain. As soon as I see the book I'll post them in his article. Karajou 14:09, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Volunteerism highest in conservative areas

This is not the least bit surprising:

Volunteering in America Research Highlights

Highest volunteer rate: Since 1989, the Midwest region of the United States has had the highest volunteer rate among U.S. regions for all adults, with a rate of 23.9 percent in 1989, and 30.2 in 2008. This is a shift from 1974 when the West had the highest volunteer rate.

• Largest number of volunteers: Since 1974, the number of volunteers in the South has almost doubled from 10.5 to 20.7 million, giving the South the largest number of volunteers of all the regions. Just between 2006 and 2008, the South has gained almost 300,000 volunteers. The Midwest comes in at a distant second in volunteer numbers at about 15.6 million.

The conservative areas represent the majority in both the top ten states as well as the top ten metropolitan areas. Liberal areas like California and New York City are tops on sheer numbers alone due to higher populations, but those higher populations did not translate to equal or higher percentages rates. Why volunteer when the government does it for you? Jinx McHue 10:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Jinx, thanks for the superb info. This is just the kind of substance that makes our site so informative.--Andy Schlafly 10:57, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

National Science Foundation's porn problem

Maybe the NSF should be renamed the NSFW!

EXCLUSIVE: Porn surfing rampant at U.S. science foundation

Summary of article (source):

  • One senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography and chatting online with partially clad or nude women (his “humanitarian” defense was that he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women). This cost tax payers anywhere from $13,800 to $58,000.
  • One worker perused hundreds of pornographic Web sites during work hours in a three week time frame in June 2008. That employee received a 10-day suspension.
  • Another employee was caught with hundreds of pictures, videos and even PowerPoint slide shows containing pornography.
  • Another employee stored nude images of herself on her computer.
  • In 2007, there were seven employee misconduct investigations closed by the inspector general. In 2008, there were 10 investigations, and seven involved online pornography.
  • Deputy Inspector General Tim Cross said, “We were consumed with a lot of these cases.”
  • Overall, investigative recoveries totaled more than $2 million for the year.
  • The names of all of the employees targeted in the pornography cases were redacted from the more than 120 pages of investigative documents released to The Times.

I'm sure the NSF's support of evolution and the liberal attitudes of its employees are completely unrelated. Jinx McHue 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Superb observation, Jinx. Deceit begets deceit, and you can bet these "scientists" have no problem at all lying about science and in funding deceitful science.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

No shocking news regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

No, I suppose it's not shocking at all that a lawyer-cum-politician, a documentary filmmaker or a man who does not hold a doctorate in economics and who has never worked as an economic theorist/academic did not win the Nobel Prize in economics. Your headline is entirely accurate. PeterF 19:57, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm surprised the committee didn't find a way to give its award to a liberal who pushes leftist ideas without accomplishing anything.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Maybe that says more about you and your preconceptions than it does about the committee. Besides, you of course know that the econ. prize is given out by a completely different body (in a completely different country) than, say, the Nobel Peace Prize (if you're trying to make an association with Mr. Obama's recent award....) PeterF 21:50, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
No, I'm not convinced the process for the two prizes is significantly different. Perhaps you can notice that they use the same name and are announced in a coordinated manner. If you think there are significant differences in process (and safeguards against the travesty just witnessed in connection with Obama's "award"), then it's up to you to prove your case.--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Here. Let me Google that for you. PeterF 22:04, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Better yet, you made a claim about the Nobels and why you were shocked. Why not you back it up--but can you back it up without using the words/phrases "oppose school prayer/gun control," "logic dictates," "2+2=4," "the Bible," "open your mind," or "liberal" ?
Sorry, Peter, you haven't proven your case. Both prizes have the same name and coordinated announcements for a reason: they are awarded using similar processes. If that upsets you, it should.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Wrong. The Norwegian Parliament selects a committee which chooses the peace prize winner from a list submitted by members of national assemblies and governments and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, members of Institut de Droit Internationale, university professors of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, university presidents and directors of peace research and international affairs institute, former recipients, including board members of organisations that have previously won the prize, present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute. The Econ. prize is selected by are selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Very different procedures in different countries. PeterF 22:26, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Norway and Sweden are similar countries in the same area of the world, and neither would be considered diverse in any meaningful way. A similar process of selection by a small group of the educated elite is used for both prizes. You're protesting too much in trying to distinguish between two prizes that share the same name, use coordinated announcements, and are issued by similar processes by like-minded elites from the same area of the world.
The better question is this: why does it bother you so much that the Nobel Prize is plainly politicized and virtually meaningless? Would it bother you so much if, for example, you learned that the outcome of a sports contest were fixed beforehand?--Andy Schlafly 22:44, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, it seems as if conservatives are the ones bothered by it. It doesn't bother me because as you said, it's been politicized to the point of irrelevance. The conservative anger over the award only lends it undeserved credence and publicity. DonnyB 16:48, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
There is no "conservative anger over the award." Quite the contrary, the award is humorous confirmation of what conservatives (including entries on this site) had been saying previously. The liberal denial is exactly that.--Andy Schlafly 17:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
This is Conservative Denial at an epic level. If Bush had been awarded the Nobel Prize, you would have been crowing about it and claiming it demonstrated worldwide support for his policies. It's as clear as 2+2=4 that you don't accept this logical conclusion and that you are only castigating the Nobel Committee for awarding Obama the Peace Prize because you disagree with the award. RobertE 17:51, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
There is no logic to your statement because we debunked the Nobel Prize before it recently discredited itself. Just look at the time stamps for our entry. And, of course, the Nobel Prize would never be given to a conservative president, and never has, so your "if ... then" statement is preposterous.--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm not an economist, so I'm not really bothered "to no end" about who gets the prize. I am, however, bemused to no end at the idea of a man with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, the son of a prominent attorney and political commentator/activist, a man who has dined with Supreme Court justices and who rubbed shoulders with a future President while working for what is arguably the nation's most prestigious legal publication railing against "elites," be they intellectual or otherwise. What are the heating bills like for that glass house? PeterF 11:26, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

After you struck out with logic, Peter, you've resorted to a personal rant. The answer to your silly question is this: "elitism" is an attitude, not a credential.--Andy Schlafly 11:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Even though I am not a member of any educated elite, I am aware that there is a difference between "elite" and "elitism." But I never said "elitism," and, more to the point, neither did you: "A similar process of selection by a small group of the educated elite..." was your original statement. And it is, you must admit, amusing to see someone who is clearly a member of the elite rail against it--and then try to backpedal by pulling a grammatical fast one. PeterF 17:55, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Well said Andrew 

indeed

Rant against Bible Project

Just thought that bit was slightly offensive as Canada is notItalic text becoming increasinly atheist!

Democratic study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28399.html

Racism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama, according to the results of focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps, a Democratic organization, released on Friday.

Democrats proving Democrats wrong. The meme is officially dead, but don't expect any apologies from Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, Maureen Dowd or any other lying liberal playing the race card ("Racers?" "Carders?"). Jinx McHue 16:43, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Great catch, thanks, posted!--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Finally! I thought they'd never fess up. Good work! --Cidd11 12:12, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Response to anti-global warming film: website attacked

Last night was the premiere of the Not Evil, Just Wrong film debunking the claims of global warming advocates like Al Gore. Apparently someone didn't like it.

Not Evil, Just Wrong website message:

We have been attacked. A spammer has attacked our site and caused our transactions to be shut down. We apologize for the inconvenience and will be glad to process your order if you would simply shoot us an email at elizabeth.a.terrell [at] gmail.com . Thank you for your email, support, and patience.

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. Jinx McHue 18:07, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

And in related news, an atheist website is experiencing similar problems. PeterF 21:29, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

WNOX Radio Interview

Andy, do you have any podcast/recording of the show? I looked over the website really quick and I couldn't find anything. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:39, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Chairman Obama wanted to bail out GM and let Chrysler fail so GM would not have to compete and would have domestic monopoly

Reuters Obama hates competition, quality cars (Chrysler cars are better than GM cars, IMHO), and American drivers. Brown25 12:41, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Interesting claim, but do you any cite to back it up?--Andy Schlafly 14:35, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Reuters changed the link, sorry. Try this link to the same story from the International Business Times.
Rattner said the decision to offer Chrysler $12 billion in emergency financing to restructure under the management control of Fiat SpA (FIA.MI) had been "a close call," adding that the administration was ultimately swayed by the view that allowing the automaker to liquidate would cost 300,000 jobs.
"The group was torn," Rattner said, noting that at one point key members of the autos task force had been split 4-to-4 on whether to offer Chrysler financing.
Rattner said when pressed by White House economic adviser Larry Summers, he had estimated the odds of Chrysler surviving for two years at 51 percent.
Scroll to 3:48 in the video that is part of the original CNN/Fortune article detailing the Rattner interview. Rattner claims that if Chrysler bit the bullet, then GM and Ford would have one less competitor.
It seems as if some in the administration, including both Obama and Summers were willing to pick winners and losers by propping up GM while letting Chrysler fail so GM would have less competition, as Rattner says in the video. IMHO, this is worse than propping up an entire industry equally, but I'll save that discussion for another day. Several other articles I read today back up these same claims; I'm currently trying to compile them. Brown25 16:57, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

News item - important freedom of speech victory in Britain

The right-leaning BNP are going to be on a nationally-aired political question program tomorrow, despite months of strenuous and vocal protests of the left-wing. The left will no longer be able to hide by censoring their opponents in the UK. DerickC 14:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Swine flu

I have been getting the flu shot every year since I started high school but because I ended up getting flu a week and a half ago my doctor said it was possibly swine flu. What's weird is that he couldn't diagnose it any more specifically because the symptoms are more or less the same as regular flu and not a big deal for a teenager. Someone should say on the news page that the reason people should be concerned about swine flu even though it's not necessarily worse is that it skips over our immunity to regular flu from vaccine and being sick in prior years. So just like a regular flu could really do a number on an elder or someone who was already sick the swine flu could affect anyone who has no immunity. That could be a lot of people. At my school they recommended the shot which they're giving to kids and old people and health workers now and they're telling us to keep an eye out for people in our neighborhoods who might get sick. Cambrian 17:02, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

