Talk:Main Page/archive40

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Pizza Hut

I'm seriously not sure what the point here is supposed to be. It's a very confusing summary of the article, at least. Maybe it should mention that Kucinich is a vegan (to show why it's "interesting" that his image is replaced by a pizza covered with meat) and that his backers are complaining about the ad? In the current form, it stands out badly among the really Breaking News. --JakeC 19:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)

No, Pizza Hut is not receiving many complaints and, no, the mockery is not related to whether Kucinich is a "vegan" or not. I'm afraid you may be missing the point: this liberal Democratic politician has become such an object of mockery that a pizza chain can capitalize on it. That is newsworthy.--Aschlafly 19:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)
(To be fair: The company public relations director that they didn't receive many complaints. It's one of those "Who said?" cases - of course, she won't say "Oh yes, billions are complaining and we screwed up big time." right away.)
And my point was that it's really not clear in the summary what the point is. Why not replace the "and then the ad replaces his image with several meat-covered pizzas." part (which is only relevant in connection to his veganism - of course, Pizza Hut will show a PIZZA in their ad, and the exact topping choices don't impact anything without the vegan bit) and instead include what you just told me? That the comment has turned the candidate into somebody who gets openly ridiculed? My suggestions (excuse the snark):
  • Maybe Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich should become entertainer instead of President? His "More people in this country have seen UFOs" debate statement is now used by Pizza Hut in a TV ad.
  • At least he said something memorable: Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's stament, "More people in this country have seen UFOs," is now used by Pizza Hut in a TV ad.
  • You know you have a problem when Pizza Hut makes money by using your presidential campaign statements. Then again, with statements like, "More people in this country have seen UFOs," this should come as no surprise for Dennis Kucinich...
I just made those up on the fly, but I think they're a pointer in the right direction since they shift the focus from the pizza ad itself to the situation of the candidate. --JakeC 20:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Of course you want to dilute the obvious mockery by Pizza Hut of a liberal presidential candidate. And of course we're not going to dilute it, because it is objectively newsworthy that a mainstream American food chain feels that it can gain from riding on buffoonery by a liberal presidential candidate.--Aschlafly 21:00, 29 December 2007 (EST)
...what? I want to dilute it? Did my suggestions magically turn into "Ohhhh poor vegan gets attacked by evil Pizza Hut" after I posted it? My suggestions pointed out that Pizza Hut (and implicitly others) rightfully mock him; much more than your "A new Pizza Hut ad displays Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich saying in a debate [...] and then the ad replaces his image with several meat-covered pizzas." does.
I felt like helping you clarify the snark against a liberal, and in return, I get implicitly called liberal myself? Seriously, whatever. Guess that shows that no good deed goes unpunished here. --JakeC 21:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)
JakeC, you make call your own action a "good deed," but I explained why we're not going to change the factual headline. If this simple issue upsets you so much, then I hope you won't hold a grudge. The headline is factual and makes the point well. How about doing some substantive edits rather than expressing nitpicky, unjustified complaints? Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)
By now I'm certain that you haven't read my suggestions at all. I wasn't complaining, and while your headline is factual, it's not getting your message across. You want to make a good point about a liberal having sunk so low that Pizza Hut actually makes money with his ridiculous comments, and you waste precious words by going on and on about how it's "several meat-covered pizzas" that replace his image (as opposed to a single ham pizza, I assume). Try to distance yourself a bit from the issue and look at your words from the perspective of somebody who just got here. Your breaking news currently simply describes a Pizza Hut ad, period. I was actually surprised because a liberal got away so lightly on the front page, and my first reaction was "Thank you, CP, for describing this meat-covered-pizza ad for me. Now I'm hungry, but I seriously don't know why you featured it."
Please take a moment to actually read what I wrote up there, and you would realize that we're on the same side. Not everybody who asks a question about your Breaking News is automatically a liberal atheist who wants to censor you. My suggestions aimed at clarifying your point ("should become entertainer instead of President", "You know you have a problem when..."), not at diluting it. I say: Get rid of the superfluous information and replace it with a comment that shows people why this made the front page. --JakeC 21:52, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, and in the week or so that I've been here, I have made 180 edits - 136 of which were in the mainspace to improve articles like Gun control. How about not slapping people in the face with your line about substantive edits? We're here to help your project grow, and it stings when the site founder apparently dismisses more than a hundred positive contributions in a week like that. --JakeC 21:55, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, Jake makes some good points. I've modified the Pizza Hut item slightly, after watching the ad twice on YouTube. --Ed Poor Talk 22:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Ed, I can't believe you've fallen for JakeC's liberal deceit. - KC 22:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I'm an "ignorant, easily lead Christian". So sue me. Hey, Mr. Schlafly! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 22:17, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that I have to support JakeC also. When I read that item in its original form, I thought "Huh? I don't get the point". Philip J. Rayment 03:50, 30 December 2007 (EST)


I don't understand why this is newsworthy at all - people are making fun of liberals? This is news? For what it's worth, lots of people make fun of the president but I don't think you'd want to put that on the breaking news section...TRipp 17:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)

"Rottweiler Control"

Andy, it's unfortunate that you would use the tragic death of an infant to score a cheap political shot. It's even more unfortunate, because your analogy is a false one. There have indeed been calls for restrictions on the breeding and sale of rottweilers and other dangerous dogs in the UK. There are even a number of dangerous dog laws on the books. Here is an article from the BBC discussing the very call for "rottweiler control" you claim hasn't happened. SSchultz 23:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know how good your news services are in the United States, but that rottweiler attack was the second in two days, the first being right here in the town in which I live in Oz[1]. And there have been calls for such dogs to be banned. Philip J. Rayment 04:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

