Talk:Main Page/archive23

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Masterpiece of the week

Is Salvador Dali an appropriate candidate for masterpiece of the week in conservapedia? He was a known anarchist and communist.--Abednego 09:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

He also supported the Spanish Francisco Franco (even painted a portrait of Franco's grand-daughter) and declared himself Monarchist (in his 1970 book Dali by Dali). He also denounced surrealist filmmaker Luis Buñuel as an atheist. His political views were more artistic than reals. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:54, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Should any of this matter at all? The beautiful thing about art is that it crosses boundaries that normally divide people. --ConservativeMom 12:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Using Conservapedia for scholarly research

Do Conservapedia editors recommend using this resource for writing papers in College? I had no trouble using this in my papers I wrote for my homeschool assingments. Professors are telling me to use more authorative sources. Is there a guide on how to cite this site for a paper in MLA style? Anyone care to discuss their experiences citing this website?

Read the sources we cite and cite those for your professors as long as those are authorative sources. If we don't cite sources then help us out by putting in some citations. Conservative

Page count

I'm a bit confused by this. The main page proclaims 17,000 articles, whereas the main namespace contains 40,536, by dynamically-updated software count. Having been an account-less lurker for some time, I know that the standard defense of this is that other namespaces contain useful information. However, I beg to take issue with this. The other non-talk namespaces are, retrieved from Special:Allpages:

  • User
  • Conservapedia
  • Image
  • MediaWiki
  • Template
  • Help
  • Category
  • Sysop
  • Team1
  • Team2
  • Judges
  • Am Govt 101

I'm hard-pressed to see how these could really contain useful articles.

Just trying to put my l33t haxx0r skillz to good use :). --Turing100111010 19:55, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I've explained this before. The software provides an underestimate of the total number of entries, and is not very reliable. I think it uses linking as one faulty measure. Our count is more accurate than the software.--Aschlafly 10:06, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Questions before I edit

Right. Like my username, Moderatelyskeptical, I am a moderate, voting for who I deem the proper choice every election. I have some conservative viewpoints and some liberal viewpoints, but I want a few questions answered before I begin editing:

  • Has anyone officially been blocked due to their political viewpoints?
  • Has anyone officially been blocked due to their religious viewpoints?
  • Why start a new encyclopedia, rather than simply edit wikipedia?
  • Are the policies of Conservapedia always US conservative, or can they branch out into other moderate/UK party lines?
  • If an answer could be posted on my talk page, that would be greatly appreciated.

I hope the users are as friendly on conservapedia as they have been to me on wikipedia.

Thanks in advance!

--Moderatelyskeptical 21:51, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Answers: No, no, see Bias in Wikipedia, conservative principles are not limited to the U.S., and it's unnecessary for me to post this on your talk page also. If you find the liberals who dominate Wikipedia friendly to you, then I doubt you are conservative on the big issues. Godspeed.--Aschlafly
These questions were so easy, I already gave him the answers. Bohdan 22:10, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

They threatened to block me for disagreeing with them. See above. And they'll probably block me now for telling you this. I'd be more than moderately skeptical, dude.-RichardParker 22:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

What was the reason why you were threatened with a block? Bohdan 22:29, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Pointing out an error to Schlafly, and getting angry when he called me a liberal without knowing that I'm actually a Conservative?-RichardParker 22:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Were you in violation of the 90/10 rule at the time. Bohdan 22:33, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
No. I was carefully watching my edit counter, and having written a few longer entries, I was sure I was covered. Order confirmed. It simply made him mad that I disagreed with him, and made a few good points :-/-RichardParker 22:36, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
"Richard", your edits are an embarrassment and I don't believe your representations. I doubt that is even your real name. Your Chrysler Building entry is pathetic. Perhaps another Sysop will mercifully block your account soon. Godspeed to you when you do leave.--Aschlafly 22:41, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
It looks like Richard is actually AmesG. I guess I'll have to go block him, as AmesG is currently blocked. So sad that he won't choose to contribute positively the honest way. Bohdan 22:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, I was blocked for questioning this (see here), and for putting up a different version of the essay where essentially all I did was change "liberal" to "conservative" and add different names. I didn't vandalize anything, I have zero socks, and I'm well within the 90/10 rule boundary. I can only assume that I was blocked for not following the ideologically pure line.--Bayes 00:08, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well what you said here, and what you said in your email to me were totally different. So I can only once again be unhappy yet another user proved my initial instincts correct, and are filled with deceit. Bye. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard", your edits are an embarrassment and I don't believe your representations. I doubt that is even your real name. Schlafly, he said on his user page that he was named after a character in Yann Martel;'s novel Life of Pi, so it doesn't really take a mastermind to work that one out, does it? Pachyderm 09:13, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

It seems that the initial poster of this discussion may unfortunately have been proven correct. In this discussion alone, a number of people have either been threatened with blocking, or have been blocked. (I assumed Bayes got blocked)

I have never seen a website more in need of a radical fundamental change. Russel 10:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Democrat debate broadcast in Spanish

Is there some reason democrats can't be loyal to English-speaking Americans? Maybe they should be running for president of Mexico.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20677525/

--Conservateur 22:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

It's probably to get the Spanish vote? Seems like a good thing to do, to welcome minorities to the political process.-RichardParker 22:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Newsflash - Spanish people do not vote in US elections.--Conservateur 22:55, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
But Spanish naturalized immigrants are.-MilesEdgeworth 23:05, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
First of all, I think by "Spanish" you mean "Mexican" because they are, in fact, 2 COMPLETELY different nationalities and I don't think that your anger is meant to be directed at immigrants from Spain. Second, not every Spanish-SPEAKING person in the country is a.)an illegal immigrant, b.)an immigrant at all. --BillOhannity 14:31, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
What does the language matter, since the US has no official language?--Porthos 14:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't matter. It just shows that democrats don't have any respect for traditional American values.--Conservateur 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
How exactly does it show that the dems have no respect for "traditional American values"? Many things are broadcast in Spanish even though they're originally in English. This is no different. There are many American citizens whose birth language is Spanish, many of them(especially the older ones) still do not havea full understanding of English. I don't understand how showing respect for the non-english speaking citizens of your country could possibly be considered disrespectful to "traditional American Values". If anything, the debate should be broadcast in several different languages so that no American citizen has to sit in front of their tv wondering what the man/woman in the suit is saying. NSmyth 16:30, 11 September 2007 (EDT) PS: If I'm wrong in thinking that there are a lot of non-english speaking Americans, please show me some statistics to prove me wrong, I am just a Canadian after all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NSmyth (talk)
Broadcasting everything in polyglot, as you suggest, discourages the very idea of one people in one culture speaking one language. We say on our currency, E pluribus unum--out of many, one. But your polyglot broadcast policy would cause our people to remain, "out of many, many."
The last society to try to be a polyglot society was ancient Persia. Alexander the Great conquered them easily, achieving kill ratios of one hundred to seven in one key battle. (Source: Durant, Will and Ariel; The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage.)--TerryHTalk 23:00, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Agreed - there are hundreds of cultures within the United States.--IDuan 23:28, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
What's most upsetting is that this ever had to come to be- if our borders could be controlled and everyone in America knew English, there would've never been anything like this. -MikeZoeller 22:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

More Trouble for Thompson?

This time is the Libyans, Check out here. Being a lobbyist probably isn't the greatest thing to do if you have presidential aspirations...--Tash 22:59, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Hollywood liberal insults Christianity at awards show

Yet another sign of how morally bankrupt Hollywood is today. One bright spot though is that the producers have decided not to air Griffin's anti-Christian tirade. But then again they don't seem to have any plans to condemn her remarks, either.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296382,00.html

--Conservateur 12:20, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Kucinich

I'm sorry to see the news on Kucinich; I was hoping to ride the Kucinich surge when goes from 1 to 2%, but looks like it will never happen now. Rob Smith 20:49, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

I can't say that I'm sorry about that- Dennis Kucinich is practically a European socialist and is about as far from conservative that you can get in America. -MikeZoeller 22:28, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal vs Liberalism

I'm confused by the discussion above. What is the difference between liberal and liberalism? - Borofkin2 21:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Hmmmmm, since you have been around since last April, and posted several times in Liberal one might suppose you would know, eh? Why don't you tell us what you think it is? Always interested in what others think outside America! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I consider liberalism to be an ideology, and a liberal to be a person who holds that ideology. "Liberal" can also be used as an adjective, i.e. to describe a person or thing (e.g. a liberal organisation). In Australia the terms are used most often in two ways. Firstly, in the traditional definition (i.e. to mean the ideology of individual liberty), and secondly in the way the terms are used in the United States (i.e. to mean left-wing/progressive). Contradictions such as this are common in Australia, which is influenced by both its British heritage and strong links with the US. I'd be happy to add this information to the Liberal article, but the focus of that article seems to be on listing the political opinions of US liberals. Aschlafly recently deleted the opening paragraph, which was an (admittedly not very good) attempt to define "liberal". The article now suffers from the problem I raised in July: it doesn't even try to define liberal. - Borofkin2 22:53, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
You said a lot but didn't tell us much. TK's question was quite simple, "Why don't you tell us what you think it is?"; the closest thing to answer to that direct question is, "liberal is a person who holds the ideology of liberalism." Well duh, you started this question with "What is the difference between liberal and liberalism?", then you addded a couple hundred words talking about Australia and criticsm of this article.
Sooooo....cut the grist and answer TK's question directly, and do not contradict yourself with "a liberal believes in liberalism" when your original question is "what's the difference between a liberal and liberalism?" If you can't do this, you will be perma-banhammered as another troll. Got it? Rob Smith 01:13, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Excuse me, what? You are making no sense Rob, first the person asks the diffrence between liberal and liberalism, then TK asks whats his opinnion on the subject is, he then tryes to define liberal and liberalism, but that dosen't satisfy you, you demand that he answers his own question better or you will ban him ?!?
What comes to the initial question, i think it's very appropriate, as there obviously was a claim on front page that conservatives are mislead when they find themselves reading an article about liberalism instead of an liberal which they where looking for, while i don't think that any conservative who can read is that stupid, im willing to hear why that is, why would they be mislead. And in that respectiv it would be nice to know how people in this place define those terms. Unfortunatly the encyclopedia part here dosen't really help as liberalism is redirected to liberal. WillM 08:55, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Tries to define it? Referring to Australia, Britian & the US defines it? Where is there a definition? Rob Smith 17:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
TK asked about views from people outside America, so I tried to explain how the words are used in Australia. The two definitions I gave are contained in this sentence: "Firstly, in the traditional definition (i.e. to mean the ideology of individual liberty), and secondly in the way the terms are used in the United States (i.e. to mean left-wing/progressive)." For the US use of the word "liberal", I can't really do any better than that. I've been following discussions on this site for months, and it doesn't seem to be used in a consistent way at all. On Conservapedia, it seems that "liberal" just means "a person who holds a belief or opinion that I don't agree with". Based on your record I suspect that these comments will cause me to be banned. If that is the case, I bid you all farewell. - Borofkin2 21:09, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
Surely it's as simple as "a liberal is a person who believes in liberalism". Am I wrong? --JonathanDrain 09:01, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
"A leftist is a liberal." "A liberal is a leftist." "A conservative is a nazi." "A wing-nut is a nazi." We been through this months ago. If an editor has nothing constructive to contribute, the banhammer is coming down. Rob Smith 17:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Anyways, a Wikipedia search on "conservative" brings a user to "conservatism", so I don't get how that is a bias - if anything the lack of both of these terms could only mean missing articles, not bias. ATang 21:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Just to point this out; Liberalism is a political stand point in which the members (AKA Liberals), try to work towards change/etc, and are usually depicted as 'left-wing'. Conservatives, on the other hand, resist change, and are usually depicted as 'right-wing'. The difficulty with the way Conservapedia defines liberalism (or rather, what a liberal is) is that what is 'conservative' and what is 'liberal' can, does, and will change over time. The best example of this is the French revolution; within months of the revolution, the so-called 'liberals' (IE radicals) where now conservatives, as more radical people pushed them out of their seats. The current definitions of the to political standpoints seems rather inflexible, and inaccurate in regards to historical events. For example, the article on liberal seem to fail to point out that liberals where the ones who originally pushed for modern democracy, or that they where the revolutionaries in the American Revolution; the article on conservatism fails to mention that it evolved during the French revolution (as a political stand point) in other European nations who's Royal families felt threated by the implications of the Revolution, and attempted to stamp it out. Unless such information is included, the articles are incomplete and fail to give a complete picture of the subject.--Mircofixit 00:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Look, seriously

From what I've seen, some of the articles here are absolutely rubbish. Not only are they unfit for an adults consumption; they are unfit for a childs. Take a look at the article on Liberal. The creator of this site removed some very interesting and informative information for no reason. This seems to be a widespread problem that needs to be removed.

At the moment, conservapedia looks like a tabloid. I would like to get involved and make it a broadsheet. The only problem is, that Mr Schlafy takes a huge role in several key articles, not allowing different opinions to be represented thoroughly. If we are to learn, we need to take the opinions of all our human brethren into account. Yours Sincerely,

Russel 10:07, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Clearly you are more interested in hurling insults than making positive contributions. You're already off on the wrong foot here, and if your attitude does not improve you will likely be banned.--Conservateur 11:01, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Rubbish? Why shouldn't liberalism get the same treatment conservativism does? Why according the recent junk science report published in the Chicago Tribune, says, "a part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex...is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found ...traits associated with right-wingers in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression, tolerance of inequality and lack of complexity in their thinking. That -- along with the fact that it lumped Ronald Reagan and other political conservatives in with Adolf Hitler -- evoked outrage from conservative pundits." [1] Is liberalism, as an ideology, supposed to be superior to the disability of brain-damaged people? Rob Smith 17:23, 12 September 2007 (EDT)


He does have a point. Where abouts Ireland are you from Russel? Originally from Armagh myself. Julius 14:03, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Critique of atheism

Conservapedians might be interested to read this critique of the atheist proselytising of Dawkins, Hitchens & Co; it is written by Tristram Hunt, a repected British historian and writer, and published today (Wed) in the Liberal/Left British newspaper The Guardian. Pachyderm 15:56, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Providing a link often helps, I find. Here its is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2167024,00.html Pachyderm 15:59, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
The link that you provided says that modern atheism might be too harsh in its criticisms of theism because theism can be liberal and progressive too? Is this something you support, or why do you post it? Order

Bush approval rating

Yeah, 33 to 37% approval, with a 58% disapproval rating. (though he's still at 33% in some polls). It's a wonder they don't carve his face on Mt. Rushmore. Maestro 20:42, 13 September 2007 (EDT) Link title

That is more than a 10% increase; we should report, "Bush Approval rating up 10%" (and he still has the Democratic Congress beat both in Approval (by 20 points) and 10 points less in Disapproval. Rob Smith 21:55, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
No, he has congress beat. You do realize that congress, especially the senate, has a lot of Republicans in it, right? And where are you getting 10% from?Maestro 07:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait - going by Link title's comment - that's a 4 percent increase - not 10--IDuan 22:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Although it doesn't take much to do better than the liberal Democratic Congress, this gain is nice news for conservatives- Go Bush! -MikeZoeller 22:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Osama is as alive as Elvis

What do you think? [2][3] Rob Smith 14:09, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

  • WOOT!! Would not surprise me at all to someday find Osama had actually been "hiding" in the South of France at some villa. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Where'd the history go?

Where did the history for this page go? This confused the watch on the page so I can't see the changes since I last looked here. --Rutm 16:36, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

  • No! Oh dear! I seem to have screwed up during the archiving. Sorry about that, Rutm. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:42, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
While this is probably a mistake that anyone could make, the destruction or removal of particular edits of page history is something that people have criticized wikipedia for. I hope Conservapedia doesn't fall into the same disreputable practice as Wikipedia does. --Rutm 16:47, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh Heaven forbid! I did archive everything from the previous page, Rutm. I cannot imagine what is missing...--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:53, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Page views

Some discussion of this on Wikipedia - they get at present around ten BILLION page views per WEEK. Thought you might like to know :-) JzG 17:26, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

And 99% of it is for total junk, or worse. Wikipedia attracts readers the same way that gossip magazines and pornographers do. In contrast, people are learning and developing insights here. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Really? I've found some excellent content there, including articles on Robert Hooke, JS Bach, Charpentier and others. I don't see people learning and developing "insights", I see people coming here to confirm their existing biases. I rather thought that was the point. And now I'm off to read Alan Greenspan's new book... JzG 17:16, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Not to be rude, but I think a lot of people Librals full of deciet come here to vandalize, which might be why the page count is so high. Dang vandals =/ 1984 22:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Noticed something when I Googled Conservapedia

Under the link at Google, the subtext reads:

"An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint."

Notice the British spelling "encyclopaedia". Is this something on our end that should be changed or is this Google's fault? I think if possible it should have the American spelling instead.--Conservateur 17:30, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't know. Interesting observation. Thanks. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Our compromise with the differences in UK/American English, has been to leave the spelling intact for articles dealing with the UK, and using American spellings in articles about the United States. It is not perfect, but a good compromise. Conservapedia does not accept the "Globalist" aspects of Wikipedia policy. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:40, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
I just checked - and the Wikipedia policy is exactly the same ... except for articles that don't deal with the UK OR US use whatever spelling was used by the creator.--IDuan 11:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
What? that doesn't make any sense with what I wrote ..."the Wikipedia policy is exactly the same [meaning for American articles they use American spelling and for British articles they use British spelling"] ... except for articles that don't deal with the UK OR US use whatever spelling was used by the creator." - oh are you talking about the different language Wikipedia's (like de.wikipedia?)--IDuan 22:06, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Is this an "I voted for it, before I voted against it" moment?

"Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain-Feingold, but said "I don't support that" provision of it." Full article--Tash 17:48, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Let's post it.--Aschlafly 17:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Iraq and now Iran

When do you guys think we'll be in Iran? And is anyone taking bets on how long we're gonna be in Iraq? I'm guessing the next 30-40 years. I can't stand hearing naive Democrats talking about withdrawal... it's ridiculous. We have 14 permanent military bases there. Not to mention the embassy, which is the size of the Vatican. The other day I heard that they're building a military base on the Iran/Iraq border, which should be complete by November 1st.--Ellul 20:29, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

According to the DoD, the permanent military bases have been designed to hold 70,000 soldiers indefinitely.--Ellul 20:30, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Sources, please.--TerryHTalk 20:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

See here about the Iran/Iraq base.--Ellul 20:34, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

And hereabout the 14 permanent military bases. Or here

I'm not so sure whether invading Iraq in the first place was the right idea in the conservative sense, but because the country has undoubtedly become a front in the War on Terror, setting up these bases is the right way to strike at threats to America. -MikeZoeller 22:45, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Looks better, the font in the caption could use a tweaking though, bolder? Slightly bigger, perhaps?Samwell 22:36, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

The New Logo now has a darker version of the American Flag. Why the change. -Additioner 13:37, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Great point. The darker image needs to be lightened up. Thanks. In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:44, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Shurley that would have been obvious before it was uploaded, it looked almost like the site has been hacked! Maybe you should have used this logo I found on Google images. I doubt you would be happy about this but I suppose the FBI could sort them out, JK! Now I have to tell you what 57+8 is? Rocker1973 15:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I just put a brighter, bolder, and bigger logo up. Remember you have to clear your browsers cache before the new logo will appear. Let me know what you think! Thanks, CPWebmaster 21:04, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

For those of you who don't know: you can clear your cache in Firefox 2 by going to:
  1. Tools
  2. Options
  3. Privacy
  4. Clear Now
  5. unselect everything except "cache"
  6. OK--IDuan 21:14, 16 September 2007 (EDT)


I like the new logo, except for the "C" is hard to read. Could somebody make it more emphatic? Perhaps the first letter could be made bigger than the others, and the spacing between the "C" and the "o" could be minimized for effect. --Rexislexis 22:46, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I kind of agree with this--IDuan 23:14, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the idea! I'll start working on that right away!. CPWebmaster 10:38, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Greenspan

It seems that Alan Greenspan has decided that the war is about oil and that Bill Clinton was an admirable person.[4] I guess it is easy to jump ship after retiring and seeing that your implementations are not working out. Should this go on the main page? (ErstBlenchPoet 16:17, 16 September 2007 (EDT))


  • It seems you are full of confusion here....
THE former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has criticised the US President, George Bush, for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and for racking up big budget deficits. In a new book that is already sparking controversy, Dr Greenspan also writes, without elaborating: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." A self-described "libertarian Republican", Dr Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that favour small government. "My biggest frustration remained the President's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Dr Greenspan writes. Mr Bush took office in 2001, the last time the Government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that the Government has been in the red. In 2004 the deficit swelled to a record $US413 billion ($494 billion). "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Dr Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." In 2006, voters put Democrats in charge of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, which he attributes to the Republicans losing Congress rather than the Democrats actually winning it.

Many Conservatives have had the same complaint, about out-of-control spending, President Bush not using the veto enough and Congress spending like drunken sailors. What's noteworthy about Greenspan's comments? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:44, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

He held a very influential position and has made significant comments on the state of Bush's economy and war effort- from my perspective, not many (American) Conservatives believe that the war is for oil.(ErstBlenchPoet 16:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT))
Maybe Greenspan saw Ron Paul speak in one of the many debates. Greenspan is awfully late to be complaining about the war, and isn't saying anything new that Ron Paul hasn't said for years about that. This isn't news. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:07, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you were just reading it wrong, ErstBlenchPoet. Press sensationalism aside, he was pretty light on the President, certainly not as scathing as Newt Gingrich has been, nor did he hammer him as much as Pat Buchanan does without lifting more than his little finger. Hind-sight is always much easier than making the right decision at the right time, and having the responsibility for it. If the war is or was about oil, we have certainly screwed that up big time! We didn't need to depose Sadam to take their oil. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:22, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I probably have. My mistake.(ErstBlenchPoet 17:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT))

New Attorney General?

Bush picks Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general. 1 -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPWebmaster (talk) - 07:38, 17 September 2007

suing god

Just thought I'd say that might be the funniest thing I've seen - I mean I guess I see why he's doing it -the whole freedom of speech thing - but still - ignoring political motivations that's hilarious. What happens if he wins? (I bet God will appeal - with all do respect to the big guy i've heard he's a bit of a sore loser)--IDuan 22:25, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

For full comic effect, we should include a photo of the guy with his halo: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070918/480/cba382fd93ef43b6ba47ca45c36d137b;_ylt=Ah81et5RAEXqt.uvbtvasVQuQE4F

Bias

A major idea behind this website is unjust and completely irrational. There can be no respectable encyclopedia which sets out to have a bias. Researching things which aren't meant There must simply be a large pool of people from all walks of life, backed by research of highly trained professionals within their field, with a clearly referenced investigative approach. At the same time, there should be a team of non-partisan editors to watch to make sure there are no biases. You can't have such blatant statements such as "the liberal media"[5] without a clear indication of why it is liberal. On that note, liberalism and conservatism are loose definitions and it should be noted that one can have both conservative and liberal views at the same time without being tethered to a specific ideology (for example, wanting moral and family values to remain consistent but supporting the rights of foreign immigrants). I don't believe that it's wrong to want to express your views. I just believe that Conservatism and Liberalism are two polar opposites, and one can't exist without the other (e.g., hot and cold, light and dark). Fernando507 23:01, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Too address your first point - we don't set out to be a balanced encyclopedia - we argue that Wikipedia will never be a balanced encyclopedia due to the nature of a wiki - and thus we exist to provide an alternative.--IDuan 22:38, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
The lengthy, unsigned comment above is right that the conservative and liberal perspectives are polar opposites. But that only reinforces the absurdity of pretending that they don't exist, and that a publicly edited encyclopedia like Wikipedia can be neutral. One perspective will dominate, and unless there are checks against bias (as there are here), the dominant perspective will degenerate into pervasive bias, as it has on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 22:59, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • You can't have such blatant statements such as "the liberal media"
  • Fernando: Good point. Perhaps if we can get a $65,000 subsidy from the New York Times we can then afford to be objective and unbiased, too. Thank you for such healthy, clear & enlightening insights. Rob Smith 23:05, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
I see your point, Aschlafly, but I don't believe that there will necessarily be a dominant bias. I believe that without those necessary checks and balances, it would simply lead to mudslinging and unrestrained editing wars, not to mention a complete lack of useful information. As an example, I personally believe that while Wikipedia has some examples of breakdowns in the affairs between users, these have a clear resolution protocol, and Wikiprojects enable Wikipedians to find reliable reference sources and repair and build these articles. (Let me make a side-note here: I'm not here to defend Wikipedia or anything, simply to provide a counter-argument to the claims of liberal bias). Fernando507 23:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia is a mob, and without rules mobs hurt people. Wikipedia welcomes gossip, for example, and many people are hurt by that. Wikipedia is in some respects a high-tech lynch mob. It's astounding to me that while people treat an old-fashioned lynch mob with contempt, yet the same people engage in similar behavior over the internet. See Bias in Wikipedia for examples.--Aschlafly 23:54, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Um, all due respect: "old-fashioned lynch mobs" quite literally murdered people. There is no "similar behavior over the Internet."--PeteVan 13:11, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
  • while Wikipedia has some examples of breakdowns in the affairs between users, these have a clear resolution protocol
Two examples among dozens I can produce: (1) WP ArbCom Chairman admits to COI [6] in an Arbitration case brought by a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President over this citation (here a WP:Verifiable Citation would later be adjudicated by ArbCom as a "personal attack"), and (2) a former Houston Chronicle reporter presents evidence to ArbCom admitting a COI ("...if you are a former Chronicle reporter as you say..." [7]), ArbCom sanctions are leveled agains another editor based upon this evidence while in the User:Pravknight case a professional journalist recieves a Community ban for attempting to balance a hit piece on a living person that he likewise admitted to having a personal association with. [8]
In sum, coming here and telling us how fair WP:Dispute Resolution is might not be the right track; and many of us here are loosing patience with this absurd trolling. Rob Smith 13:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Student tasered for asking John Kerry too many questions

"A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested after trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html --Conservateur 10:52, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Great suggestion. I just posted it at the top. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I find the quote on the page to be a bit deceptive. It gives the impression that he was censored. The article also begins with "A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes...", leading me to believe they weren't run-of-the-mill, patient questions. Just a thought.ConserveATory 19:01, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
It appears that the article has been revised significantly since I posted it earlier today. Apparently CNN's editors decided there wasn't enough liberal bias in the original version.--Conservateur 22:57, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
You might be right, but even if you are right, the overreaction by police to cut off the questioning of John Kerry was unjustified. The censorship, even using force, reflects the climate at these universities. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:11, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes, you're right Conservateur, it does appear that CNN has dressed-up the story to make the Taser look less objectionable. "A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes ...." What relevance does that have to using a Taser to silence him???? None.--Aschlafly 23:03, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
That does seem odd to me- although now that i think more about it perhaps they were explaining how the incident was caught on tape?--IDuan 00:42, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Results of Value Voter Debate

Mike Huckabee wins the Value Voter Debate Straw Poll with 63% of the delegates vote. “While many very good candidates attended the event, Governor Mike Huckabee was the clear winner.” [9] Full Results

Go Mike! I know that I may have sounded like a Thompson supporter before, but this guy is really my choice; he's the cleanest and most conservative guy out there. -MikeZoeller 22:56, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Maryland

Wait - we say that a guy unsuccesfully critisizes the decision - is that even possible? He critisizes it - not successfully or unsuccessfully--IDuan 19:28, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Go Maryland! Hopefully this decision can set an example for the rest of the Northeast US. -MikeZoeller 23:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Interesting item....

[10]

"If you're proud to be an American, you must know about your country's history and its foreign policies, right?
Then where was the final battle fought that ended the Revolutionary War?
What were the "inalienable rights" referred to in the Declaration of Independence?
What group supported Saddam Hussein before his downfall?
If you don't know the answers, you're not alone.
A survey released Tuesday found that students from 50 colleges nationwide, including top Ivy League schools, failed a test that asked these and other questions to determine their knowledge of American history and economics. College seniors know "astoundingly little about America's history, political thought, market economy and international relations," according to the report "Failing Our Students, Failing America: Holding Colleges Accountable for Teaching America's History and Institutions."
About 14,000 freshmen and seniors at colleges nationwide were asked 60 multiple-choice questions about American history, government, the market economy and global relations. The average score for about 7,000 seniors who took the America civic literacy exam this year was 54.2 percent, or an F. That was only 1 percentage point higher than the average for seniors last year. Freshmen scored an average 50.34 percent on the test, down from 51.7 percent last year. Only 46 percent of college seniors knew the line, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...," is from the Declaration of Independence.

However, a Reno professor said the survey is a poor indicator of students' understanding of American history and government. "I think that whether or not a student knows something about the War of 1812, for example, tells us nothing about their civic understanding," said Scott Casper, who teaches history at the University of Nevada, Reno. Casper said memorizing historical dates and other information doesn't give students insight into democracy or encourage civic participation as much as learning how to think and question what they read and hear. "Being able to understand and think critically about various kinds of documents they read or speeches and television ads they see is really what good citizenship is all about," he said. "That's a more important measurement than getting 30 or 40 questions out of 60 right."

Now it is very clear as to why the results were so miserable......--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:03, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Haha, reminds me of the H. Clinton line: "God bless the America we are trying to create" ;) Yeah, we're gonna need it! Mathers 09:33, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Obama

OMG...First Obama mixes religion and politics, now he's pitching tax cuts for the rich. If he gains anymore momentum, they're going to need a Larry Flynt-Anita Hill style sting operation to knock him down. Rob Smith 12:19, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Rathergate Redux

This might be interesting for Breaking News: Dan Rather has decided that his incompetence is all CBS's fault, and he's suing them for $70million(!) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297370,00.html --PeteVan 16:51, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Democrats reject right of habeas corpus?

Uhm... Is it my lacking skill in english, or... is this front page news item a straight out lie? Democrats where voting in favour of restoring habeas corpus, not against it. [11] WillM 13:17, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

I didn't add that headline, and it does strike me as unusual. I'll check it out immediately, and clarify as appropriate. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:20, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Psychologist confirms that liberals lack elements of the moral compass

See the second page of [12]. The research also explains how conservatives are able to understand liberal arguments but libs can't understand conservative arguments. SkipJohnson 13:28, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Great catch. I'm trying to think of how to put this on the front page while complying with our family-friendly rules. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:36, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
the article makes a few good points, but it is largely about evolution and natural selection, and therefore likely inappropriate for the main page. AuH2O 13:38, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there's definitely an appeal to evolution and natural selection throughout the piece. ConserveATory 22:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Pew Research Poll

I examined the Pew Poll that is mentioned on the main page but I couldn't locate the question referenced in the main page headline. Could someone help me find it? Thanks!--Porthos 14:55, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, its fixed now. It was the Zogby Poll. Rob Smith 17:33, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
From what I see, the front page should then also read "with Congress" (or "with Democrat-led Congress" if you wish) instead of "with Democrats" - this is job approval, not party approval (and Bush also had "[r]ecord-low approval ratings", but I guess that won't make the front page...). Additionally, when disaffection continues to sink, it means something GOOD has happened... not quite what you meant, I take it? --Jenkins 17:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
This is just shorthand newspeak, ya know, like "the Reagan deficits" when we all know it's the Congress that does the Appropriations. Don't confuse me with the facts. In fact, the suggestion you made seems a little subversive, does it not?, going against established traditions and trends. Rob Smith 18:00, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
"Congress" has fewer letters than "Democrats". Shorthand and the precise phrasing would be "Congress". And I don't know why a suggestion to add more precise language is "subversive". And the bit about the sinking disaffection still startles me. --Jenkins 18:07, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

An Open Debate

How about Conservapedia considers the notion of allowing Liberals to talk openly about important issues on a specially designed section of the wiki? Diverse ideas are essential for an online project like this, and with the selective implementation of the 90/10 rule aimed towards someones political and personal beliefs, perhaps it is time to allow some part of the forum where open discussion is allowed without the threat of the banhammer.

It would take away from the constant questions posed in the talk pages; The Debate pages are already marshalled very closely disallowing for a free exchange of ideas. I think its time you realised that Liberals by and large don't hate you. We are people with different ideas, both believing our politics is the right version for our home countries and for the world. Why not embrace this fact rather than ridicule those who pigeonhole themselves into the alternative political brackets. The great Conservative Edmund Burke once wrote something along the lines of 'we are all right until we meet someone who doesn't agree with us' Graham 11:16, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

James Carville said it all in his book, We're Right, They're Wrong. Unfortunately, that is the mindset of "liberalism" conservatives have been subjected to in the post-Soviet Era (1992-present). So until we see (a) a rejection and condemnation of that approach, or (b) genuine reform efforts, you will probably see the mirror Ann Coulter in-your-face response to that type of popular close-minded liberal snobbery that predominates civil discussion. Rob Smith 15:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Samwell block thing

I like to look through a lot of the recent changes since I don't have a chance to log in as much as I'd like. I couldn't believe what I saw when I noticed all of the blocking that Samwell was doing. Shouldn't we mention this somewhere in the news? This is definately deceit, plain and simple. It shows the pure childishness that the libs will go to when they try to derail our movement. Your friend.--Ubiqtorate76 11:51, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well you pretty much summed it up, eh? There are people and sites that believe their disagreement with a religious or political philosophy or POV justifies any and all actions they might take. This is, of course, no different than the thinking of every intolerant bigot, dictator or mass murderer that has slimed the planet throughout history. No different from the Nazi's, the Communists or the KKK. Too extreme of talk? Well the non-logic behind their thinking is exactly the same. Whenever anyone begins to think that the end results justifies any means, that "two wrongs make one right", all of us are in deep trouble. Of course these "people" always justify their actions for the greater "good". That to is the same excuse Hitler used to shove millions of people into boxcars, and Stalin too. Pol Pot used the same "greater good" theory in the Killing Fields. The Truth is, whenever anyone uses Deceit or force to push their POV, that is total proof their "ideas" are merely intolerance for others. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:16, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Hitler and Pol Pot believed the ends justify the means
Rat-wiki believes the ends justify the means (allegedly)
Therefore Rat-wiki is like Hitler and Pol Pot.
TK, are you capable of making an argument without committing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent? AffirmingConsequent 18:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I think the appropriate posts at other places, by the actual people running it (and no, it is not a Mobocracy so long as just a few control the database and no actual tallied votes are taken, with all participating, not just a few), affirming and excusing vandalism, or at least relativizing it by claiming it is somehow "lesser" vandalism, or just a big fat joke, speak loudly. The old saying, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you." applies here. There isn't anything funny or heroic in deceit. Someone presenting them self as one person, while actually being another, someone who betrays a trust in one situation, will betray a trust given by anyone. And even a Sophomore in High School, AffirmingConguest, would know that my analogy doesn't equate a person or site with Pol Pot or Hitler. It equates that type of rationale, the type that excuses away vandalism, totalitarian speech and other heinous actions as being justified to achieve a goal. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:03, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm not agreeing with the vandal, TK, but I think the saying is "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." SSchultz 02:14, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Agreed, SSchultz! Point being, anyone presenting them self here under false pretensions, any other board/wiki/club, is morally bankrupt and there isn't any justification for that kind of deceit. Nor can one, as I said above, relativizing vandalism into degrees of importance, in an effort to excuse it. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:54, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Dobson on Thompson

Here is an interesting article.--Tash 12:32, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" questioned Dobson. "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,'" the Focus on the Family founder continued. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" [13]

Fake film footage

There's a lot of fakery, or at least "dramatic recreation", in film footage Middle East violence. We're all familiar with the "Palestinian funeral", where the "corpse" falls off the stretcher and is then seen on film standing up and climbing back on. [14]

Not this this has much bearing on whether Israel's overall attitude toward its Arab population and neighbors is good or bad. It speaks to the issue of who is telling the truth.

When CBS reconstructs a document, they should label it clearly. They must say that it's a facsmile or re-recreation - not a "photocopy" of the original.

When Arab cameraman stage a dramatization of an incident, it should be labeled as an illustration or re-creation. It should never be implied that this was live footage.

This is a core issue for our encyclopedia to deal with: how trustworthy is side about its actions (past) and plans (future)? --Ed Poor Talk 12:33, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Déjà vu all over again?

Tragedies, not tragedy's. Pachyderm 12:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

"General Betray Us"

Let me get this straight... Congress voted to force MoveOn to remove that ad from their site? What ever happened to the 1st Amendment? Do we not still have free speech? I don't care how right or wrong the general or our government is, you can say what you want about them. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." PhilipB 11:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Congress didn't force them to remove that ad. Congress used their freedom of speech to condemn MoveOn.org for smearing a military commander during a time of war. That's not abridging their freedom of speech, as despicable as it is. --Crocoite 11:27, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) If I understand correctly, it was a resolution, not a law. So the Senate officially said "shame on you MoveOn.org" but they didn't stop MoveOn from doing anything. You rightly point out that it would be incredibly wrong squash their speech. ("I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death your right to say it").
Unfortunately, it seems as if all the press (and the Senate action) has only helped MoveOn. Granted, it has also helped to realign the Republican party, even some anti-war Republicans, but on the day that the Senate passed the resolution, MoveOn got a half a million dollars in donations. In one day! Unfortunately it seems this is the avenue our political discourse is going down these days.... HelpJazz 11:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Thank goodness! PhilipB 13:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the Senate simply wasted their time and others time. I mean, I strongly oppose the war in Iraq and have done from the very start, but the emphasis here seems to be away from providing for the troops risking their lives over there and concentrated on protesting against a silly add. No wonder the US Congress has only an 11% approval rating. Graham 13:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, whatever the liberals do or say is ok with you right? Smearing a military commander during a time of war is ok with you too, right? You ignore the progress being made in Iraq, right? You like the policy of Retreat and Defeat... don't you? You don't think the 11% rating has anything to do with the Democrats being in charge and accomplishing little if anything? --Crocoite 14:28, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
First of all, he didn't say any of that. Why are you putting words in his mouth? Second of all, the low congressional approval rating is due entirely to the fact that Congress is filled with politicians, and politicians, almost by definition, are liars. Their approval rating is low, as it almost always is, because they make promises they can't keep in order to get elected. This is nothing new. --BillOhannity 15:59, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


Hi Crocite,

I actually didn't say any of those things. I believe that protesting against someones constitutional right to free speech when there is a war going on with equipment shortages and other plight which soldiers need dealing with is just moronic. I think the troops who are over there by no will of their own deserve as much support as possible, and wasting time like this in the houses of government is nothing short of an outrage. Of course, your entitled to believe what you want to believe also. Graham 16:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, of course you didn't say those things; however, I believe your answers would be yes to all except the last one. Let me know if you feel otherwise.
What? "troops who are over there by no will of their own". Last time I checked this was a volunteer military. When I was in the military, we trained for war. The US military is not trained to be UN peacekeepers. --Crocoite 17:12, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I have already made my feelings on the war clear, Crocite. In fact I specifically stated that I strongly oppose it. The Surge that Petraues reported noted some improvements in Baghdad but the country as a whole is a complete mess. Many parts of Iraq are completely out of the control of the government. It is in effect a collapsed state.

My feelings on Moveon.org's add is generally one of apathy. I don't care what they wrote about in an American Newspaper. Last I checked, writing what you want in a free press is exactly the sort of thing that marks a democracy from a dictatorship. Nothing has stopped an opposing group from posting a rebuttal add. In many ways, it is a beautiful, mind-boggling thing that people can do this in the national press when we compare this to what is happening in Burma as we speak.

I know you mean well, but personally I feel that the Senate has more important things to spend its time on that criticising what some leftist group posted in a newspaper. Providing for the troops would be a start.

Also, the troops are over there by no will of their own (In that, its hardly their fault that they were packed off to a war in a distant land). US troops are sent to war to protect the US Constitution, in effect. What happens when the US government decides to criticise something boldly stated in its first Amendment? Not only are they wasting the countries time, they are betraying the very principles the US military stand for. Graham 18:32, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, you are so full of liberal talking points (the country as a whole is a complete mess, the troops are over there by no will of their own). Stop repeating liberal talking points and ignoring the positive results in Iraq. Here's the real results at Defend America. Check out a few examples from September 2007:
The liberal media won't report the positive results in Iraq because they are invested in Retreat and Defeat. I refuse to believe their liberal propoganda. --Crocoite 19:25, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Stop candying Liberal around like that... It just looks stupid.

No-one is denying that there is some progress going on, but that progress is been overshadowed by daily bombing attacks and an incompetant government. In fact the level of progress compared to the level of regress is much smaller. Schemes and programmes similar to the ones you mention were abundant in the Northern Ireland Troubles - that doesn't mean to say that the level of progress bettered the level of regress. Margaret Thatcher managed to get a car company into Belfast creating 600 jobs once; the ironic thing was though that an IRA bomb destroyed a flour mill in the other side of the city destroying over a thousand jobs. Let this be a little parable to your logic. Graham 19:55, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

P.S- Liberal talking points? Just get to the point of my argument rather than dandy words around like that. I'll not respond otherwise. Graham 20:09, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Graham, thank your for promising to not respond further here. To do otherwise would be a deceit. Now you will get your wished for block, very soon, I am certain, and can go back to the home of deceit and write it all up. I do aim to please. Godspeed! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:53, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Democrats shouldn't even bother claiming to not be anti-military anymore, especially if they're one of the twenty-five in the Senate that voted to not condemn MoveOn.org. -MikeZoeller 23:16, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


TK,

I only said I would not respond if he continued to dandy the word 'Liberal' around like he did. I'm trying to make an effort here, I would appreciate a little less paranoia. Graham 09:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

The Economy is Good

Consumer goods crowd the shelves in big box stores, and prices just keep tumbling. Recently, for example, Apple slashed the price of its iPhone from $599 to $399. That was spun, naturally, as bad news for those who bought it at full price. In reality, good news abounds, even though we seldom hear about it.

Okay, this might be more down Andy's lane, but how exactly is Apple's iPhone $200 price slash a sign that the economy is good? I quote Apple's press release: "[...] and to make iPhone affordable for even more customers this holiday season, it is lowering the price of the most popular iPhone model with 8GB of storage from $599 to just $399."

This sort of implies that they lowered the price because many people could not afford the 600 bucks phone. It's a supply/demand thing ("We have supplies, but there is lower demand than we would like, so we lower the price."), and I honestly don't see how a reasonable columnist can list that as an indicator that the economy is doing good. If it was so good, wouldn't more people buy it at the $599 price point, thus eliminating the need for a price cut?

Suggestion: Find a more authoritative source. Assuming that the claim is true, there will invariably be a source other than some column on some website. I'm not even arguing with the claim, but rather with the way some online columnist tries to make a point. --Jenkins 18:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I would absolutely agree that the economy is good, as I can feel it at home here in a middle-class household. It's all thanks to the conservative economic policy of the Bush administration. -MikeZoeller 23:25, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

What "conservative economic policy" might that be? The Bush administration is by no means fiscally "conservative". Oh sure, they've cut taxes, but government spending is through the roof. BrumbleB 23:38, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
  • BrumbleB, you should spend less time posting, and more time reading the Constitution. Can you tell me who actually spends tax monies in the United States? I will give you one clue: It isn't the President. MikeZoeller, on cannot make a credible case that the Bush Administration has had a responsible economic policy either. I agree with you about its Public Policy. As Ronald Reagan proved, even optimism, and feeling good about ourselves and the Country as a whole, makes an appreciable difference. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Any chance of anybody actually addressing the issue I touched? I explicitly said that I wasn't arguing about the "economy is good" claim, but rather about the (in my eyes) flawed way some columnist tries to make a point. --Jenkins 09:48, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

The economy is like a sick horse that never seems to get well. The problem economists face isn't the sick horse itself but what medicine to use, how much and when to stop. The recent cut by the Fed in the discount rate by a ½ percentage point shows that the PTB are concerned the housing bubble burst may bleed over into the rest of the economy.BrumbleB 14:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Burma

Should we mention something about whats happening in Burma at the moment? Graham 18:33, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

The situation In Burma is a shame, but from a conservative viewpoint, getting involved there wouldn't be right thing to do when they pose no threat to us. -MikeZoeller 23:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Graham (or anyone else) was suggesting the US get involved directly in Burma, just that the situation there might be worth mentioning. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:36, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. It would make a nice change from the adolescent berating of Liberals to talk about something that actually matters in the world. Graham 07:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Airport

The name of the bomb scare airport is Logan airport, not Boston airport. It is in boston, but giving the correct name looks more professional. AuH2O

Gossip

I've noticed a lot of gossip in many key articles associated with the left wing (Democratic Presidential Candidates, Environmentalism, atheism etc.) such as Obama been called a Marxist Leftist by Tom DeLay, this was presented as fact and not gossip. In fact, I though Schalfy prided himself at the lack of gossip here. I guess this could be a good example of Conservative Deceit. Graham 10:50, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Just because Liberals hate the truth does not mean they should not see it.(ErstBlenchPoet 16:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT))

Oh come on. Do you really believe Obama and say, Khruschev can even be compared??? Thats obscene. Gossip should not be included in an encylopedia, and even worse, that same said encyclopedia shouldn't boast that it doesn't have any gossip when it clearly has. Its endemic in a lot of articles. Graham 16:41, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools