Talk:Main Page/archive100

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Prayer in Schools

You guys seem to believe in teacher led prayers in public schools. Would you be OK if a Satanist was a teacher and had the class pray to Satan? (I know modern Satanists don't believe Satan exists, just using it as an example.) If you allow one religion you have to allow them all.--Jab512 17:04, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Speaking for myself, it seems silly for one to be a Satanist if they actually do not believe he exists. And who says you have to allow all religions? The United States has always been a Christian Nation. Therefore, only Christian prayers should be allowed and only Christians allowed to teach to ensure that children are properly instructed--Jdykes 19:02, 3 August 2011 (EDT).
Theres these fun little things about not discriminating against people based on religion when they are seeking a job. its sort of a major law in this country. And Atheistic satanists use the name satan as a figure that represents, last i remember reading, seeking of knowledge or something, since the Serpent DID "open our eyes", convenient that they ignore everything else that came with that...--SeanS 19:04, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
The parents and community that pays for the public school should, through the political process, be able to have whatever prayers they like. Families who object can choose not to participate. We should have free speech in this nation ... for Christians too.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
able to have whatever prayers they like would that include Muslim prayer? what I mean is, if a teacher lead a class in Muslim prayer would you support his free speech right to do so or would you decry it? MaxFletcher 20:23, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Teachers are employees of the parents and, in the case of public schools, the community. No, I don't think an employee can say whatever he likes if his employer disapproves. If the CEO of Microsoft harshly criticized the company publicly, the Board of Directors would probably fire him. The same should be true of teaching, including classroom prayer. Instead, a tiny percentage of people insist on censoring what the employer typically wants.--Andy Schlafly 20:50, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
The employer is the government. A government that cannot promote any particular religion. Regardless of your beliefs on "separation of church and state", the constitution is pretty clear on this issue. It "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Allowing parents to choose what religion to teach in schools would be respecting that religion and prohibiting all of the others.--Jab512 21:45, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
But, for example, say the parents were OK with it and the children didn't mind would the teacher also be able have Muslim prayer? The reason I ask is because it isn't an issue here so I don't really know much about it. MaxFletcher 21:52, 3 August 2011
So if a majority of the parents whose children attend a school in Dearborn, MI (which has an incredibly large Arab population, with a sizable chunk of them being Muslim)wanted teachers to lead Muslim prayers at the school, that would be OK? Kitwalker

Side note, not trying to derail the discussion. Satanists do not actually believe in Satan. They worship the self rather than a deity. As to why they name themselves after Satan, i don't really know, probably has something to do with what the guy above me said.--Jab512 22:24, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I think ultimately the answer here depends on how you define "prayer." At the very least, prayer should be directed towards God, so "praying to Satan" would not qualify. True Christians believe that the Christian God is the one and only God, and so one could argue that "Muslim prayer" doesn't qualify either because the Muslim Allah does not truly equate with the Christian God. --JKeeting 22:54, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
First of all, how can you say Satan doesn't qualify as a god? That's a matter of perspective. Second of all, what "True Christians" believe has no bearing in law. If the government said that only the Christian God qualified as a god then that would most certainly be "respecting" a particular religion and "prohibiting" others. A clear violation of the constitution.--Jab512 01:24, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent, escape Satan tangent) Coming from the fairly atheistic UK, I find this US debate very puzzling. We have no problem accepting our Christian heritage in this respect, even in schools with a large Muslim population or in public life - parliament opens with Christian prayers, schools have officially mandated Christian prayer and so on. It's surprising to me that such a deeply Christian county as the US would suppress public prayer in the interests of a tiny minority of atheists and liberals. Jcw 05:14, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

You'll have to take that question up with the Founding Fathers.--Jab512 13:43, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd have to give some points to the fact we didn't have a single unified "Colonies" Church going for us...And there's more "tiny minorities" then the secularists.--SeanS 13:59, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I would just repeat what i said above:
"The day of prayer in Texas is wrong because it sends a message to the country that we put Christianity before any other religion," the fact is by not having any day of prayer or the like official sanction of such then it sends a message to the country that we do not see ourselves in need of help from a Creator, or deem anyone more than man worthy of our gratitude. Thus it officially fosters agnosticism or atheism.
You can argue that not allowing state sanctioned prayer means we recognize the state has no business in that, but you cannot separate the state from a basic belief system and practices, and in a Democracy the people will decide what that is. And in America the Christian faith was it, and in the general sense the Gov., including the writers of the 1st Amendment, overall sanctioned it, and which was reflected in courts and schools for a long time. See Separation of church and state and Moral decline And by censoring churches from endorsing candidates within the church itself via 501(3)(c) (voluntary but basically needed) then it seeks to silence not just gov. from positively speaking about religion, but religion from speaking about government, contrary the 1st Amendment.
This means of establishment does allow that the people may choose to officially sanction atheism, and with officially sanctioned secularism - which is intolerant of official sanction of the general Christian faith - then it is. And which functionally serves as religion in determining an ever morphing morality, to our collective hurt[1]. Daniel1212 16:05, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

A great day for conservatism in New Zealand!

Perhaps mention of the following news story should be added to the news section. New Conservative Party for next election. NZ has historically had two right of centre parties, National and ACT, neither of whom could be called conservative. National is economically quite liberal and socially moderate, whilst ACT is very right wing economically but is socially very liberal, almost libertarian in its outlook. We now have a party that embraces true Christian conservatism! --DamianJohn 02:33, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Nothing? I should have thought this sort of thing would be welcomed in the news section. It shows the spirit of the Tea Party is spreading to all corners of the globe. --DamianJohn 18:48, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Eating habits

I am rather uncomfortable with the item about Michelle Obama eating a burger. Matthew 15:11 is relevant: we ought to judge Obama and everyone else by their actions, not their eating habits. Now, you might reply that as patron of an anti-obesity charity, she should not be eating burgers. But it is perfectly possible to eat burgers and not be obese - I do myself, and so does Michelle Obama if it is true that she regularly eats there. And even if she were obese, she would still be quite within her rights to try and reduce obesity in others.

Furthermore, these kinds of stories are in danger of straying into gossip, which this site commendably strives to avoid. I am sure we can find plenty to say about the Obamas that genuinely merits consideration, without criticising or speculating about trivia such as their eating habits.--CPalmer 07:44, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that trivial criticism of this variety tends to dilute the effect of serious criticism. --DamianJohn 15:02, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree 100%. MaxFletcher 16:43, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree. And, as a someone suffering from weight issues myself, I find it grossly offensive. Rabbits & bunny holes, machismo, flying kitties - it all really makes this site look like somewhere impossible to take seriously. JanW 16:49, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I tend to agree with this viewpoint; in the face of global financial meltdown, the Michelle Obama/high calorie burger joint scandal right along side it seems somewhat petty, uninformed, and out of perspective. Rob Smith 16:05, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

User Boxes

How do you get those little boxes that describe your beliefs on your user page? I see them all over the place but i dont know how to make them.--Jab512 14:58, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Hello! You can see a list of userboxes here. To put one on your page, just add the name of the userbox in double curly brackets, eg {{User ClintonFan}} for the one that says "This user is nostalgic for the Clinton Presidency". (That's just an example - please don't be offended if you are not a fan of Bill Clinton.)

"THE STOCK MARKET PLUMMETS 512 points in the Dow"

There's something funny in the way that headline is phrased. "...plummets 512 points in the Dow" seems weird, somehow. JohnMcL 17:58, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I think "DOW PLUMMETS, STOCK MARKET LOSES 512 POINTS" sounds better. MaxFletcher 18:01, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
Excellent points. I tried again.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I think STOCK MARKET PLUMMETS, DOW LOSES 512 POINTS would sound better.Also, gold dropped more than seven dollars today.--JamesWilson 19:03, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Moon headline MPR

Would read better without the whats:

The side of the Moon that faces us is smooth, like what an artist would paint; but the opposite side is jagged, like what an astronomer would expect.

Lots of love, --RichLiebehollenfeuer 19:11, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Your suggestion to remove "what" is good, but then the "like" should change to "as".--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Let's talk about the science

Ummmm, I hate to be nit-picky. But the article referenced by this article does not imply that the moon has a liquid mantle. The presence of igneous rocks and volcanic structures on the surface of the moon simply imply that the moon was, at one point in time, geologically active. The evidence supporting that the moon has a solid mantle is quite conclusive. Liquid mantles, like those found within the Earth, Venus, and many of the larger moons of the outer solar system, are generally kept liquid by the heat generated through the decay of radioisotopes within the planet core. The presence of igneous rock and volcanic structures on the surface of the moon, when considered in light of the moon's solid mantle, actually imply that it must be several billion years old. It would take that long for the mantle to cool off and solidify. Besides that, the "mares" on the light side of the moon, which consist primarily of basalt (an igneous rock), have long been known to be the result of lava flows--that the moon had a geologically-active past has been known for at least a century.

In short, the presence of igneous rock and volcanic structures on the moon, combined with the established fact that the moon has a cold and solid mantle, imply that either the moon was "flash frozen" at some point shortly after its creation (and experienced rapidly-accelerated radio-decay within its core), or that it must be billions of years old. Occam's razor here...

Disney Feminism

Andy, I don't understand how it promotes or supports feminism in any way. The cite you posted doesn't mention Snow White herself and I fail to see any political aspect here. Can you help me out? What was so un-feminist about the original and what is so feminist about the remake? MaxFletcher 22:51, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Part of feminism is that men are inherently bad, or dumb, or incompetent, while women are inherently good, or smart, or competent.
Disney has been recasting many classics with a feminist spin. Recasting the seven dwarfs as evil little men is one of many distortions by Disney in the past 20 years.--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
What are some of the other Disney films that have been remade with a feminist spin? I didn't know about any of this before. Also, would you say the non-feminist position would be that men and woman both have their good and bad points? MaxFletcher 23:10, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I read the article, and i don't see anything sinister about it. (Not that feminism is sinister). Asch, does it get tiring trying to link every article you read to "liberal deceit" of some kind? --Jab512 23:40, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly, are you sure that "[p]art of feminism is that men are inherently bad, or dumb, or incompetent, while women are inherently good, or smart, or competent"? Conservapedia's own article does not mention any of those words (other than "good" but in an entirely different context). Further, Conservapedia's article states that feminists "believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women" which runs entirely contrary to your assertion. --HiramH 23:43, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I see that the article has now changed. Doesn't that make the article self-contradictory? --HiramH 23:59, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) This illustrates why discussions on wiki are so valuable - the entry on feminism improves due to some of the above comments. Who could improve a book that way??--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Hiram, what do you think is self-contradictory?--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd hardly call it an improvement--Jab512 00:38, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
The linked article says that the movie "puts darker, more realistic spin on [the dwarfs'] personalities". That's not the same as making them "evil little men". The dwarfs will also be "members of a group of warriors looking to redeem themselves by saving Snow White". Having Snow White saved by men hardly sounds like something a feminist would approve of. --MatthewQ 01:48, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
I think Disney provides some wholesome, good-hearted, family entertainment and the nitty gritty details should be taken lightly. --WilliamMoran 23:59, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

S. Africa and Question Evolution! campaign - Everything you post must be true and verifiable

The statement A South African university science lecturer is posting the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign on his office door which is right by the break room. is based only on an anonymous comment to an article at

I don't doubt that such a thing could have happened. But I don't think that the main page should feature probably bogus stories only because they have some plausibility.

RonLar 07:34, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I suggest you fly to South Africa and tour the halls of university Physics departments near their breakrooms. :) Conservative 15:45, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
This is a trustworthy encyclopedia. Therefore it has some standards - like: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. It would be useless if the reader had to recheck every entry for himself - especially the featured entries on the main page.
Please remove the dubious South African story.
RonLar 15:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I suggest packing your luggage now and catch the earliest flight you can. Because evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question evolution! campaign. :) A South African university science lecturer declared he is posting the 15 questions of the campaign on his office door which is right by the break room. :) [2][3] Conservative 15:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I must say that regardless of whether it is true or not it is a very poor piece to link on CP's mainpage which is our front door to visitors. Secondly, as I have mentioned before, the question evolution! campaign is not in NZ. Please remove it from the front page as it is untrue. MaxFletcher 16:50, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Not only that, but it does seem that your attempt to plaster the Main Page of this site with the Question Evolution campaign is based on very little - I visited the website 'shockawenow' to which you provided a link, and noticed that there are only 18 members signed up at the site, and zero comments on any of his posts. You are completely overselling this 'campaign', and this Shockofgod guy obviously can't organize a campaign to save his life. Per RonLar's comment, to run a website where we run headlines based on an anonymous comment on an unvisited blog seems totally counter productive. I thought the claim here was "trustworthy"? --JanW 17:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Traditional Values Coalition speaks on behalf of 40,000 plus churches. You are underselling the campaign. Besides it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight inside the dog. Plus, evolutionists are unable to answer the 15 questions despite the fact that evolutionism/Darwinism has been around since the 19th century. Conservative 02:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
But 3 people have answered the questions already. Why do conitunally claim that evolutionists can't answer when they have been answered? MaxFletcher 02:14, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, if you are not in NZ now you need to fly to NZ. Once you are there, search every house and building in NZ and show me there are no question evolution tracts in NZ despite the fact that CMI has an office there. Best wishes on this quixotic quest of yours. You wonder why I often ignore you. This is a great example why. By the way, the video on the CMI web Question evolution page says it is a worldwide campaign. Last time I checked, NZ was still located on planet earth. :) I still have to believe that the CMI store allows NZ people to order tracts - especially since CMI has a NZ office. Your inane NZ complaint will continue to be given little credence. Instead of believing in evolution or pretending to, I would repent and start believing in what the Bible says. The Bible says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9. I am beginning to think your obsession with wanting my attention is based on your lack of desire for repentance and being under biblical authority. Perhaps, you want cafeteria Christianity with an evolutionary buffet that often rejects biblical teaching and often says man's heart is basically good. It is not and Jesus said "You must be born again". See John 3 located HERE. Conservative 02:23, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
How long is the flight to NZ from where you are Max? --DamianJohn 02:29, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

By the way Max, faux answers still do not count. See: Evolution. Conservative 02:25, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

  • your obsession with wanting my attention is based on your lack of desire for repentance and being under biblical authority
Wow. Rob Smith 15:11, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Damien, I updated my NZ/Question evolution campaign issue and other matters post to Max. Conservative 02:51, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
I am a Christian and I will not stand for anyone saying otherwise about me. Secondly I have extensive communication throughtout churchs and church groups in NZ due to my employment in NZ and nary one has heard of CMI or this campaign. Secondly the CMI office in NZ is poorly staffed and hasn't added any events to their event calender since 2009 plus you made the claim that it is active here so you must back it up. Lastly, 3 people have answered your 15 questions. You have given no reason as to why they are false, have not attempted to rebut their answers and, the fact you continue to claim no one can answer the 15 questions, you are not being entirely honest in suggesting they cannot be answered. MaxFletcher 03:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. Next, CMI has formed an alliance with Traditional Values Coalition in the USA. There is no reason they cannot do something similar in NZ. Furthermore, you maybe going to unbiblical evolution believing churches in NZ and have a very sheltered existence that is not aware of what is going on in Bible believing creation/Genesis friendly churches. Lastly, I don't pretend to know the CMI staffing situation in NZ, but I do know enough about church history and history in general to know it only takes one Paul of Tarsus plus God to make things happen. Conservative 04:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
By the way Max, you appear to be wrong about the level of activity of CMI in terms of NZ events as can be seen here: Conservative 04:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't understand your hostility to me, I have shown you no hostility. All I have wanted is you to clarify why you say no one has answered your 15 question when they have - 3 times. I am not an "evolutionist" or atheist. Your attitude towards me is rather curious. MaxFletcher 18:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
I think you are just wanting to play games as far as you communications with me. I am not interested in that. Conservative 19:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
I am not trying to play games - I am a good faith user, demonstrably good faith, who is confused and asking straightforward questions of you and receiving jeers, insults, irrelevant comments and suggestions I am not a Christian in return. Why can't you answer my simple questions and resort to insulting me insteasd? MaxFletcher 22:20, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • A South African university science lecturer is posting the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign on his office door which is right by the break room You have still not given any reliable source that this story (which is quite believable) actually happened. Your proposal to shift the onus to the reader is quite ridiculous - the motto of this site isn't we make up the news - show us to be wrong. But at last the news item has silently vanished, so what's left all what is left to say is: please be more diligent in the future.
  • The Question evolution! campaign team which is focusing the bulk of its efforts in the state of Texas is quickly approaching 1,000 pledged man-hours a year and just added another volunteer. This seems to the the same volunteer who was added last month.
  • ShockOfGod announced that he wished to cut the number of atheist by half. For Texas alone (the epicenter of the campaign) this would mean a couple of hundred men and women finding their faith each day for over one year. Until now, there seems to be only one reformed dentist.
  • In 2002 there was a prophetic article in Scientific American, titled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (full text). Some of your questions of 2011 are already answered there!
  • Traditional Values Coalition speaks on behalf of 40,000 plus churches. Yes, but in which way will they promote the campaign? I can't find a press release - or even an entry on their blog...

RonLar 07:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, are you an American atheist? The reason I ask is that more and more it seems like you are threatened by the Question evolution! campaign. Of course, this is perfectly understandable since: 1) There is no proof and evidence that atheism is true 2) the abundant Evidence for Christianity 3) Atheists are but a squeak in American society and feel threatened by a grassroots anti-evolution campaign 4) You can't answer the 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.Conservative 11:39, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I fail to see how your comment addressed any of the problems I mentioned
  • RonLar, are you an American atheist? No, but as a typical ad hominem quite irrelevant for the points I made.
  • The reason I ask is that more and more it seems like you are threatened by the Question evolution! campaign. Again, absolutely irrelevant.
  • Of course, this is perfectly understandable since: ex falsum quodlibet - as I'm not frightened, there is nothing for you to understand...
  • 1) There is no proof and evidence that atheism is true irrelevant for the points above
  • 2) the abundant Evidence for Christianity irrelevant for the points above
  • 3) Atheists are but a squeak in American society and feel threatened by a grassroots anti-evolution campaign that's why I gave a quite small number for atheists in Texas: less than 400,000. Still, to convert half of those to Christianity is quite a task - every convert gets less than 20 seconds of your pledged man-hours...
  • 4) You can't answer the 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. I'm not a biologist by trade, but still I've no problem to answer those questions which a well-posed.
But could you please address the points I made above? AFAIK, this page is for discussing the content of the Main Page, and your comment fails to do so.
RonLar 12:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative wrote:

Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss.

Now, can anyone please tell me (1) what this means, and (2) what personal criticisim of a fellow wiki user of this nature has to do with the subject of this discusion thread? Thank you. Rob Smith 16:33, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Look, all I want to know is why User:Conservative keeps saying atheists cant answer these 15 questions when 3 people have. Why doesn't he address the answers he has been given? Instead I get insulted. His behaviour is extremely bizarre. MaxFletcher 17:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I haven't followed any of that, nor care to. But the above posting seems to drift from the thread topic into some personal, spiritual, psychotherapy of a volunteer contributor, coupled with a tinge of anti-Catholic rhetoric. There has been entirely too much of this condescending attitude by Conservapedia sysops directed at good faith editors. It's high time this sort of thing stop. Rob Smith 18:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I think Psalm 27:8 provides support for Max Fletcher's position (which was clearly just a figure of speech in any case). My heart says of you, “Seek his face!” Your face, LORD, I will seek. I think people, or at least a lot of people, do have an inner predisposition to seek and find God.--CPalmer 10:07, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Welcome to Obamacare

Obama's TSA confiscates pregnant woman's insulin HP 00:09, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

That story didn't have anything to do with Obamacare, and it seems more like a lapse in personal judgement on part of the individual TSA agents rather than a nationwide scandal. My boyfriend is diabetic and he didn't have any problems flying last month. FCapra 14:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Obama's TSA? Obamacare?--Jab512 17:14, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
With so many things to disagree with Obama about, it gets pretty tedious to hear you harp on things like this. If you are indeed sincere. EricAlstrom 17:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Possible news story

Kids on Facebook get worse grades. MaxFletcher 00:33, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Sometimes I use Facebook and I got a 97 overall average last year. While some people who use Facebook may get bad grades, I think it's unfair to generalize. --WilliamMoran 17:39, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Ever heard of grade inflation? HP 01:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Blame the teachers. Blame TV. Blame the internet. Blame FB. Ultimately, parents are the people responsible for behavior that affects their children's education. Ed. to add - I'm a mom with 2 teenagers. --SharonW 13:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

@HP: I'll have you know that my grades were not inflated at all. I was taught by some of the finest teachers in the finest school the city has to offer! In fact, my grades were all the result of a conservative work ethic! Go figure! --WilliamMoran 23:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Gun Control

Could the current state of London be attributed to the gun control laws? If only the shop owners had something to protect themselves with. --RStratham 15:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

If there were weaker gun control, the rioters would be armed too. Given the relative homicide rates between the UK and the armed US, we prefer things the way they are Rafael

Potential news story

Congress approval rates at their lowest ever. MaxFletcher 22:22, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Considering how recently all those Tea Partiers and other Republicans got elected to the House, I'm quite surprised. JohnMcL 22:29, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
If you are, then you are clueless about politics. Trivia question for you, who controls the Senate? Oh, that's right, it's the Democrats. Liberals are intellectually dishonest. They refuse to admit that half of the Congress is controlled by the Democrats. Take Civics 101 or a course on American Government taught by Andy Schlafly. By the way, Congressional approval from 2007-2008 was lower than the President's approval. Guess who won the next election? Liberals will grasp at straws for the next year and a half, but their boy king is going down in defeat. HP 01:46, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
So those people who were disapproving of Congress were actually only talking about the half that is controlled by the Democrats, then? And they are thrilled with the part that the Republicans control? JohnMcL 11:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Obama and Easter

I'm not sure what specific semantics were in mind for this entry, but Obama has certainly participated in Easter celebrations. --CamilleT 15:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Accurate Information and Sources

After spending much time looking at con articles, it seems that much of the information here is incorrect specifically the science sections. Also I have noticed a lack of sources for almost every page on this site.


To fix the main page formatting:

 <center><big>"'''[[Dow Jones|Dow]] off 500+ points" in another [[stock market]] crash below 11,000.''' []

should instead read

 <center><big>"'''[[Dow Jones|Dow]] off 500+ points" in another [[stock market]] crash below 11,000.''' []</center></big>

Jcw 16:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Cite error

Hi! Can someone help me fix the "cite error" in the article I just made for Robert Duffy? Thanks!--MorrisF 19:41, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Nevermind. I just read the error more carefully and learned how to fix it. Thanks.--MorrisF 19:42, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Possible story

this looks interesting. Don't scientists say birds came from Dinosaurs? If so how come then it seems, at some point in time, birds and dinosaurs existed at the same time! MaxFletcher 21:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Because they existed at the same time.FCapra 22:12, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Remember, these are the same scientists that say that people descended from apes, and both of those are certainly still around.--MorrisF 02:10, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
In order for birds to have shared a common ancestor with dinosaurs they would have to have existed at the same time at some point. Evolution doesn't necessarily kill off the ancestors.--Jab512 11:34, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I've never met an evolutionist - and I've met many - who said we are descended from apes. They say we are descended from a common ancestor. The idea of our descent from apes comes from 19th century satires on Darwin and not from Darwinists themselves.Rafael

The Question evolution! campaign team which is focusing the bulk of its efforts in the state of Texas is quickly approaching 1,000 pledged man-hours a year and just added another volunteer

Conservative, you should reassess those numbers - as shockofgod did on Aug 9, 2011:

So if you tally up the above current volunteer pledges that is at least 541 plus man-hours a year of volunteer effort. We are working on breaking the 1,000 volunteer man-hours a year pledged sound barrier. And then, we want to break 2,000 volunteer man-hours a year pledged sound barrier!

RonLar 03:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

1000 man-hours a year doesn't seem like that much to me, anyway. I'm comparing it with one of the interests I pursue to a moderate degree. Well, between one evening a week and some time on weekends, I think I spend maybe ten hours a month on it. So I think 1000 man-hours a year equates to maybe nine moderately committed people.
I'm not saying that can't make a difference, but it doesn't seem like a particularly big campaign to me. To give another example, the average village cricket team must take far more than 1000 man-hours a year if you add up training, matches and bits of admin. More if you factor in travel.--CPalmer 12:11, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Forgive me for inquiring, but are the people involved planning anything to get the media interested? So far this movement seems to still be known solely around places like YouTube and various blogs, and I feel that I would benefit from a wider exposure.

Perhaps we should consider a rally/protest? I'm sure there would be enough people in one of the major US cities to make a large crowd. --RedGoliath 20:01, 14 August 2011 (GMT)

Perhaps a little humor for my fellow Conservapedians?

It's 7AM for me, and a good joke is a fine way to start the day--CamilleT 09:53, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Haha, nice --Jab512 11:30, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Administration housekeeping, please

Would someone please rename the category "Medal of Honor winners" to "Medal of Honor recipients"? CP's own article has a statement that the recipients don't refer to themselves as winners. Thanks! --SharonW 16:35, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Your suggestion is a good one. I set up the new category and transitioned the first three in the old category. Perhaps you could edit some also? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 00:41, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Done RonLar 08:33, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Obama's Financial Meltdown Frightens Australia

What do we think about this featured article? Australian Conservative calls Obama's debt disgrace "a day of financial reckoning" and knows that more troubling times are ahead. Liberals can't manage their finances and the world suffers! (P.S. I am new here so if I am posting in the wrong place let me know and I'll fix it! )--<3 Sally 08:48, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

GOP Debate: Who were the big winners?

I'd be curious to hear analysis from the various members here. Who did you feel did the best job of articulating conservative values and positions and connecting with the electorate? --Benp 12:54, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I thought Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum were winners, while Pawlenty, Romney and Huntsman were losers.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Pawlenty, I think, had the most to lose. Romney may have lost some momentum, but he had enough that he could afford to lose a little. I think Huntsman shot himself in the foot with his openness to a healthcare mandate and civil unions. --Benp 15:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Good points.--Andy Schlafly 15:35, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
It seems you were right Mr.Schlafly, as this morning Pawlenty has announced he's dropping out of the race. JanW 12:00, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Ames straw poll

Who are people rooting for to win the straw poll? Does Conservapedia have an official position? I personally hope write-in for Rick Perry have a strong showing, but it would be good to see Bachmann do well too. --JKeeting 22:04, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I predict for the results of the Ames straw poll, in this order:
  • Ron Paul
  • Michele Bachmann
  • Mitt Romney
  • Rick Santorum
  • Rick Perry (write-in)
  • Tim Pawlenty
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Herman Cain
  • Sarah Palin (write-in)
  • Jon Huntsman
[above prediction made at 11:10pm on Friday, Aug. 12, the night before the polling]
Personally, i think Rick Parry will win. The one with an "a" for America, and an "a" for Iowa[4]--Jab512 14:41, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Super Congress

As discussed at User_talk:JamesWilson#Super_Congress, could an administrator move Super Congress to Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction? Thanks!--MorrisF 01:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 15:35, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Could you unblock my account?

Could you unblock my account (User:Ty)? It was blocked on July 2010 by User:TK for "using anonymous proxy". Using User:Ty2 and User:Ty3, I explained to him at User talk:TK that I know little of computers, that I don't know exactly what an "anonymous proxy" is or how it works, and that I wouldn't know how to differentiate one from other types of internet connection, much less how to use one even if I wanted to. He replied me that I should email him. Note that all this exchange appears to have been deleted from the history of User talk:TK. I did not want to go into private emails where open on-wiki discussion would suffice, so I let the issue go. Now that a full year has passed, I wondered if anything had changed, and decided to revisit the possibility of editing here.

So, could you unblock my account (User:Ty)? Thank you. --Ty4 16:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

You are unblocked. --Jpatt 17:05, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, Jpatt. As I told User:TK back then, I don't know if I'm using an "anonymous proxy" right now, or even how to figure out if I am or not. If this is a problem, for the time being there's really nothing I can do about it, because I find this kind of technical computer stuff far too boring to think of spending my free time learning about it for the sole purpose of editing a wiki. Once again, thanks. --Ty 17:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

A possible global warming story..?

New Zealand has been hit with a "once in a lifetime" snow storm. This is taking place when it is supposed to be almost spring! MaxFletcher 22:15, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Been watching that. Here in Melbourne it warmed a little but now we are back to winter again with worse to come Aortuso 22:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Hunker down, it has been awful here. I have been expecting the winters to get balmier, not colder! MaxFletcher 22:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found HERE. Conservative 12:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Drug user almost causing tragedy

Just thought it might interest those here who are interested in the effects that drug use has on the mind--[5]. For those who have trouble with the link, police fortunately arrested a kid who was planning on setting off a bomb in his school. The kid was also charged with growing and possessing marijuana. So there's no connection between marijuana use and mental imbalance, eh?--MorrisF 13:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Warren Buffet

Not looking to stir the pot, but the story on the front page about the disconnect between Warren Buffet's views and the opinions expressed by his newspaper could be used by liberals to draw a connection between Robert Murdoch/News Corp and the British Tabloid Hacking scandal.

It is dishonest of us to hold Warren Buffet to one standard and Robert Murdoch to another and it also undermines our credibility.--SteveY 16:13, 17 August 2011 (EDT)