There's also the (low) possibility of cytokine storm in bodies with healthy immune systems, so overwhelming the lungs that artificial respirators are required. Luckily, this has only happened to a few people, unlike the spanish flu. DouglasA 22:22, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Another icon of evolution goes down in flames

‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all

No surprise there for those of us familiar with the old evolutionist song and dance. Ken Ham, the American Family Association, and even Rush Limbaugh, as well as many other Creationistss, have all been vindicated in their skepticism. Jinx McHue 08:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this article does not vindicate creationism. This article states that the fossil is indeed millions of years old, and while it is not a missing link between man and monkey, it is a missing link between a species that once existed and species that exist today (including the lemur). Please read the article before jumping to conclusions.--Claypool 16:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

That's the primary point about it, a jumping to conclusions. A scientist says it's the missing link; he says it happened, and we are to sit here and believe what he said about it; he offered absolutely no proof whatsoever that this specimen was a direct ancestor other than his word. Just where was the investigation and determining of such proof according to the Scientific method? Karajou 16:51, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, evolutionists never, ever admit to misleading people, even when it is proven. They just move to another unfounded claim. Thanks for helping confirm this point.--Andy Schlafly 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
For the purposes of full disclosure, I am an evolutionist. But I have no particular stake in this claim one way or the other, nor do I think it is a pillar upon which evolution stands. But if you are using this article to prove your claim, that there is no link between this fossil and modern man, then you must also grant that the fossil is 47 million years old, as the article claims. I don't believe that's something you're ready to admit, nor would you likely agree that it is a link between an older species and a modern one.--Claypool 17:25, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, we do not have to accept that the fossil is 47 million years old. Just because we agree with one point in the article doesn't mean we have to agree with flawed use of Carbon dating. JohnFraiser 17:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Carbon dating wasn't used to date Ida. Carbon dating can only date back up to 50,000 years, not 47 million due to the short half life of C14 --BMcP 22:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, there's no logic in your statement, and there's no logic in evolution. Evolutionists misled the public with a false claim, yet evolutionists refuse to admit it and accept responsibility. I'm happy to discuss the separate issue of false claims about the age of specimens, but not with someone who responds to proof that one claim is false by running to another false claim.--Andy Schlafly 17:55, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, you are indeed correct. The "problem" with Ida was twofold: One, some of the scientists behind the discover over-hyped it's importance and what it meant for primate linage. The second was that the media embellished the event even further, making false or exaggerated claims. The worst claim that Ida is some sort of "missing link". there is no "missing link" when it comes to human evolution[[12]], that is a quaint 19th century notion that has long gone into the dustbin of science, but is still popular in pop culture. When the sensation media storm hit, many scientists came out, stating while Ida is spectacular in it's own way, all the sensation about the discovery being some sort of "silver bullet" of evolutionary discovery is erroneous and specious.[13][14] [15] [16]
You are also correct that this most recent article (which only garnished attention because it was published online by a major news outlet) does not vindicate creationism, it doesn't even cast doubt on evolutionary theory.
This is really more of a media issue then a science or an evolutionary biology issue. It shows what happens when a fantastic discovery hits our sensationalist press, Knowing most people do not understand biological evolution in real detail or concept, and eager to play up a story to full their 24 hour time slots, and get an edge on their competitors, the meida made a mess out of the whole event. It also says a great deal about our society, most who accept these media news bytes as fact without doing the research or even knowing what the story is really about. By the way, anyone can read the paper on Ida itself here: [17] Make your own choice. --BMcP 22:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, BMcP, for further illustrating the basic point: evolutionists misled the public, were proven wrong, but never, ever admit what they did. BMcP, would you agree that evolutionists should give the money back that they made from misleading others, and should publicly apologize?
In response to your general comments pushing evolution, there are about 40 Counterexamples to Evolution. If merely one of those is correct, then evolution is false. Feel free to try to push evolution on its talk page if you want to continue to cling to the theory.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
You didn't read one link I placed up there, did you? All of those were people in the scientific community pointing out the media hype of claiming some sort of missing link was wrong. It was the media who took the initial story and ran away with it, making all sorts of outlandish claims. If you want to cast blame, cast it over-enthusiastic and sensationalists reporters. Why should we give them a pass? The initial MSNBC article above even stated:
"Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction" -- Those expects being evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. Also the new findings "confirms what most scientists think" -- Again, the scientific (evolutionary, biology, paleontology) community was not convinced. There was no "big lie" here by science.
Now there are findings that cast doubt on where in the evolutionary tree of life Ida sits, they are not doubting that it sits *somewhere* in that tree of life and they are certainly not doubting evolution. This sort of thing happens all the time in science. An initial discovery believed to mean one thing and further study revealing that may not be true, it may mean something else. Science is a self-correcting and learning process. --BMcP 12:25, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, the original article clearly states that "scientists" (in this case, evolutionists) "formally announced the finding" which was later proven false. I asked you a simple question: "would you agree that evolutionists should give the money back that they made from misleading others, and should publicly apologize?" You didn't answer it. Will you answer it now?
There is a more general point. Do you notice how evolutionists like yourself never, ever spend any time learning about the Bible? It's the most logical and influential book ever written, and evolutionists claim to be well-read. Yet they completely, even awkwardly, avoid it. You avoid it here. Can you explain that? Please don't duck that question also.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
No, the scientists who discovered and initially studied Ida shouldn't have to give back the money. Because despite later findings showing Ida is most likely a species in the adapoid family of primates that lead to the lemur family instead of those earliest primates that led to us, or some kind of "direct link", it is still a discovery. It is a species never found before, and it still adds to our biological, paleontological, and anthropological sum of knowledge. It was the skepticism of other scientists (those same evolutionists) who researched further, providing these new findings.
I avoid the Bible here? The Bible is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about Ida. Why would I bring up the Bible? You may as well ask me why I didn't mention about the Odyssey, the Vedas, or Elvis. This is a Red Herring. --BMcP 12:26, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
No, the article is very clear up-front that scientists knew that the claims of some evolutionists were false at the time. Wouldn't you agree that those evolutionists should at least apologize for misleading the public like that? If not, then I can only include that misleading the public is acceptable to the evolution belief system, perhaps a means to an end.
As to the Bible, there's no denying that is the most influential work in history, and even now it outsells evolutionary books by at a least a 100-to-1 ratio. Why do you and other evolutionists never, ever read it??? It would take you only a few minutes to read and translate a verse here on this site, amid your evolutionary edits. Yet the evolution belief system won't allow you to do that.--Andy Schlafly 12:52, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
Oh I see.. You believe they were purposely lying instead of simply being mistaken. I again point out that initial discoveries are often misinterpreted and later evidence updates, changes or causes a hypothesis to be overturned. Scientists (who are also "evolutionists") are skeptical of any new discovery, as they should. Because of the original researchers initial discovery, we now know about the species Darwinius masillae, even if it wasn't what people originally claimed. Knowledge is still increased, science still progressed.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I have and I do read the Bible, I own four (NIV, KVJ, NKVJ, and NASB), all gifts from various religious folks in my life over time. I love history, and the Bible is a book of major historical importance if nothing else. It sounds like you want me to participate in the Conservative Bible Project. I have elected not to, but it has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolutionary theory. --BMcP 14:59, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, people other than evolutionists often apologize for mistakes. I'm looking for some agreement by you for some modicum of accountability when evolutionists mislead the public. If you want other examples, there are plenty to choose from. But so far your answer has been this: no accountability, no apology, no return of monies obtained from misleading the public. If that's not your position, then please describe what accountability you would support.
On the Bible, there is no evidence in any of your edits here to support your statement. I've never known an evolutionist who read the Bible. In fact, the main practical significance of the someone believing in evolution seems to be this: he doesn't read the Bible again. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
You list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based. What percentage of your time do you spend reading a Bible, if I may ask?--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't believe they purposely mislead the public, I think they were overly excited about the find and allowed that to get the better of them. A common human flaw we all have. Despite this, they expanded our knowledge, we now know of a new species. Now if someone created a fraud, in some attempt to trick the scientific community for their own personal gain, then that individual (or individuals) should be sued for the grant money back and blackballed by the scientific community at large.

As for people who believe in evolution and subsequently never again read the Bible. I believe that is in error, there are many theistic evolutionists who are Christian. OEC (Old Earth Creationists), some who believe evolution, also tend to be practicing Christians. They no doubt read the Bible to some regular degree as part of their religious practice.

I am not sure what you mean by my posts being "atheistic in nature", I mostly write about astronomical subjects, and I approach those with a scientific point of view with the best information I find available through research. You say an agnostic should write with a 50/50 Biblical and Atheistic bent. However that is a false dichotomy, because we all know the two choices isn't Atheism and Christianity. There are numerous other religions, each with their own beliefs in the divine. As well as concepts such as Deism.

You ask what percentage of time do I read the Bible, I don't have a percentage per se. I would say I suppose I read the Bible irregularly, probably averaging one or twice a month, give or take. Dependent on my interests at the time. --BMcP 16:47, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Harm does not have to be intentional to require an apology and refund. Are you saying that if someone accidentally hits your car, then he doesn't have to pay for the damage? Evolutionists running the British Museum took tourists' money for decades to see the fraudulent Piltdown Man. Shouldn't they apologize and offer refunds?
You didn't give a percentage on Bible reading, and your claim of a "false dichotomy" has no application unless you're actually spending time studying other choices like Deism. What's your percentage time spent reading the Bible, less than 5%? Less than 1%? An approximation is fine. Your percentage of contributions here that have touched on the faith side has been 0%.--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Entry to the British Museum is free. --Eoinc 20:25, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
The British Museum started charging the taxpayers more instead of visitors in 2001.[18] I trust you can confirm for yourself that the fraudulent Piltdown Man was featured before 2001.--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, the British Museum has always been free to entry since its founding in 1753 according to their website. (This is also confirmed in the BBC story you linked to, which states "The scheme has also provided new competition to those museums and galleries that never charged an admission fee...these include the British Museum in London."). OurMike 07:31, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the additional info about the unusual policy of the British Museum. I apologize for my error. That said, there is no free lunch. If the visitors are not paying, someone else is. Taxpayers, perhaps? The underlying issue remains the same.--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The BM is mostly funded by donations, either large ones by wealthy benefactors or a few coins slipped into a box by a visitor, though doubtless the government contributes some money as well. But what if it does? The British Museum is one of the greatest museums on Earth, and I daresay many (including myself) would be willing to pay more so that it could be properly maintained. DerickC 11:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Ah, the visitors are probably asked to give a donation, rather than being charged a fixed fee of admission. I'm sure there are some big donations also, but I'm also sure that does not cover everything.
The basic point remains unchanged: the British Museum raised or took money for decades by claiming that the Piltdown Man was real. In fact, it was a fraud. Do evolutionists support some level of accountability for that (and many similar evolutionary frauds and hoaxes), or not?--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The BM does indeed ask visitors for a donation, but only by putting boxes in the foyer - you can wander in without ever being verbally asked for one. I have heard that they are much less coercive than free US museums in this respect - at least, visitors to America have mentioned this to me before now (any Americans reading are most welcome to enlighten me on this point).
As for raising money through claims about Piltdown Man, that may be technically true, but it was only ever a small part of the museum's appeal. To my mind, it pales into insignificance next to the Egyptian treasures, the Elgin Marbles, etc etc.--CPalmer 12:19, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
All I can do here is echo CPalmer. Donations from visitors are received via discreet boxes placed around the site - you can simply waltz in and out of the museum without ever talking to a staff member, and who really cares about a single exhibit when you consider some of the amazing things they have there from all around the world (including China and Japan), such as the relics from Mesopotamia or, of course, the Egyptian exhibition? DerickC 12:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
"I've never known an evolutionist who read the Bible." Andy Schlafly. Funnily enough, of all the Christians I know who regularly read the Bible, all are "evolutionists". I don't know any Young Earth Creationists personally, so that probably explains it. But my experience is the rule rather than the exception where I come from.
But back to the question as to whether the British Museum should refund monies because of their advocacy of Piltdown Man, I wonder how many other displays they have presented which have since proved to be wrong. Surely the question of refunds should only be raised if the museum was shown to have been fraudulent. Ajkgordon 15:11, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
No, they don't need to refund Piltdown-related monies. I think an admittence that they were wrong about it is enough. Karajou 16:07, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The British Museum was just as much of a victim of the Piltdown man hoax as those who visited the museum. So, no I wouldn't demand the museum give back the money that funded it until 1953 (when the hoax was thoroughly debunked). Beside, what percentage would they give back? The Piltdown man certainly wasn't the only exhibit there. Compensation for Piltdown Man will never be recovered, even if quantified, because we still don't know who did it. Even if we discover the creator(s) of the hoax, they have long since passed away.
Agnosticism doesn't mean you give every possible point of view on a subject. Not all beliefs or points of view have equal merit. I write about scientific subjects in astronomy. It would be silly if say, talking about the Milky Way, I give equal credence to the Ancient Greek belief the stars are drops of milk spilled by the gods. As for percentages in my reading of the Bible, I don't see the relevance, however I am courteous and will answer your question, and say in a course of a month, I would say ~.1% is spent on Biblical reading, somewhat better then attention I give other religious books. --BMcP 15:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Piltdown Man is a prime example of what science should never be about: saying and insisting that it's a fact without proving it's a fact. Piltdown existed because someone said it was real; a lot of scientists got their doctorates on Piltdown because they said and believed it was real; for fifty years the scientific community said it was real, and insisted that the public accept their opinion as fact. Yet Piltdown was totally debunked when an actual scientific test was done on it to get decisive results. The same thing happened just a few years ago with a "bird" called Archaeorapter, which for a time hoodwinked National Geographic...and all because someone said it was the first bird. Karajou 16:00, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Failed Chairman Bernanke to impose socialistic maximum wage at 1000s of banks that recceived NO bailout.

As if government intervention hasn't messed up our economic climate enough yet, Bush-Obama appointee Bernanke thinks setting a socialistic maximum wage is the ticket to prevent innovation risky behavior. Instead of setting a maximum wage for 1000s of companies, how about letting the 7 government owned companies just fail and thus giving those executives a maximum wage of well $0 without punishing 1000s of other companies that were responsible? In fairness to the Democrats, the Bush administration were the ones that acquired ownership in these 7 companies (Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.) and thus it is fair not to only call the Obama administration socialist but also the Bush administration socialist based upon their actions in 2008. That being said, this is not an excuse to continue on a path of socialistic self-destruction where failures are rewarded and successes are penalized with a socialistic maximum wage (and socialistic minimum wage for the government owned zombie companies). Link to Yahoo! Brown25 16:37, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Pearl Jam, R.E.M admit that their music is torture, demand investigation

I think they might be on to something. Nobody, not even a mass terrorist, should have to listen to R.E.M or Pearl Jam. Independent (UK) Brown25 23:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Organized crime's new target: Medicare and Medicaid

Organized crime's new target: Medicare and Medicaid - CNN Brown25 00:35, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims

Heritage - The Foundry Brown25 00:55, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia Bible Project in the news again

Joseph Farah wrote a commentary on the project. CarletonS 10:20, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

While I normally appreciate Mr. Farah's work, he seems to have a rather profound misunderstanding of the CBP. He writes, "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible. The 'conservative' thing to do would be to preserve, or conserve, the Scriptures as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." That's exactly what the CBP is doing! It sounds like the name threw him off and he immediately had a closed mind about the project, thinking that it aims to insert conservatism, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm wondering if it might be worth preparing a more comprehensive response to this article, given the source. --MarkGall 11:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
The article plainly misunderstand CBP and is so far "over the top" that I doubt a serious response is even necessary. Suffice it to say that Mr. Farah should be criticizing the liberal rewrites of the Bible rather than a conservative preservation of it.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

NephilimFree and his anti-Catholic hate speech

This is, I know, none of my business, but should Conservapedia really be promoting somebody who holds the hateful views that NephilimFree frequently expounds about Catholicism? As an Irish Roman Catholic myself I find his attitudes utterly loathsome. Here is a direct quote from a comment he made on the very page recommended by Conservapedia. "Catholicism is not Christianity. I'te [sic] a pagan religion which includes encorporates [sic] Jesus as one of it's dieties [sic]." There are many more such comments elsewhere. I do not appreciate being called a pagan by this "gentlemen" and I shall be staying well clear of his horrible videos. Perhaps Catholics are not welcome on Conservapedia either. --Jdixon 15:35, 25 October 2009 (GMT)

I agree. I am also a practicing Catholic and find it offensive that Conservapedia should support an anti-Christian bigot like this man. Aroth 12:32, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Have you proposed expanding the hate speech law to include this??? Aroth, religious wars between Catholics and Protestants occurred in England ... over 300 years ago. You're in the wrong century.--Andy Schlafly 16:05, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Catholics and Protestants continue to have disagreements about theology. If they didn't have any differences the two different groups would not exist and they would be merely one group. I would love to see the differences ironed out where truth is respected and it seems to me as if a legitimate way of doing this is through spirited debate at forums like YouTube. I have not seen NephilimFree's videos on Catholicism, but I am certainly for responsible free speech at YouTube (I am certainly not for vulgarity in the public forum). conservative 16:33, 25 October 2009 (EDT)


Teacher's unions

I'm glad that article is up on this site about teachers not wanting to work as much because state budgets need to make some cuts. I always thought that most teachers were overpaid anyway, because they get a full year of salary but they don't even work the summers! We shouldn't be surprised, unions always do this kind of thing. Taking money just to whine and complain until people get to work less. --ThomasGret 22:24, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if it is possible for some public teachers to work less! How does someone work less than zero??--Andy Schlafly 22:30, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
I used to be a high school teacher. It's a very difficult job. Writing lesson plans, grading papers, meeting with parents, and continuing professional education take up a lot of time. I want to say thanks to the all the teachers out there that are making a difference. I was just not cut out for it. I am a CPA now. It's much easier than being a teacher. That being said, I never joined the union when I was a teacher. They didn't let me forget it either. I was hounded by those nuts. I didn't perceive any benefit from being in the union and they were way too political. I didn't want to pay a lobbyist's salary.--Wikidan81 09:14, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
You're fortunate you worked in a state where it was possible not to join the union. In many states it is mandatory.
The head of one of the teachers unions bragged about how good the union is by citing the large numbers of people who join. But he left out that many, perhaps most, of their membership is mandatory!
Public school teachers are government employees protected and fed by their Democratic politicians who hold power. Why do the teachers also need a union???--Andy Schlafly 09:18, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Obama's Hatred of America

There's no need for the apostrophe after the word "its." Just a heads up. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:15, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the good catch. I fixed the punctuation.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Who's sticking with Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-de-marchi/whos-likely-to-stick-with_b_335426.html

"If President Obama were a product, what would it mean to be loyal to him? His job approval rating went from 62% in the second quarter of 2009 to 53% in the third quarter, a 9-point drop that ranks as the steepest reported decline for a newly elected President." --Sol1221 15:03, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

SuperFreakonomics

The link in this story does not appear to support the proposition that "Best selling authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have Global Warming doomsayers scrambling to refute their new book". Indeed the extract in the link seems to assume that man made global warming is a fact. --VincentV 16:06, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

The book basically takes to task Al Gore. While it is all in the realm of global warming discussions and not anti-global warming, the fact that the "concerned" movement attacks the credibility of king gore makes it newsworthy. It's global warming deicide. --Jpatt 16:31, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Domestic Spying

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the report cited is dated 2007. Are we highlighting it as criticism of the G.W. Bush administration, or pointing out how Obama has not addressed the issue? AdeleM 16:34, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

You're right; it should have had a link to the news source describing the "dressing down", not to a report from the previous administration. Story was removed pending a proper link. Karajou 17:04, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Welcome to Conservapedia Banner

I'd like to make a recommendation for Conservapedia's home page. I think it would be a benefit to add a banner of some sort, welcoming students, readers, editors, and the likes. While I am in no way an expert Wiki editor, I have created a rough sample for some ideas. See template below.