There's nothing wrong with Andy's editorial remarks. Perhaps you'd like the right side of the page to distinguish between straight news and editorials?
The left is dead set against private ownership of guns for personal self-defense. It's not based on reducing accidental deaths or preventing violent crime. John Lott's statistics show that liberalizing (!) gun laws in US states has always led to a reduction in crime.
It's not about personal well-being (i.e., safety from attacks). It's about increasing government control. Liberals want socialism and all that entails. Don't think that the "fall of Communism" means that leftist ideology has lost adherents. They've just modified their agenda to get what's possible.
Here's an example of a shift: they used to yell about "no nukes", from the 1970s to the late 1980s. Then in 1989 the new issue became global warming. Note that both issues are about economics and the environment. Nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than coal; each plant saves 100 lives per year by reducing air pollution. But electric power helps make the US prosperous and influential, which leftists can't stand!
Carbon dioxide helps plants grow, and it does not have a significant (let alone harmful) effect on climate. But reducing CO2 emissions will hurt the US economy and reduce its influence. Now here's the tricky part: requiring people and corporation to reduce emissions or buy emissions credits, the proceeds from which are transferred to third world countries, amounts to wealth redistribution by force, which is the cornerstone of Socialism.
Now I have nothing against the core ideals of socialism. When a group is small enough (like a family), there is a lot of sharing. The wealthy parents support their children until they reach maturity and independence. Many children support their elderly parents. But it can't be force, or it doesn't work. It leads to mass starvation, as under Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung. And how many people want to escape into Cuba to live and work there? They shoot people in the back for trying to emigrate.
Socialism by force only "works" by using government military and police power to keep people doing what they are told. It's so ineffective at achieving its stated goals that people will risk their lives to get away from it.
Perhaps what Andy was trying to say in that short item is that Liberals pretend to care about people, but they support policies which are really inhumane. --Ed Poor Talk 08:55, 30 December 2007 (EST)
???? Apart, I suppose, from the very first sentence of SShultz' post, the comments that you were replying to only talked about rottweilers! But seeing you've commented on the gun control issue, I don't agree with some of your comments on that. But there's already extensive discussion of that on the gun control talk page. Philip J. Rayment 09:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)
The point I saw and continue to see is this: gun use kills thousands per year; automobile accidents kill thousands per year; animal attacks kill hundreds per year (including rottweilers); drug use kills thousands per year...but of these the liberals are always talking about controlling guns; it's never about controlling cars, never about controlling drugs, and never about controlling rottweilers and other dogs. Karajou 09:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)
The statement on the front page is correct: liberals do not demand "rottweiler control" as they demand gun control. That's because the motivation for liberals is not really to "save the children" as they claim, but to increase socialism. And Ed's analogy to nuclear power is informative: if liberals were really concerned about CO2 emissions, then they would be calling for nuclear power. They aren't, and again it is because socialism is their motivation, not their pretextual argument. Don't fall for the pretext.--Aschlafly 09:21, 30 December 2007 (EST)
There's a police officer in my town who's in line for a K-9 job, and he'll be handling a Belgian malinois, a vicious dog in its own right. The dog he has now will be adopted out, probably to me: a Doberman. I guess maybe the libs will "talk" about Doberman and malinois control next. Perhaps they want the cops to have beagles? Karajou 09:30, 30 December 2007 (EST)
In the UK, where this attack occurred, there has been a lot of debate and action about dangerous dog control. As such, the analogy with demands for gun control is hopeless. Perhaps an article on a similar event in the US where demands by liberals for dangerous dog control may not have been forthcoming would be more appropriate. As it stands, it just makes Conservapedia look silly. Any open-minded reader of this site wouldn't have to Google very far to find articles such as this. Ajkgordon 09:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with much that Ed said (even though it was pretty-much off-topic). And I agree with Andy's comment about motivation, in many cases at least. But on the subject of dogs, the point is that they do call for controls on dogs. Perhaps no in the United States for some reason, but here in Oz they do, and in Britain also, according to the links provided by two other posters here.

As far as Karajou's list is concerned, I'll address each one:

  • guns: It's not always "liberals" who support gun control.
  • car (US: automobile) accidents: See my comments below.
  • drugs: I'll largely agree there. They'd prefer to make them available so that they can "control" them, rather than ban them.
  • dogs: As stated above, they do call for dangerous dogs to be controlled.

The car one provides an opportunity to point out an important fact. Just because "liberals" are for or against something, doesn't make it wrong. There are some issues on which non-"liberals" sometimes agree with "liberals". I am, as most of you know, not a "liberal". "Liberals" don't (in my experience) call for cars to be restricted or banned on the grounds of safety (car accidents), but do call for them to be restricted on other (environmental) grounds. On this particular issue, I happen to agree with them (I'm sure I don't fully agree, and likely don't agree with their motives, but largely agree with their view).

So, even though "liberals" might generally take a particular side on a particular issue, it doesn't follow that there's never any grounds for a conservative to take the same view.

Philip J. Rayment 09:59, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Ajkgordon and Philip don't cite any leading liberals who demand "rottweiler control." Liberals demanding gun control are all around, yet none of them can be found demanding "rottweiler control." Why? The answer is obvious: gun control advances socialism, while rottweiler control does not. So liberals push the former, and not the latter.
Now one may say, "Give me the socialism along with the gun control, because I can't stand reading about (statistically insignificant) gun accidents." That's free will. But don't pretend that gun control is not part of the socialistic agenda. It's central to it.--Aschlafly 10:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Are you saying that the people who call for rottweiler control are conservatives? Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Oh come off it. Basically, you have no idea about the history of this issue in the UK. Firstly, lets clarify. This is the UK we're talking about here, not the USA. In the UK, gun control is a total non-issue. Neither side of the house want to see more guns on the streets of the UK. Secondly, you're simply ignorant of the sustained debate over the control of dangerous dogs in the UK. In 1991, The dangerous dogs act was introduced by the John Major's conservative government. It was then amended by the Labour government to give the police stronger powers to destroy dangerous dogs.
The control of dangerous dogs in the UK is a not a partisan issue. Some "leading liberals" who have expressed concern over the issue would include Alasdair McDonnell, Labour MP for South Belfast, Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East, Baroness Harris of Richmond, Liberal Democrat Peer, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Labour Peer, etc. etc. etc. Concern over the issue crosses both houses of parliament as well as the party divide. Attempting to imply some kind of hypocrisy here, and worse making some tenuous link to "socialism" is simply ridiculous. --StrangelyBrown 10:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Gun could have saved the boy

(New sub-headline since it's not about "dog control")

Regarding the most recent edit to this item, here's a quote from the linked article:

At the time of the attack, the boy was being looked after by his 16-year-old aunt, together with the seven-year-old girl and another girl, aged six.

God knows I'm against gun control as much as you are, Andy, but I think this is one of those scenarios where a gun is a bit out of place (three girls, age, 16, 7, and 6, playing with a baby). --JakeC 10:13, 30 December 2007 (EST)

[Already typed before I got an edit conflict with JakeC.] Added to the Main Page now is the line "(Use of a gun against the dog could have saved the boy.)". Well, perhaps. I can't deny that that's possible. But I think it's drawing a long bow. The baby was taken from the arms of a seven-year-old. I doubt that a seven-year-old would have had access to a gun even if they were legal and the family owned one. Okay, there was also a 16-year-old in the house, who did attack the dog whilst it still had the baby. And perhaps a 16-year old might have had access to a gun. But would it really be a good idea for a 16-year-old to try shooting a dog which apparently still had the baby in it's mouth? I suppose you could argue she had nothing to lose, but I don't know... Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Of all the comments about this, I'm struck most by Jake's and Philip's here. The dog killed the infant after a 16-year-old was unable to stop the dog by striking it. Yet Jake and Philip seem to be against the 16-year-old using a gun to stop the dog!
Think about it, folks. This illustrates the absurdity of the belief in gun control. Of course that family would have been better off if the 16-year-old had access to a gun. It probably would have saved the boy's life.--Aschlafly 10:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)
What's the chances that the 16-year-old would have shot the baby in the process? Philip J. Rayment 10:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)
JakeC (below) said what I had in mind. In the light of hindsight, we know that a gun could not have made things worse, and might have made things better. But without hindsight, what we might have had is the 16-year-old trying to shoot the dog, accidentally shooting the baby, and not only having the guilt of doing so, but possibly having others accusing her of taking too much of a risk when the baby might have survived the dog attack, or that she could have used safer means. The point, as I said, is that we now have the hindsight that the baby would have died, but at the time, that was not a given. As for "of course that family would have been better off", that's simply not true. They might have been better off, but nobody can know for sure, so it's not correct to say "of course". Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Pretty high, if she had no training. If it was me, the dog would die quickly and the baby would not be hit by a bullet. I would hold the dog with one hand while shooting it.
There are also quick-acting tranquilizer darts. These put the target to sleep in seconds without risk of fatality to the dog or its human victim.
Anyway, if I owned a "dangerous dog", i.e., one of a breed like rottweiler or Doberman, I would keep other tools around for emergencies. If you own a pool, you have floatation devices you can throw to a drowning person. Dog control officers have poles with "grabbie things" on the end. Press a button and the dog is caught. Two of these can immobilize the dog.
Nil desperandum my friend (do not despair). There are many ways to keep children safe. --Ed Poor Talk 10:58, 30 December 2007 (EST)
(Edit conflict with Philip - guess we're even now :P) I'm all for giving guns to people who can handle them. Do 16-year-old girls fall into that niche? Sure, if they received some sort of training with it. Do I know any 16-year-old girls who know how to properly handle guns? No, I don't. I'm not saying they don't exist, but judging from my observation, they appear to be the exception to the rule.
However, there are more ways of dealing with a dog. The choice isn't just between "fists" and "gun". There are pepper spray and electroshock weapons, for example. Both of them would have done the trick in this case, and there wouldn't have been the risk of accidentally shooting the baby (or one of her playmates... or herself, if she acted clumsily in her panic...). Or even a good old baseball bat might've done the trick.
As a completely last resort, a gun would have been better than nothing, even in the hands of a 16-year-old. But I think this is a poor case against gun control due to the wide availability of safer measures designed to deal with such situations. --JakeC 10:51, 30 December 2007 (EST)
It seems that we're so conditioned by the liberal media to think that death by gunshot is worse than death by other means. In the small chance the girl shot the baby by accident, the baby would be no worse off than if a gun were not there. The difference, I now realize, is that we're conditioned by the liberal media to think that an accidental death by a private use of gun in self-defense is somehow a greater tragedy than death by other means. That misperception, perpetrated by liberals, needs to end.--Aschlafly 10:54, 30 December 2007 (EST)
"In the small chance the girl shot the baby by accident, the baby would be no worse off than if a gun were not there". But that can only be said of this case with the benefit of hindsight. It's not necessarily always true. Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Exactly the type of thinking process which is taught in gun safety courses and use of force briefings. You make this kind of decision in advance. Like, if a mugger shows a knife and I have a gun, I can calmly take it out and point it at him; see citizen's arrest & Second Amendment.
Wasn't there a liberal researcher who was fired for academic fraud after he was caught manufacturing quotes from the Founding Fathers about guns? --Ed Poor Talk 11:06, 30 December 2007 (EST)
If I was a young girl, it would definitely make a difference to me if I had just shot my nephew by accident or if I had failed to save him from an external force. Yes, the objective outcome is basically the same, but the emotional wrecks it leaves behind change. Not even to mention that there is the conflict between ex-post and ex-ante information. We now know that doing nothing lead to death, but before then, that was not definite (though likely, I admit). If she had known for sure that nothing she'd do would make the outcome worse, things would be different. But like this, she would have been blaming herself for having shot her nephew instead of blaming herself for not having been able to do more. I'd argue that the former would be worse for her (Disclaimer: I did not study psychology, so this is mostly my gut feeling talking).
The thing is, as I (and also Ed further up, if I read over his reply correctly) pointed out, there are more ways to deal with a wild dog that doesn't endanger the life of a baby. The question should be why there wasn't even pepper spray or a bat at hand. (If they were at hand and the girl simply forgot about them in her panic, she most likely also would've forgotten about a gun.) --JakeC 11:23, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, a lot of liberals want to outlaw the pit bull breed around here. It's ridiculous. Recently, a boy got mauled by one and his parents started lobbying the city to ban the breed, playing off sympathy for the mauling. The boy protested his parents' activism. DanH 20:59, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Dogs and guns and liberal bias

  • "The family had owned the dog for about six months and it had not previously shown any signs of aggression, police said."

That is such sloppy journalism - or is it more liberal bias? The news story should have said that the family said (not the police said) that the dog hand not previously shown any signs of aggression.

There's a big difference between "family said" and "police said". How would the police know? (Only by asking the family, I guess.) Why should we believe the family? Do you think the grandparents would admit that their dog had been aggressive? And open themselves up to criminal charges for harboring a nuisance or endangering a child?

This is a great news story, Andy, and I'm glad you put it on the front page. It opens up multiple issues. Not only is gun control relevant here, but also personal responsibility.

Two days ago, a friend of mine was bitten by a poodle while house-sitting. That dog had never "bitten" me, but it had put its teeth on my hands many times. I have been carefully training it never to put its teeth on my hands, but I certainly never trusted the dog. It's not even housebroken.

People ought to take responsibility for their pets. Likewise, they should be trusted to take responsibility for their guns. There are a million defensive uses of guns in the US every year. Often simply taking it out of your pocket (or pointing at an assailant) is enough to stop a criminal. There was a school shooting massacre which was stopped by a man with a gun - but the liberal media suppressed the fact that it was a civilian using a gun who stopped the murders.

This is why Conservapedia is so important: it publishes information that liberal sources suppress. I don't care if an occasional example is presented in a "heartless" way. The really heartless ones are those who suppress important truths, such as the number of lives that can be saved with private gun ownership (stops murderers); DDT (kills and repels mosquitoes that cause malaria); etc.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Schlafly! --Ed Poor Talk 10:18, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with you about the police comment, and about Conservapedia publishing information that other sources won't, but you're begging the question on the value of guns. Philip J. Rayment 07:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Given that the dog had been with the family for half a year while being two-and-a-half years old, I assume the police also asked the pound or breeder they got the animal from.
"Do you think the grandparents would admit that their dog had been aggressive?" - Do you think they would have left an aggressive animal with four kids if they had known the dog to be aggressive? I agree with your point about personal responsibility, but at some point, I kinda ask myself whether a scenario is likely or not. Sure, stupid families exist everywhere, but it would be jumping to conclusions to assume that they are one of them. --JakeC 10:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Jake, I love ya, but you seem to have missed my point about dog aggression not being reported. No one warned my friend, before Friday's incident where a poorly trained poodle bit my friend's lip, that the dog was aggressive or had bitten people. Maybe they were embarrassed.

Anyway, I would never keep a individual dog unchained where a baby could get near it, unless it was (1) of a breed not known to kill people unprovoked and (2) the individual dog was known to have a good disposition.

I only trust the kind of dog which responds passively to humans, even when being teased. You know, like a golden retriever or a Saint Bernard. Kids can jump on them, poke them, and if the dog gets annoyed it merely gets up and walks away. If it gets really annoyed, it growls.

The problem with attack dogs (as pets) is that they are generally not safe around kids. I also don't leave sharp knives or matches where kids can get them. Let's get some perspective here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

There are no safe breeds of dog. ANY dog of ANY breed can attack a person. As this page points out, "The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive." File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)


The objections people are making has got nothing to do with heartlessness (although it could be). It's got to do with accuracy. The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced by a Tory (conservative) government in 1991 in a knee-jerk reaction to a child's death due to savaging by a dog. The Labour (left-wing) government has done nothing since to amend this piece of legislation. Both sides, liberal and conservative, are as guilty as each other and therefore this story cannot be used as an attack on liberals who promote gun control. It simply doesn't fit. And, as I said earlier, makes CP look daft if the reader does the most rudimentary research on this story and its background. Ajkgordon 10:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)
We are using the gun control issue in the United States, and liberal attempts to have guns removed from the average, law-abiding citizen, which is always big news, as opposed to the other hypothetical controls mentioned above. Liberal like their dogs, they like their cars, and they certainly like their marijunana, cocaine, and heroin (for those that use them). But despite the deaths per year from the last three, they are not seeking controls on any of that as compared to guns. Could it be that the gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen (and not a car, a dog, or drugs) is a threat to a tyrannical government? You need to read our Declaration of Independence; the charges levied against the king of Great Britain in 1776 reflected a tyrannical government, and the colonists could never have succeeded in independence without the guns in their possession. Karajou 11:21, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, sure, Karajou, I respect that this is an American issue on an American site and that it might hold true for a similar story that happened in America that exposed liberal American hypocrisy. But it happened in the UK which makes it unworthy of inclusion as an argument putting down liberal-backed gun-control in the US because the situation is entirely different. That's all really. I am fully aware of your glorious Declaration of Independence and the issue of an armed militia being a cornerstone of the US constitution. I also accept that there is plenty of hypocrisy surrounding the gun control debate but I strongly recommend that this story can't be used as an example of it. Ajkgordon 11:30, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Well, we have a saying over here: "You get what you pay for." It sounds to me that coming from you guys, you're mighty happy to let that dog get away with it, while providing excuses for not saving that child's life. Don't push that philosophy here. Karajou 17:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Karajou, I think that you are trying to say that liberals in the United States are not calling for controls on dogs. Even if that is true, this is a story about Britain, so that is hardly relevant.
And your last comment is offensive. Of course we're not happy the dog "got away with it". But we are not convinced that a gun in the situation would have been a good idea.
Philip J. Rayment 07:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I find that accusation offensive in the extreme. Of course I wouldn't wish any child to be hurt by any dog and would do everything in my power to prevent such a thing, and have done on more than one occasion. On grounds of common decency you should retract what you said. Under no circumstances would I judge a human child's life less important that the life of a dog. I am simply pointing out my reasons why I think the UK story is not a good one to use to beat liberals up about their gun control hypocrisy. There are plenty of other examples that would serve better. May I wish you a very Happy New Year and hope that you will endeavour to be less damning of people you don't know in 2008. Ajkgordon 07:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Dogs and liberals

[Already typed before I got an edit conflict with ASchlafly.]

You guys are picking apart the example, which is good. But I hope you will not stop there. Let's not rest in triumph after "proving" that the example is hopelessly flawed and then dismiss the entire thing.
Let's tackle the issues that the dog incident raised.
We have identified liberal hypocrisy on opposing guns (which supposedly "kill" thousands a year) while not opposing aggressive dogs as liberals. (There are general efforts, not liberal-led efforts, to deal with rottweilers and dobermans.)
Let's get into the "gun control" debate. Are more innocent lives lost or saved by "controlling guns", e.g., making it hard for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed pistols? --Ed Poor Talk 10:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Are more innocent lives lost or saved by controlling guns? I'd go for saved, actually, although it depends on the circumstances. But why are you persisting with having this debate here instead of on the Gun Control talk page? Philip J. Rayment 07:30, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Im not actually sure why i need to point this out as it's so obvious, there are around 15 dog related deaths in US every year [2]while there was 29,569 gun related deaths in 2004. So why do you think there wasn't as much talk about dog related deaths and how to stop those as there where from gun related? Next going to accuse Liberals of being hypocrites because they don't demand tigers taken away from zoos because of the accident last week? HeikkiL 12:22, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Good point. Philip J. Rayment 07:30, 31 December 2007 (EST)
If you're trying to change the subject, you're doing a good job. But I'd like an answer to my question: Are more innocent lives lost or saved by "controlling guns", e.g., making it hard for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed pistols? --Ed Poor Talk 12:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Im not sure how im trying to change the subject when your first post is named "Dogs and liberals" and you talk about the hypocrisy on opposing guns when not opposing dogs. What comes to your other question, i think that the answer isn't as much making it harder for people to carry guns around but to limit the availability of guns. This would offcourse allso limit the amount of guns carryed, but those carrying would have gone thro more precise background check. But for more discussion on this subject i think the gun controll articles talk page could be good place to continue. HeikkiL 12:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)
To paraphrase you Ed, you might ask "Are more innocent lives lost or saved by 'controlling dogs"? The debate has wandered far, far from the original point, which was that a nasty political attack was falsely concocted out of a tragic incident. At the very least both the UK and Republic of Ireland have 'Dangerous Dogs Acts' on the books for many years, and yes, both liberals and conservatives voted for it. It is indeed 'dog control', and it is analogous to gun control'. However, I doubt the original author will reconsider his comments, given his blinkered worldview. Reasonableperson 16:19, 30 December 2007 (EST)
"Reasonableperson" (isn't it funny how liberals present themselves?), gun control does cause more losses in life than it saves, and liberals push gun control for its political effect. We don't see liberals pushing "rottweiler control" with anything like the same gusto, because that lacks the socialistic political effect.--Aschlafly 16:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)
We do see people pushing "rottweiler control", and I would guess that they are as likely to be "liberals" as those pushing gun control (which people are not always "liberals"). You didn't answer my question above ("Are you saying that the people who call for rottweiler control are conservatives?"). Philip J. Rayment 07:30, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Personal remark removed Not just I, but others more knowledgable of the legal landscape of dog control than your US-centric viewpoint have spent the day pointing out that indeed many liberals HAVE pushed hard for Rottweiler control, and won. Dangerous dogs have killed quite a number of children and their ownership should be controlled as tightly as gun ownership - it does indeed saved lives, particularly those of young children. Reasonableperson 16:45, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Not just you? Are you stating that you're involved in politics there in the UK? Karajou 17:17, 30 December 2007 (EST)
No, I'm not suggesting that Karajou. The Main Page item claims no-one calls for 'dog control', and I and others have pointed out that in many legislations such laws were called for and do exist, and were created in direct response to incidents like the one listed . Reasonableperson 17:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)
That's spelled as "knowledgeable" and you still haven't identified any of the many liberals who push gun control as also pushing "rottweiler control."--Aschlafly 16:58, 30 December 2007 (EST)
You're right, I made a typo. Oh dear, I'm dreadfully sorry. However, it is a distraction. Your original point was that no-one had called for 'dog control' legislation, but they had. Now you shift the goalposts and claim your point required a list of people who both supported gun control AND dog control. I think you can safely say that any politician who supported dog control in Ireland was also a supporter of gun control - since all Irish politicians are in support of the latter position. I think the same would be true of most UK politicians. Clearly there's no point debating you on this matter as you don't know the material. Reasonableperson 17:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
No, you didn't simply make a "typo". Rather, you apparently didn't know how to spell "knowledgeable", and now you won't admit it. Instead, like most liberals you act like you're smarter than every one else and hope that people will agree with you because you seem smart and "reasonable". Unfortunately, you're neither, and you can't even identify a single liberal demanding "rottweiler control." So you prove the point of the headline on our Main Page. Thank you.--Aschlafly 18:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, you ARE amusing Mr.Schalfly. You make me smile so, so much. Ehm, if you read my response one more time, you'll see I freely admitted to the typo. And you are now starting to move the goalposts MILES from the original point if a keyboard typo (which you yourself often make, I would point out) is becoming the point. As I said, I suggest you look at the list of elected TD's in Ireland and MP's in the UK and pick any politician at random and you will find with complete certainty that they are both a supporter of gun control and also a supporter of dog control. So there's no point me trying to name anyone in particular. Finally - can you name an Irish politician who is a supporter of more liberal gun laws? A UK one? I thought not. Reasonableperson 18:12, 30 December 2007 (EST)
"Reasonableperson", you're not making any sense and your silly "goalpost" analogy is silly but common among liberals at Wikipedia, where there is even an absurd entry entitled "Moving the goalpost." You can find a home for your work there. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I honestly don't understand this headline... How is this comparable to gun control at all? There are already such dog control laws in the UK, and Rottweilers just don't kill that many people. Feebasfactor 18:27, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Feebasfactor, there is not a law in the UK prohibiting what happened, and rottweilers kill children just as guns very rarely do. Liberals promote gun control with a passion based on such tragedies, but no one can identify any liberals pushing "rottweiler control." If you still don't grasp the inconsistency, then I suggest moving on to another issue.--Aschlafly 18:33, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I see the inconsistency, but I'm still not sure to what extent the issues are comparable... Ah well, you're probably right; I'll move on to something else, like you suggested. On another note - with all due respect, Andy, I think Reasonableperson's mistake was just a typo, and shouldn't be read into too much. I make typos all the time, and I'd hope I wouldn't be accused of liberal arrogance for it! :) Feebasfactor 19:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)

It is not hard for a criminal to acquire a gun or equip himself with any other weapon before an assault, and a dog is already equipped with teeth and doesn't need a gun! You, whoever, will need a weapon to defend yourself if you are assaulted. Murderers, robbers, violent dogs, rapists, terrorists and many more threats can be controlled with the help of a gun. That's why we don't need gun control. Not allowing yourself to be prepared is just stupid. Hammet 18:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Just to answer something Aschlafly was debating before with reasonableperson i.e. Liberals and dog control. I live in a liberal country (New Zealand) and here we have been very focused on dog control, especially concerning certain breeds. After a spate of attacks a bill was passed banning some types of dogs and others are required by law to be muzzled in public. We also have very strict gun laws here and have little gun related crime. MetcalfeM

Happy new year

Are you lot still in 2007? I'm already in 2008! See you when you catch up! :-) Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Are you sure about that, Philip? It's only Dec. 30th here. You would have be nearly two days ahead of us to be in 2008 already.  :-).--Aschlafly 10:49, 30 December 2007 (EST)
He's ahead of his time, even when compared to his fellow Australians! :P --JakeC 10:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Australian daylight saving is really something, isn't it? Ajkgordon 10:57, 30 December 2007 (EST)
They saved enough daylight coupons for a full day? I knew I shouldn't have used mine for a silly hour every year... --JakeC 11:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)
He's going to get a major shock tomorrow morning.
I use the "knuckles and dips between them" trick for remembering how many days in which month. Perhaps Philip's got really odd-shaped knuckles! Ajkgordon 11:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I used to use that method also, but working with dates a lot, I now know them by heart. No, the problem wasn't the number of days in the month. It was more to do with the day of the week (which doesn't make sense, I know) and because I'm on holidays one day seems pretty much the same as the next, so I lost track of things a bit.

<red face> I'm a complete and utter idiot, aren't I? (No, please don't answer that!) I'll put it down to being up too late, and getting an e-mail just before I went to bed that put the idea into my head (because I misread it), then rushed to make the post at the last moment without giving myself time to think about it. Well, I hope some good came out of it: they say that laughter is good for the soul, so I hope I did good for your souls!.</red face> Philip J. Rayment 16:51, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I apologise if it was my email that did it, Philip. HAHAHAHAHA! Ajkgordon 17:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Apology accepted. :-) Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Take 2

Er, happy new year, all. Philip J. Rayment 00:18, 1 January 2008 (AEDST)

BRAVO! Ajkgordon 08:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Ha ha ha! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!--Aschlafly 08:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Use of a gun against the dog could have saved the boy"

...which would be completely stupid and idiotic. Who the heck would shoot a poor dog apart from a mental, murderous, heartless serial killer? It seems you are saying that using guns against dogs when they are attacking is good. Where has your common sense gone? Shooting the dog is animal cruelty and, at least where I am, will land you in jail for a very, very, long time. That is disgusting and it really needs to be removed. Come on, people. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 20:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

What country do you live in, where it is a crime to sacrifice a dog to save the life of a child? To shoot a dog is an effective and, if done correctly, painless method to euthanize it. The article state that the dog was "destroyed" by police at the scene, and although it does not state how, it is not impossible that it actually was shot by a policeman. Do you really think it wouldn't have been better if it was killed before it took the life of a small child? Hammet 20:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I realise that the child being killed was a very bad thing. It's just that shooting the dog is making the event have a victim anyway. There is better ways to stop a dog attacking. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 20:50, 30 December 2007 (EST)
If you read the full story, you would have seen that there was a woman who tried attacking the dog physically, but failed to dissuade the dog. What type of way of stopping it were you thinking of? Shooting it would have been the quickest way possible. It sure sounds like you are placing the life of a vicious animal over the life of a helpless child. --David R 21:51, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. This is the danger of taking animal rights too far; focus so much on the life of the "poor" dog and you lose sight of human life.
I read the story. Do you think I'm stupid enough to come here and make my comment without reading it first? --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 22:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Very well said!--Aschlafly 22:00, 30 December 2007 (EST)

It's pretty dangerous to start firing a gun at a vicious animal that has a child trapped in its grip. You would need to be a really good shot to hit the dog without hurting the child. It would only make the situation worse to accidentally hit the child.Barondezabrus

I sure wish people would picture the events in their head first. The story said that the 16-year-old aunt hit the dog to save the baby. If she were able to get that close, with access to a gun, killing the dog would have been easy work for anyone. You seem to be thinking that she would have taken a shot from a distance. Why risk the baby's life? This kind of ties in with the previous argument above. --David R 22:49, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Your comment illustrates the irrational opposition to guns. A gun is the child's only chance of surviving, yet you oppose using a gun. That doesn't make sense, and is the result of widespread liberal bias against guns.--Aschlafly 22:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)


No, Mr. Schlafly, not irrational at all: if people can use guns to defend themselves from dogs, they can defend themselves from murders, rapists and thieves. Then they can also defend themselves from foreign invaders. Do you think if everyone in Poland or Denmark had a pistol and a rifle, the Nazis could have taken over those countries?
Having a gun (see Second Amendment) is a defense against tyranny. Communist governments cannot stand long against an armed populace. But in democratic countries, no matter how many people have guns there are no revolutions.
Liberals like to say how many Americans are "killed by guns" each year, but they refuse to consider how many of those lives would have been saved if more law-abiding people could have guns (especially with a concealed carry permit). If even 1% of commuters went armed, then Colin Ferguson would have been killed or captured before he could have shot up the second train car.
Remember, Mr. Schlafly, liberals aren't irrational: they simply want different things than you and I want. They want socialism to control people, while conservatives want people to be able to do whatever the heck they want as long as they don't exploit other people. --Ed Poor Talk 12:20, 31 December 2007 (EST)
You know, I would have thought that in a democratic country, the vote would be preferred over the gun.
"..conservatives want people to be able to do whatever the heck they want as long as they don't exploit other people.". Don't exploit other people, or don't harm other people. You know, the sort of things that guns do.
Philip J. Rayment 05:54, 1 January 2008 (EST)
(And presumably as long as the deeds aren't immoral, but that should be obvious.) Feebasfactor 12:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)
All I'm trying to say with my comment was that it is totally stupid to shoot a dog, and there are better ways to stop a dog attack. I am not using any logic, I did not want to use any logic. Phew. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 22:31, 30 December 2007 (EST)
You already confirmed your own integrity. And may God help you for it. Karajou 22:39, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I cannot keep from smiling. :) You wish to convince people that the article should be removed, yet you strongly assert that you do not want to use logic. I love it. By the way, you keep saying that there are better ways. What are they? --David R 22:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not trying to make any points, that's the reason I'm not using logic, I am voicing my opinion. Better ways? will do later, I can't think right now 'cause there's food in front of me. Food prevents me from thinking right 'cause I just want to eat. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 23:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I suggest a fast. Maybe then you can come up with a logical opinion. Sound good? --David R 23:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)

So, you guys are saying that there should be an loaded gun in every house somewhere so accessible that 16 year old babysitter who propably never even has fired one, knows where it is and can get it. Yes, that should make everyone feel safe. HeikkiL 23:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I can tell you what I am saying. I am saying that this is an example of why a citizen's right to bear arms should be upheld. That doesn't mean that every household should be forced to have a gun in the house. Imposing is the opposite of what I am going for. Instead, the citizen's right should not be constrained by gun control. If a law-abiding citizen wants a gun, he or she should be able to have access to one. A child's life could have been saved in this instance. --David R 00:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)
There's a reason why most gun-related accidents occur between family members. ModerateCatholic 09:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Childs life could have been saved? you really think so, or are you just trying to make a cheap political point on this tragedy? You really think that the gun should have been kept loaded in some inresponsible place, where the 16 year old or any of the kids could have gotten it? you think that the 16 year old girl, who didn't even come to think of using some club or kitchen knife or anything to attack the dog just her fists would have been able to retrieve the gun, would have been able to figure out how it works, use it to the dog, hit the dog without the hitting the baby, and do all this in time that it would have saved the baby? If your answer is yes to all of these points, then you might actually mean what you say, if not, well, then you are just using this baby to make an political point. HeikkiL 09:30, 31 December 2007 (EST)
You make another materialistic mistake common to the gun control advocates. You assume that the bullet from the gun would have to hit the dog to cause it to release the child. It's quite likely the gunshot would startle the dog into releasing the baby regardless of whether the bullet struck the dog. Ah, how the materialists so often overlook less-than-obvious effects!--Aschlafly 09:39, 31 December 2007 (EST)
You made a mistake of not defining the terms from the beginning of how one could fight off the dog. Without such terms one is allowed to create their own suppositions and can continue forever. This discussion is going nowhere because everyone is talking past each other. On another note you ignored the "less-than-obvious" effect that firing a gun without holding it properly is dangerous too. Furthermore, if the gun that the babysitter grabs was not properly maintained by its owner it is also dangerous to fire it. Maaron
As far as a definition goes for fighting off the dog to save the child's life, there is only one: kill it immediately. Karajou 12:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)
So you disagree with ASchlafly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maaron (talk)
No I do not. If I am not in possession of a gun, I will use whatever is necessary. It seems there are quite a few people here who feel it's necessary to offer up excuses for not saving the kid; such explanations are best said in front of the kid's parents...if they dare. This debate is over with. Karajou 13:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I think his point was that Andy said that frightening the dog off by shooting into the air (for example) would be sufficient, but you seem to be rejecting this as an option, by saying that killing it is the only option.
Nobody is offering excuses for not saving the baby. But although I'll concede that no gun restrictions might have meant that this baby survived, there's a lot of other factors to take into account, so there's no certainty about that, and one should also consider all the drawbacks to no gun restrictions. I acknowledged the possibility of a gun saving the baby in my first post on this issue, but also said that it seems to be drawing a long bow. The subsequent discussion causes me to now concede that the chances of a gun saving the baby (if there was one available) are greater than I originally thought, but I still think that it's drawing a long bow to say that no gun restrictions would have made any real difference.
Philip J. Rayment 07:03, 1 January 2008 (EST)
The point is to illustrate the logical flaws and bias in proponents of gun control, which are usually the result of either (i) a materialistic mindset (hence the high correlation between believing in evolution and supporting gun control) or (ii) habitual reading of newspapers, which are notoriously pro-gun control in publicizing gun tragedies rather than guns saving lives. The logical flaw is the failure to admit that a loaded gun in that house would have been beneficial towards saving the child. There's no denying it. The bias is the failure even to see that a gun might have been useful and that a gunshot would likely have startled the dog into releasing the child regardless of where the bullet hit. After herculean effort and protracted discussion there is some begrudging admission on these points, but the underlying bias of gun control proponents remains. And it has one of two major sources: materialism or habitual newspaper-reading.--Aschlafly 10:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Of course, it could be that those newspapers are correct! (Yeah, I know, that's a stretch, but I don't believe that the basic argument that the benefits of guns outweigh the problems has been shown yet.) There's two logical flaws with your supposed logical flaw. One is that it claims something that cannot be known—that a loaded gun in the house "would have been beneficial towards saving the child" (my emphasis). I, and I think others, have admitted (and I did in my first post) that it could have, but nobody knows whether it would have. The second flaw is that it doesn't address the bigger issue which I mentioned earlier in this post, of whether the benefits of unrestricted gun ownership outweigh the problems. It's a bit like the seatbelt issue of years ago. In some circumstances, seat belts make things worse. But in most circumstances seat belts save lives, so (in the case of seat belts at least), the benefits outweigh the problems. Now I'm not wanting to start that particular aspect of the gun debate here and now on this page, but that's what seems to be assumed and has probably been claimed, but has not been shown in these discussions (and would be difficult to show, given that there are so many other factors affecting things). Philip J. Rayment 10:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)
The newspapers are not correct in exaggerating harm from guns while censoring their benefits, and habitual newspaper readers are inevitably affected by that daily deception. I've never met a supporter of gun control who was not either a materialist or a habitual newspaper reader. Ask any ten-year-old who has not been misled by either materialism or newspapers, and he will immediately respond that, of course, a loaded gun would have been beneficial in the situation discussed here. Unbiased logic dictates that.
Continued denial of the benefit simply underscores the bias. An increased ability to save the infant is a clear benefit, simply by improving the probability of success. It's not necessary to prove that a particular infant would have been saved, but merely to see that the likelihood of saving the infant is increased by the presence of a loaded gun in the home. There is a benefit to eating fruits and vegetables because they increase the likelihood of better health, and it is not necessary to prove that happens in every single case.--Aschlafly 10:54, 1 January 2008 (EST)
It's more than the presence of a gun, it's the appropriate use of a gun by a person. A gun is not some magic wand that floats to the aid of people. Personal remark removed Emblusfigby
I accept that newspapers are often biased, so I'm not arguing that point, but even though they are often biased, it doesn't mean that they are biased of wrong on this particular issue. Regardless, the argument needs to be made on the basis of the evidence, not of who's arguing it. Yes, I read newspapers frequently, as do much of the population. That's hardly a justification for dismissing a view. Those same newspapers also carry plenty of pro-evolutionary claims and virtually no anti-evolutionary claims, but I'm still a diehard creationist and I like to think that I am intelligent enough to discern between valid and invalid arguments.
If you read what I wrote, I was not disputing that there could have been a benefit to a gun being available. I was disputing how large that benefit was compared to the potential problems. You have not addressed that at all. Furthermore, the issue was not over whether a loaded gun would have helped, but whether a lack of gun controls would have helped. Even if there were no gun controls in place, chances are there would have been no gun in the house anyway, so there's a very good chance that a lack of gun controls would have made no difference whatsoever.
Philip J. Rayment 20:25, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, I just saw this. Logically, there's no disputing that a loaded gun would have been beneficial to the situation by increasing the likelihood of being able to cause the dog to release the baby. I don't see any logical objection to that observation. Now, those who are materialistic or read pro-gun control newspapers on a daily basis may dispute this, but it's illogical to do so. That's all. Similarly, a lack of gun control would have increased the likelihood of having a loaded gun available, which in turn would have increased the likelihood of being able to free the infant. If anyone objects to that then their dispute is with basic logic and probability, not with me.--Aschlafly 23:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Logically, there is the possibility of disputing that a loaded gun would have been beneficial, because although a loaded gun could have been beneficial, it could have been of no use at all (if it was unreachable by the 16-year-old, for example), or it could have made matters worse by the 16-year-old shooting the baby (which would not have been worse, as it turned out, for the baby, but might well have been worse for the emotions of the 16-year-old), or it could have been worse if the 16-year-old had accidentally shot one of the other children, or even herself.
Logically, if a loaded gun had been available, there are several possible outcomes, as mentioned above. Your argument presumes that shooting the dog without shooting the baby or anybody else is the only possible outcome. Clearly, it is not the only possible outcome, and some of the other possible outcomes are worse. Therefore it is not logical to claim that there's "no disputing that a loaded gun would have been beneficial to the situation". It can be disputed in a logical manner, as I have just done. Yes, perhaps it can't be disputed on probability, but it certainly can be on logic.
As far as gun control is concerned, you reply still focuses solely on the possible benefit for this particular situation that a lack of gun control would have allowed, and totally ignores all the possible problems inherent with a lack of gun control. This was a point that I made above, and this point was not addressed in your reply.
As the points I'm raising are not being addressed, I guess there's no point in me continuing this any further. That's my last word on this particular discussion.
Philip J. Rayment 03:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

You have my sympathies PJR. Due to being a habitual newspaper-reader, I am obviously an incompetent person and therefore unable to comment myself. Rumsbush 17:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Easy Solution to the Rottweiler murder

Just allow everyone to have a rottweiler. If your rottweiler had of seen what was happening, he would have killed the other rottweiler and saved the child. If everyone had a rottweiler there would be less murder, Wikipedia, Liberal Bias and everything else we personally disagree with. /Parody. ModerateCatholic 09:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Guns don't kill rottweilers; rottweilers kill rottweilers!" Feebasfactor 12:59, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Check this out

Mitt Romney supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071230/30684_Pro-Gay_Romney_Upsets_Family_Values_Leader.htm

Uh oh! That's not good.--Aschlafly 10:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

'Why is this important?'

From race42008 website
"One of my greatest concerns is the possible passage of the National Hate Crime law that would add sexual orientation. That while going through the house judiciary committee. I want to give a quote from something that happened during an attempt to add amendments (protecting religious groups etc, that were all struck down) (April 25th 2007).

Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, "Yes."" --Tash 12:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Personal tools