There are few reasons for suggesting this be added, one is for SEO purposes designed to increase search engine ranking. To be honest, that aspect would be more of a test on my part, but one that could turn out worthy of trying in my opinion. For example, ideally, one modification I'd recommend is the home page URL (Main Page) as well for all other default URLs in Conservapedia; the site could potentially see an increase in Web traffic with this URL: http://www.conservapedia.com/wiki/.../ versus the current one: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page This is primarily due to key words used when searching for any specific data on a wide range of topics. Many "Googlers," per say, will also type "Wiki" at the end of their first and/or second search term - knowing that a wiki encyclopedia will likely show up on the first page of results.

The other reason for adding a banner is for welcoming purposes. Obviously it makes it more personal to any and all outsiders, and can bring more potential experts to the site who might be interested in ....a more trustworthy wiki encyclopedia.

I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts about this idea! DerekE 00:24, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry about removing it from the main page, but it did interfere with normal posting here. The banner has been moved to New Welcome Banner proposal. Karajou 00:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Since when did Conservapedia start posting faulty polling data? Rasmussen has Christie up by 3.

I'm not encouraging emotional gambling over this election, but I'll go with Rasmussen any day of the week. Brown25 00:33, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

We're not fortune-tellers, but the Quinnipiac poll has been remarkably accurate for New York and New Jersey for over a decade. Rasmussen may not be as familiar with this territory.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Additionally, Public Policy Polling has Christie +4, Research 2000 has Christie +1, and SurveyUSA has Christie and Corzine tied. All this in a state that went for Obama by 15 points and hasn't elected a Republican statewide in 10 years. Chippeterson October 29, 2009

Additional note to 'green' new item

It might also be worth pointing out that the 'green' color the 'greens' wear so proudly is of course also the color of other enemies of America such as the Palestinians, the Pakistanis, and the Jihadi movement. CescF 17:24, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

And the Green Berets? Really, let's not make ourselves look foolish. AdeleM 16:47, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Anti-aging cream

Just a minor point on the posted new story, since it weakens any argument you are trying to make if the evidence you provide is inaccurate. As it says in the reference it was one foetus used, not plural as is currently stated. Please don't get me wrong, this is simply to point out the facts, it is certainly not an argument that the use of one is any better than of many, nor that the process as a whole is ethical. DWiggins 19:16, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Per the article: "What we don't know is how many other fetuses were involved before they perfected that one cell line," she surmised. "There's a possibility there were more." That said, I've altered the headline to state just one for now.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funding Cut by Obama Administration

Just came across this. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)


White House Visitors

An online record of visitors to the White House is now public. [9] Notable guests include; "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me" [10] - Jeremiah Wright, "Just some guy from my neighborhood" - Bill Ayers, the man who bought Obama's election - George Soros has multiple visits. Conspicuously absent - General McCrystal.

This item's source is http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records - the White House's web page. It is a very good idea to link directly to the original source of information, rather than an opinion piece or a secondary source - good work Conservapedia!

However, I noticed a problem with the item. If you follow the "read more" link on the site, you get this:

"This first release is only the latest in a series of unprecedented steps by the President to increase openness in government. They include putting up more government information than ever before... There’s an important lesson here as well. This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information. A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names."[1]

This information does not support the Conservapedia front-page item. Perhaps more research is needed. --Hsmom 20:45, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Excellent point. News item removed. I doubt that the real Jeremiah Wright visited. The Soros visits may well be by the real George, however, and that was the most telling revelation.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
My original source [19] --Jpatt 21:11, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
P.S. The names missing from the list are still newsworthy.--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

New York 23rd New Item

I don't really think this is a good example of the future being Conservative. While New York is a liberal state, no one could argue against that, the 23rd has been represented by a Republican (or equivelent party) for many years, one source said the area has been solidly conservative for 100 years source here but I don't know if that number is accurate, it seems a little hyperbolic. Tyrone 14:51, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Do you have a quotation to back up your claim? I looked through the article and did not see any claim that the District is overall conservative. It can't be very conservative if its Republican Party nominated someone so liberal.--Andy Schlafly 15:16, 3 November 2009 (EST)
My apologies for not being clear, The quote in question from the article is "the heavily Republican upstate New York district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years." While I understand that simply voting Republican does not indicate conservative politics, it seems that the bigger news story would be if the Democrat won the race and took over. Also, I don't really think Scozzafava really qualifies as a liberal. She supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent, received an endorsment from the NRA and pretty much toed the party line on everything by homosexuals and abortion. Tyrone 15:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Heavily Republican does not qualify as conservative. Vermont was heavily Republican for over 100 years, yet was a reliably liberal state. Scozzafava was not a conservative, she was endorsed by the DailyKos founder, she supported gay marriage and abortion, and she supported Obama's stimulus. To put that last statement in perspective, no House Republican, not even the current Secretary of the Army whose seat this used to be, supported the stimulus. Scozzafava was not nominated in a democratic process and when she voluntarily dropped out, she went ahead and endorsed the Democrat. Also bear in mind that the only current Republican from New York, or anywhere in New England and New York for that matter, is Peter King of Long Island, the same Peter King that declared in 1998 to Bill Clinton that he would vote against both impeachment and censure. To suggest that anywhere from the southern New York border going all the way to Maine is conservative is a ridiculous assertion. Brown25 16:19, 3 November 2009 (EST)


Energy Reserves

Table 4 on page 14 of the document linked as reference 6, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f7bd7b77-ba50-48c2-a635-220d7cf8c519, seems to indicate that drilling is not quite the answer. It is correct that the US has the largest reserves worldwide, but the majority, 69% is in Coal, some 903.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent, something that simply has to be mined, not drilled out. Oil, on the other hand is a much smaller percentage of the expressed reserves, 166.6 billion barrels. Someone who can edit should do something to address this.

Poll closing times

7 PM ET - Virginia 8 PM ET - New Jersey 8 PM ET - Maine 9 PM ET - New York

I would advocate putting a news item about Mike Bloomberg's election as well. While not a registered Republican anymore, and definitely not a conservative, he is the Republican nominee and his victory today will mark 20 years of Republican control of Gracie Mansion ... no small feat. Brown25 18:37, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Republican sweep statewide races in Virginia, Republicans retain Virginia House. Since the Virginia Senate is not up for election, control of that chamber will remain nominally Democratic. [20] Brown25 19:08, 3 November 2009 (EST)
New Jersey exit polls It's looking good for Christie, but I wouldn't call it just yet. You can also watch live coverage on public television NJN. [21] Brown25 20:18, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Over 90% of Lonnegan supporters stuck with Chris Christie. 20% of the vote was against Obama. 19% of the vote was for Obama. Brown25 20:23, 3 November 2009 (EST)
In New York 23, Owens is barely leading Hoffman with 38% of the precincts in. [22] The caveat is out of the 4 of 11 counties that have not reported any poll results, 3 of those counties went for John McCain. [23] Brown25 22:13, 3 November 2009 (EST)
NJN calls it for Christie. Forbes also calls it for Christie. Brown25 22:20, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Not so good news coming in NY-23 On Google News, liberal Air America is calling it for Owens, but obviously this is extremely premature. Brown25 23:47, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Michael Bloomberg wins third term. Brown25 23:51, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Looks bad for Hoffman in NY 23rd. 85% of vote is in and he trails by 4200; he needs 57% of the remaining vote to win--so far he is getting 45%. RJJensen 23:52, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Sad to see, and we shouldn't give up all hope, but he did remarkably well given that the conservative vote was split and the GOP candidate a turncoat. DouglasA 23:56, 3 November 2009 (EST)
After winning Virginia by 18 points and the heavily Democratic New Jersey (where Obama made 3 election-eve campaign appearances) by over 100,000 votes, let's not get greedy! A third party candidate who comes even close to winning a congressional seat in NY has achieved something big.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 4 November 2009 (EST)
There was a conservative third party candidate who did win in New York ... James Buckley. I wouldn't doubt if you knew Mr. Buckley personally, Andy. Mr. Buckley was running against a liberal Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell (his son, Roger, is now the NFL commissioner ... the same guy that reinstated Michael Vick). If Scozzafava had not strategically dropped out and endorsed Bill Owens, I'm sure we would have won NY-23. I will concede, however, that Obama is the master of manipulating special elections in the US House. Brown25 12:36, 4 November 2009 (EST)
IMHO, the reason conservatives lost NY-23 was not because Hoffman was too far out of the mainstream. In fact, the only position of Hoffman that could even be considered to the right of the Republican platform was that he supported a flat tax, which by the way is to the left of Mike Huckabee's position abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a VAT tax. Rather, the reason Hoffman lost was that you had two major political parties campaigning against him. The one lesson learned, for both Democrats and Republicans, is that ... let your party members vote for the nominee rather than some committee. The loss here was not Hoffman, Palin, or Pawlenty's fault ... it was the fault of the New York State Republican Party. Brown25 13:52, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Your analysis is sound. I have met the former U.S. Senator (and federal appellate judge) James Buckley many times. He was one of the few in Congress who initially voted against the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 5 November 2009 (EST)

More schools indoctrinating young children into the Cult of Obama

ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama

Big Hollywood has already posted a couple disturbing videos of young school children singing/speaking praises to President Obama, but when eleven more dropped in our email box it came as quite a shock. What seemed like an aberration now appears to be a troubling pattern. Maybe “epidemic” is a better word. Each one of the videos below is creepier than the last because the further down you go, the younger the children — brace yourself for kindergartners – except for the last and most disturbing video, which you have to see to believe.

Liberals never would've accepted or ignored stuff like this had it been done regarding George W. Bush. (Conservatives wouldn't have, either.) Jinx McHue 13:29, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Great stuff. Just posted it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Army Base Shooting

Will there be a headline of this anytime soon?

I assume we are waiting for more information, like their intentions and what not.

Obama gives "shout-outs" before addressing army base shootings

Fort Hood Tragedy -- Barack Obama Gives Odd "Shout-Out" Before He Comments on Massacre -- FOX News

Stay classy, B.O. Jinx McHue 11:05, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools