Talk:Main Page/archive42

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Less Qualified Candidate?

I believe Wendell Wilkie qualifies as the least qualified candidate for president. At least Obama has held elected office, while Wilkie was never elected to any office before facing FDR in the presidential elections. --Jdellaro 19:02, 8 January 2008 (EST)

You've gone back over 60 years, but still can't get anyone nearly as UNqualified as Barack Obama. Wendell Willkie fought in World War I, and thus had military experience, and led the nation's largest electric utility holding company, Commonwealth & Southern Corporation, giving him executive experience.
You'll forgive me if I say that military experience and being the leader of a corporation qualify someone less that being a Senator. --AngryCommunist 19:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Well, someone needs to be the first. Looking back over our history, "qualified" candidates have been great--FDR, Washington, Lincoln, and horrible--Nixon, Hoover, etc. So I don't think that "executive" experience---which from your example doesn't mean government executive, nor military experience are necessarily indicators of whether a president will be good or not. We've also never elected a president that wasn't a Christian---guess that eliminates Romney.
Also, would you rather have someone who spent six years as a private in the army, or someone who has spent twenty years in the Senate? If the latter has no "executive" experience or military experience, I suppose you would consider him the "less qualified" candidate. But I sure as hell would take someone who has spent twenty years in the Senate over someone who spent 6 years as a PFC in the army.--Jdellaro 19:32, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Nice try, but of course experience for a job helps. I doubt you would want to fly on airplane with a pilot who has never flown before.
We're not fooled: this is the biggest attempt by liberals at affirmative action ever. Perhaps they want to set a precedent once and for all in favor of affirmative action. The American public isn't going to fall for it once they wake up to this push for an unqualified president by liberals.--Aschlafly 19:50, 8 January 2008 (EST)
First of all, I believe the comparison is a bit far-reaching. Obama has experience in both state and the U.S. Senate. I'd compare it to someone who has flown a Cessna taking the controls of a 747. Second, the pilot in your example isn't surrounded by advisers. And third---what are the qualifications for president? Does one have to serve in the military to be "qualified"? What about having CEO experience but not government experience? Or what about serving 30 years in Congress? The only qualifications for president are those stated in the Constitution. While you state unequivocally that the American public won't accept Obama for president, I think it's too hard to predict currently. The American public will vote for someone who "looks presidential" or someone they'd "like to have a beer with". Which may be an argument for a stronger electoral college rather than let just any uneducated yahoo vote for president. --Jdellaro 19:58, 8 January 2008 (EST)

That made no sense. --AngryCommunist 19:52, 8 January 2008 (EST)

No, there's not disputing this; Barack Obama is the liberals' attempt to elect the first unqualified affirmative action President.--Aschlafly 19:23, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Has any serious candidate been less qualified? You're right about that--an Illinois lawyer with just a few years in the state legislature, and only a couple of years in a national office, who becomes a presidential candidate largely on the strength of his speeches? Why, that's just...Wait a second--are we talking about Barack Obama or Abe Lincoln?--RossC 19:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I think the easy counterargument is that the world has changed a lot since 18650. Today's world is more complicated, and America is a more outward-facing nation.-MexMax 19:26, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Right, it sure has. And, by the way, Abraham Lincoln did have military experience, and his many accomplishments were not the product of affirmative action. Contrast that with Barack Obama.--Aschlafly 19:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Are you going to say anything besides [[affirmative action]]? --AngryCommunist 19:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, that was a bit too hasty. I apologize for my aggressiveness, I simply want to see something besides the same thing reiterated ad nauseum. --AngryCommunist 19:58, 8 January 2008 (EST)

On a semi-related note, New Hampshire results are starting to come in; McCain and Clinton are currently leading. [1] -CSGuy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)

The gap between Clinton and Obama is now closing, it would seem. --AngryCommunist 20:20, 8 January 2008 (EST)

It's been going up and down, but overall she seems to be moving further out front; she's up by 4 percentage points with 30% reporting.
Oh, and CNN has projected McCain as the Republican winner. -CSGuy 20:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I hate to tell you this, Aschlafy, but people don't support Obama because he's black. They don't support him because he's being secretly pushed by a liberal conspiracy that supports him because he's black. People support Obama because they think he is the best candidate for president. People support Obama because he inspires hope and confidence and promises change and a push towards unity within this nation. People support Obama because although he has far less political experience than Hillary, he has far less experience being driven by corporate interests instead of the interests of his constituents. People support Obama because he's liberal- compassionate, idealistic, and ready to attack the evils that many see going on in America today. People don't support Obama because they want affirmative action. The idea that a black man becoming president must be a result of affirmative action is downright insulting. When it comes to experience, many see Washington as a place of corruption without much progress getting done for the people. In that respect, perhaps it's better to have someone who is more innocent and still idealistic instead of just cold and calculating, as many see Hillary. If you try to understand why many support Obama despite his "lack of experience", Aschlafy, you may realize that it has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin- which is as it should be. Jonathanswift 21:53, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Jonathanswift, liberals love affirmative action. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but everyone knows that's true. An affirmative action President? It makes liberals gush with enthusiasm.
By any measure, Barack Obama is the least qualified serious candidate for president ever. No one can find anyone less qualified. But liberals are falling all over themselves to support him. It's affirmative action to the max.--Aschlafly 22:14, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Jonathanswift, liberals love affirmative action. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but everyone knows that's true.

Hard to have a discussion when you refuse to accept any alternative to your premise. If Jonathanswift (and I'm sure others as well) deny that liberals love affirmative action, then I guess "everyone" doesn't believe it's true. --Jdellaro 12:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)
I must say that being a private and owning a company seem to me to be less impressive, in terms of political qualification, than being a Senator. --AngryCommunist 22:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps you're referring to someone nominated ... 70 years ago??? Not too impressive. And you left out that Obama has only been a senator for 3 years, prior to which was a mere law school instructor and state legislator.--Aschlafly 22:39, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, in all fairness, what makes someone like Mike Huckabee more qualified than Barack Obama?--Tordenvaer 11:56, 9 January 2008 (EST)

In all fairness, he was governor of Alabama from 1996 till 2007. --Leopeo 12:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I pose this question: Who would you rather become the incumbent, Andy, McCain, Clinton, or Obama? --AngryCommunist 13:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Now I see the real reason that a project like Conservapedia came about, Andy. You didn't form this "encyclopedia" to combat perceived partisan bias; you wanted a place to call your own where you could make completely unsubstantiated claims without fear of reprisal or the need to back them up with evidence. In short, Wikipedia was too intellectually honest for you. These blanket statements about liberal this and liberal that are fallacious enough, but your claims about Obama and affirmative action really, er, affirm your utter lack of academic honesty. There is no proof ANYWHERE for what you claim, but instead pander on about how "lib'ruls loooove affirmative action, and that's proof enough!" You'll probably pass this up as another liberal something-or-other, and completely dodge the topic and the responsibility of providing evidence, but why break the trend, hmm? However, at the rate you're burning through sysops and editors, you'll be all alone in your castle soon enough. JKaplanek 13:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I believe there are many people on this site who wish to make Conservapedia an informative and concise alternative to Wikipedia and not just an incredibly biased venue of rants against liberals. You do a great disservice to that cause, Aschlafly, when you make statements insinuating that a large segment of America's voting population will vote for a presidential candidate solely because of their race. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jonathanswift 20:53, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Try again, Leopeo...the Huckster was governor of Arkansas. Heckuva job, Mike!
As far as affirmative action goes, where did Mr. Schlafly find the information that every liberal loves affirmative action? Did the liberals ever state that Senator Obama was their affirmative action candidate (since 'everyone' knows he is such)? Can Mr. Schlafly give some data to back up his "indisputable" claims? If not, I'd say the claims are quite disputable indeed.--Emkay 18:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Crazy Swedes

Anyone remember the news from while back when feminists in Sweden wanted to swim topless at puplic swimming pools? Hands up who thought it was just a bad joke by some over zelous feminists with no morals or shame [2]? Well, now it's official, they won and are free to do so from now on [deleted by Administrator] (Sorry about the finnish link, was published just today, ill see if i can find something in english later). So this is just where loose morals and secularistic/atheistic goverment will lead to, where will it stop and how soon you will see people completely naked running around shopping? Atheists just never seize to amaze me. ConanO 21:04, 8 January 2008 (EST)

And some people's spelling never seizecease to amaze me. Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 8 January 2008 (EST)
And hows your Finnish? or you think everyone is native speakers of english? ConanO 22:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I often find that non-native writers of English do it better than some native writers of it! But fair enough, you're excused! :-) Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Uhh... men go topless in pools. How about some equality for the sexes here! And seriously, explain to me why you would dislike women going topless in pools. Jonathanswift 21:30, 8 January 2008 (EST)

In case you hadn't noticed, there are differences between men and women. Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Im marryed myself, and thats enough for me. What comes to why im against it, reason is very simple, it goes agains common civility and moral. And you can only imagine what kind of attention it will cause in public swimming pools with men around. Would you really like to take your kids to place like that? ConanO 21:39, 8 January 2008 (EST)
It appears that you have never been at any of the nudist beaches on the Baltic sea. It is mostly a fairly boring but refreshing exercise, of swimming in water that is just a bit too cold. Your comment says more about your ability to contain your urges, than about the Swedes. Civility on nudist beaches requires that you do not stare at other peoples parts. Order 21:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Seams you liberals are only intrested on seeing more breasts, and me not wanting to see them tells you something about my urges? While you can only think about yourself here and what you want to see, im allso thinkin children and other people to whom it is not probriate. Not to say it would be probriate for adult men to stare some strangers breasts. ConanO 21:56, 8 January 2008 (EST)
It really seems like you have never been to such a beach. There are nude people of all ages, and often you rather not look too closely at the details. An adult should be capable to look at a nude person just like you look at a dressed person. But maybe you've grow up in a culture that is a bit more sexist than the Scandinavians. Order 02:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Civility might require no staring, but civility also requires that you don't put temptation in peoples' way. Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 8 January 2008 (EST)
If you think that somebody wants to tempt you at any of these beaches you might come back somewhat disappointed. Order 02:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Temptation doesn't have to be deliberate. Leaving a front door open would tempt a thief, but that wouldn't be your intention. But leaving it open deliberately knowing there was a thief in the area would be folly. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Sure it would tempt a thief. Which is a problem are among thieves. It still says a lot about you, if you think that you would be tempted to steal, if someone else didn't lock the door. Order 02:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Temptation is one of those things that one can easily get confused about. If you saw a large stash of money just lying on the ground and nobody around, would you be tempted to take it? And would you give in to that temptation? I don't know you well enough to know what your answers would be to those two question, but I suspect that a large proportion of the population (say, 80%) would be tempted to take it, and a much smaller but significant proportion (say 5%) would give in to that temptation and actually take it. The figures would vary according to the honesty of the person, the chances of getting caught, and how well they managed to justify it in their minds (think of those who claim against their insurance for stolen property that they didn't actually have, and justify it on the grounds of nobody losing anything, except for "greedy" big business). Being tempted is not the problem. Giving into it is. Deliberately or carelessly putting temptation in someone's way is irresponsible, although that doesn't excuse the person who gives in to the temptation. They are responsible for their own actions. (So I think that I agree with the Sydney Imam who compared a provocatively-dressed girl as "uncovered meat" that a cat would take, although I most definitely disagree with him that it in any way excuses the youths who raped the girl.) Philip J. Rayment 03:38, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for comparing yourself with the Sydney Iman, so I won't have to do it anymore.
But since this is supposed to be a site where teens can learn something, I just to make the following clear. You just don't compare a woman to door that is left open. No matter if she is dressed or not, a woman is never a door that is left open. The analogy with an open door alone is revealing. Not much better than comparing a woman to uncovered meat. If an attractive woman is standing in front of you in a supermarket, no matter how attractive, you just do not touch her rear. You just don't touch a womans chest, not in a bus, not in a subway, and not on a beach, no matter how she is dressed. You also don't pinch your secretary, niece, female friend or waitress, not even jokingly. These are just plain rules of civility among adults, and it doesn't matter if you are at work, in church or on a nude beach. The amount of fabric doesn't matter, but her explicit consent. If you think you can do any of this in a public swimming pool or nude beach in Scandinavia, under the eyes of other guests, some people will be more than happy to show you the exit. Order 05:25, 9 January 2008 (EST)
So what in that, after "If an attractive woman..." do you think I wouldn't agree with or is contrary to what I already said? And how does any of that make my analogy incorrect? Nothing justifies a thief stealing from a house even with the door left open, but it's still irresponsible to tempt a thief that way. Your arguments seem to be nothing more than an argument by outrage and guilt by association. In fact, apart from the part that simply provided examples of what I was saying, there is no actual argument there at all! Don't have one? Philip J. Rayment 06:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The trouble, Philip, is that it's a slippery slope to the completely covered woman as seen in places like Saudi Arabia justified by the likes of your Sydney Imam because exposed women tempt men. Of course, the slippery slope can go the other way too which is why we have decency laws to prevent acts of lewdness and so on. The trick though is to have "reasonable" lines drawn as to what constitutes decency. Making a big fuss about topless swimming pools (of which there are plenty in the US) is just getting priorities wrong in my view. The priority should be that society will not tolerate rape or sexual assault whatever the temptation - that there is never any excuse for it and perpetrators will be pursued to the full extent of the law with no mitigation because of "temptation". The problem with the Imam's pronunciations (and yours by agreement) is that it can excuse actions in the minds of some people leading to the horrific crimes that can result. Ajkgordon 07:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Your "slippery slope" comment is fair enough, and nowhere have I said just where the line should be drawn (except, by implication, somewhere short of nudity). As for priorities, I'd concede that there are more important issues around, but what I don't concede is that we should concentrate on the most important issues and ignore the rest. All issues must be addressed, although some need more attention than others. Yes, the message that rape and sexual assault won't be tolerated needs to be maintained, but we don't just tackle robberies by getting the message to potential robbers, so we? We also try and encourage people to lock up. You are quite right about the Imam's pronouncement, and he was using it to excuse rape (if I recall correctly, although probably he wasn't totally excusing it), but that's because he only put that one side to it, whereas I put both sides to it, so that criticism doesn't apply to what I said. The other side of the coin is that by only addressing the crime, you encourage (by implication if nothing else) girls to put temptation in the way of blokes, some of whom, despite your best efforts, will still give into that temptation. Surely a two-pronged approach is better? Philip J. Rayment 07:22, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Hmmm... yes, it is best to work on a two pronged approach. Where there is theft, people should be encouraged to lock their doors. And yes, blokes will always be blokes and, as such, women have to be aware of the risks of provoking some types of them. But the message needs to be put completely differently to the one the Imam was issuing. Even the phrase "uncovered meat" is outrageous, as if women are no more than prey to be salivated over. It's revolting and he was rightly condemned for uttering it. And any message to women to be aware of the risks they might be taking by dressing provocatively should be advertised in a form of words that makes it absolutely crystal clear that any provocation is never an excuse for assault (I'm repeating myself :) But I also agree that we should work towards a situation, however unobtainable, where it should be completely safe for a woman to walk around completely naked without any risk of assault even though she might be encouraged not to or even if it is illegal. Or men, for that matter. Ajkgordon 08:22, 9 January 2008 (EST)
It is not as much an argument of outrage, but one of principle, and I think that Ajkgordon formulated the most important aspect better than I could do. But I still want to add that you cannot compare a woman with a stash of money, or robbery with rape. If you end up on a remote island, and you find a stash of money, take as much as you want, for all that I care. If you however find a woman, you just don't. Difference is, that a woman is a human being, and not a stash of money, an open door, or some uncovered meat. Top-less pools, and even nudist beaches, work on the principle that most adults do know how to behave, and those who don't aren't stupid enough to misbehave in a public space. Order 07:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, I agree that the way that the Imam put it was not good; it was the principle of the girl not having any responsibility for putting temptation in someone's way that I was talking about, rather than the way he phrased it.
Your objection to the comparison between women and a stash of money is a case of special pleading. Clearly we were talking about the situation where the money belonged to someone, not where "finders, keepers" legitimately applies.
Topless pools might work on the principle that most adults know how to behave, just as they work on the principle that there's nothing morally wrong with public nudity, and just as they work on the principle that public nudity doesn't produce a hunger for more that might be satisfied in improper ways elsewhere than the pool. But I'd suggest that at least two of those "principles" are wrong (for some people at least).
Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Oh come on, Isn't this a bit rediculous?, I mean, even by christian morality standards, isn't it quite a minor issue? I think everyone should be able to to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, and I don't think being offended or, god forbid, aroused caulifies as getting hurt. Just for the record, my stand is that everyone should have the exact same priviliges (as far as the government is concerned), regarldless of wether you're male, female, alien, heterosexual, homosexual, satanic, ugly, short or anything else. --MrLennholm 00:23, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The real problem for the people who support this is that the women who will go topless are the ones everyone else least wants to see to go topless. (And there are lots of guys who probably shouldn't go topless, either. Ted Kennedy, for instance.) It's not the tanned, firm-bodied young women who will do it. It's the pasty, flabby, wrinkled grandmothers. Jinxmchue 21:56, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Could you please remove the link the the Finnish site? It's inappropriate for a family-friendly to have a direct link to an article with a picture of women exposing their breasts. Hammet 06:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I can't see what link you are referring to. Philip J. Rayment 06:49, 9 January 2008 (EST) Okay, I've found it. Gone. Philip J. Rayment 06:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, I suggest you a visit to Finland and specifically to a (possibly mixed sexes) finnish sauna. It is quite instructive to experience environments where nudity is completely removed from temptation and desire, and kind of ironic, given the 'dirty' image of sauna in other countries. --Leopeo 07:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Different places in the world have different cultures. Live and let live.--JBuscombe 16:25, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I find it quite outrageous to say it's "instructive" to experience nudity "completely removed from temptation and desire". The naked body and our sexuality are a sacred part of love and marriage, and the one is not supposed to be "experienced" without the other. How about experiencing love, completely removed from commitment? How about experiencing faith without belief? How about power, removed from responsibility? It's just not right, our private parts are not meant to be exposed and glared at by strangers. Now, please, close and archive this indecent discussion. Hammet 20:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Might I remind you that this kind of policy in no way intrudes upon your ability to keep your sexuality a sacred part of love and marriage. It simply allows people to be "unholy" if they wish to be and it does not impose certain morals on them. Jonathanswift 10:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

"Iron My Shirt" Prank

The Michelle Malkin article states in their update that the two "protesters" are both from a Boston radio station, and that this same prank was pulled at the Masters a few years ago. I think if even Michelle Malkin can admit that this wasn't staged by the Clinton campaign, but rather done by a local radio station...then perhaps the headline on CP should be adjusted as well to reflect that the answer to the question is, "No."--Jdellaro 15:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I am amused that by the time CP posted the accusation that it staged by the Clinton campaign, the fact that it was done by a couple of radio shock jocks, who specialize in demeaning women was already well known. How very "trustworthy". Boomcoach 10:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)


Anyone interested in participating in the upcoming contest - please add your name to this list as soon as possible!--IDuan 00:12, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hate Crime Count

The headline concerning hate crimes on the front page, fails to mention that the count you note is for ONE COUNTY in Maryland. It doesn't represent the entire country, but instead appears to be merely Montgomery County.

According to the FBI, in 2006 there were 7,722 hate crime incidents. Of that total, 4,000 were race-based, and only 1,462 were religion based. Hate Crime Statistics, 2006

Ergo, hatred of race is the largest type of hate crime. Either update the headline, or note that "hatred of religion is the largest type of hate crime" FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND.

--Jdellaro 10:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Before accepting your new stats, it's important to look at how those crimes were classified. Often national statistics (such as for homicide) are based merely on allegations rather than convictions, making the stats almost meaningless.--Aschlafly 10:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The stats are wildly different between the national stats and the county stats. If you are going to state that hatred of religion is greater than hatred of race in crime, then you should state that these statistics are for one county. Instead, by not clarifying after it has been pointed out to you, I can only assume it is meant to be misleading and allow the reader to believe it is a national statistic. And if the national statistics were reversed, are you willing to state that you wouldn't post those national statistics because they are based on allegations rather than convictions? --Jdellaro 10:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Er, he has pointed out that the stats were from one county. Ajkgordon 10:31, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The original headline did not state that it was from Montgomery County, hence the discussion's origin. And just to add on, it appears that the Montgomery County statistics were also compiled based on allegations, not convictions, according to your terms. The compiling of statistics, though, used the same criteria for both the county and the federal numbers. --Jdellaro 10:33, 10 January 2008 (EST)

One more notation: The headline states that it is the largest type of hate crime in Montgomery County. But, for posterity and accuracy, it should read, "largest type of reported hate crime", as the article itself states:

Much of his hesitation is because many more hate crimes are going unreported as some immigrant communities are not reporting crimes to police out of fear of deportation.

--Jdellaro 10:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I meant when you wrote: "Instead, by not clarifying after it has been pointed out to you, I can only assume it is meant to be misleading and allow the reader to believe it is a national statistic." He did clarify it afer it was pointed out to him. Agree on the allegations vs. convictions though. Ajkgordon 10:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The quote about "unreported" hate crimes is pure speculation, more suitable for a tabloid than Conservapedia. Also, county statistics should be more accurate than national statistics, because the local knowledge of whether there is a credible claim to a crime being motivated by "hate" would be better. At a national level less reliability in claims about crimes committed at a local level can be expected.--Aschlafly 11:24, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I would disagree with you about the amount of speculation involved. As you say, at the county level the police force has more of a knowledge of what goes on in the community and therefore are better able to gauge what is happening. Pure speculation would be for me to state that in Backwaters, Minnesota, 8 people are shot each year. That's pure speculation as I haven't the foggiest idea of what the crime rate is. But local police stating that approximately 30 crimes go unreported each year in their community is less speculation, and more educated estimates.
As for the local versus national crime statistics, I disagree with your accuracy remarks. Having actually read the statistics report, and the guidelines for gathering data, (available here: ) it appears these statistics are actually gathered from local and state police forces as part of their national crime reports. It is not done as an estimate, but gathered with other types of crime reports. --Jdellaro 11:38, 10 January 2008 (EST)
More investigation as to why the national statistics differ so much from reliable local statistics would be worthwhile. One obvious possible explanation is that some jurisdictions may be inflating their "hate crime" statistics for political or financial reasons, and that distortion then gets into the national data.--Aschlafly 12:04, 10 January 2008 (EST)
How do the national statistics differ so much from "reliable" local statistics? In this case, the national statistics differ from ONE COUNTY'S statistics. And they don't really differ, as the national statistics are a compilation of the county statistics. If one county reports 1% unemployment, and the national statistics say 5% unemployment, to compare the two directly is comparing apples to oranges. There are approximately 3100 counties in America. The difference between the numbers may be just that---in some counties there are more race-related crimes than religion-related crimes. A more interesting investigation is what causes the difference in hate-related crimes from county to county. But why national numbers are different from county numbers isn't really worthy, IMO, because there's not really a mystery as to difference in numbers. --Jdellaro 12:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Or it may simply be perfectly ordinary local variations. Occam's Razor. Ajkgordon 12:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Breaking News Suggestion

This might be a fun Breaking News item. To wit, nearly 500,000 lawsuits have been filed against the Army Corps of Engineers regarding Hurricane Katrina. About 250 of those are asking for more than $1billion, and one is asking for $3quadrillion (yes, quadrillion).--RossC 13:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

USS Hopper needs double bracketing

We now have an article USS Hopper. SkipJohnson 13:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Wikified it. Well done!--Aschlafly 14:43, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Court Ends Bible Distribution in School

The second line in your Breaking News section concerning bible distribution in school is not correct. The ACLU represented the four Christian families that sued the school for allowing the Gideons to distribute bibles in the school. This is another case of Christians using the courts to uphold the religious rights of Christians, rights that were being violated by other Christians.

I have no way of determining if they were really Christians or not, and I doubt you do either. Perhaps you could say that the ACLU sued on behalf of a few people who claimed they were Christians. I think Bill Clinton claimed to be a Christian around election time also.--Aschlafly 14:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I would have no way of determining if the Gideon's or you are Christians using your reasoning, but what this has to do with the inaccurate summation of the news story escapes me. Whether the four families involved with the lawsuit were Christian or not doesn't really matter, the laws of this nation apply equally no matter what religion a person is. I think Bill Clinton still claims to be a Christian, is there any evidence that he is not? --Jimmy 16:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I think it's important to remember that we may mean different things by "Christian." Evangelical Christians like myself and most of the editors on this site consider only the the born-again (who've accepted Christ as their personal savior) to be true Christians. Anyone who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk... they're just... not Christian.-MexMax 00:51, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sure you realize that there are many denominations of Christianity that have the same exclusionary view that you have, that is, you are just another non-Christian sect that doesn't 'walk the walk'. That being said, I wonder if the blurb on the main page will be changed to reflect the reality of the situation, i.e. the ACLU represented the plaintiffs. It's not much to ask from a trustworthy encyclopedia. --Jimmy 13:14, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Most-viewed pages

Special:Statistics seems a bit odd to me… according to the list given there, homosexuality has been viewed more frequently than the main page, and the top 7 homosexuality-related articles account for approximately 8.35% of the total page views alone. --MakeTomorrow 13:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

"Most viewed" statistics are about as representative as telephone votes for eg "X Factor"; a small group can deliberately skew the statistics very easily by constantly hitting a page/subject and encouraging others to do the same. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, I'm aware of that. What I"m suggesting is that the main page should not proclaim "Conservapedia hits x pageviews!!!!!!!" every time that a significant number is reached. --MakeTomorrow 13:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)
It is the unfortunate nature of the beast, I agree 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Homosexuality entries probably rank very high on Wikipedia and Google in terms of page views also, so our statistics are probably not far off. But even if there were a 10% adjustment in page views due to liberals boosting our popularity, we're still well over 40 million page views.--Aschlafly 14:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I very seriously doubt that the views for pages such as, say, Homosexuality and Smoking, are not massively inflated. --MakeTomorrow 15:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Yes I would think that the pages on homosexuality get a lot of attention because of liberals going around the internet and showing how "intolerant" and "biased" Conservapedia is. Jonathanswift 17:51, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's statistically insignificant. The Homosexuality and Smoking entry mentioned above has less than one half of one percent of our overall page views. Most of our page views are people looking for the truth and politically correct lies.--Aschlafly 18:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)
It was only an example, and 0.5% is still pretty massive for what it is. --MakeTomorrow 19:06, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Especially since the article mentioned is merely a stub. --Jdellaro 19:20, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I read on a blog that the homosexuality-related pages had really high page views, and were then deleted. Is that true? ...RingWraith 19:33, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia scripting bug

I don't know if this is the right place to put this message, but Conservapedia has a faulty link to its open search engine, preventing Firefox users (and possibly even Internet Explorer 7 users) to add the conservapedia open-search engine to the browser's collection of engines. The error message is "unable to find opensearch_desc.php". I think it would be worth-while fixing it. Thiudareiks 13:19, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks much for the tip. We'll check this out. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)
That would probably be a permissions problem. --MakeTomorrow 15:02, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Breaking news article

A huge cloud of hydrogen will cause galactic devastation — in 20-40 million years. [3]

Not quite breaking news, but I think the techies would be interested. --MakeTomorrow 15:02, 13 January 2008 (EST)

That would be good stuff for Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 15:09, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Conservapedia's Breaking News tends to focus a little more (though not exclusively) on political news - plus the article is written from a rather evolutionist perspective... Feebasfactor 15:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)

It makes no sense. The Rapture will begin long before that. Hammet 23:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Certainly is fascinating. It contains enough hydrogen to create 10 million new stars. That's a lot of hydrogen! Ajkgordon 07:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Study claiming 650,000 deaths in Iraq

That study claiming 650,000 deaths in Iraq was from 2006, not 1996 as is currently on the front page, right? HermanH 07:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You are correct, and the entry was corrected as well. Karajou 07:54, 14 January 2008 (EST)

American History Final Exam

You asked, in posting the final exam to your american government class, how well a liberal or vandal would do on the test. Well now you have an answer: I got a 46. [4] Andy writes that this is "excellent". For another person who got a 46/50 Andy said this score was "very, very impressive." It looks a bit higher than average.

Obviously, as a liberal and a vandal, I am expecting to be banned; I am no longer having fun pretending to be a conservative and getting you guys to agree with ridiculous statements. But in case you were going to assume that we liberals knew nothing of US history or government, think again. Liberals are obviously not stupid, we just have different ideas about how the government should be run. Neither of us is objectively right or wrong, and we all have the best interests of the country at heart. This website will gain more credit and respect if it stops its policy of knee-jerk hatred and caricaturing of this amorphous group of "The Liberals". That said, I do think Mike Huckabee is a pretty cool guy and I hope to see more of him in the Republican Party. I will be voting for the Democrat come November, however.TRipp 00:13, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Really, TRipp? I'm surprised to see you admit that you've wasted your time on Conservapedia pretending to be someone you obviously aren't. Spending a month on a website pretending to be someone you aren't certainly doesn't put you any steps forward. You don't have anything better to do? Jallen 06:10, 13 January 2008 (EST)
He did learn something. That's not a complete waste. Order 07:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Don't liberals deny that liberals are deceitful? Yet here we have a self-confessed liberal admitting to deceit! And if neither of us are objectively right or wrong, then you are not objectively right when you say that neither of us are objectively right or wrong. But of course you admit to being a deceiver, so presumably you are being deceitful, and therefore I'll suggest that you are objectively wrong. See what knots you tie yourself into in being deceitful? Now, I'll be the first to admit that conservatives can be deceitful as well, but I'll claim that it's primarily liberal (postmodernist) thinking that says that nothing is objectively right nor wrong, so while a conservative might deceive someone else, he probably knows he's being deceitful and his conscience will bother him, whereas a liberal not only deceives others but deceives himself into thinking he's not being deceitful! Now, what did you say about not being stupid? Thus endeth the lesson. :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Wow, it's really ironic how the reply to a post containing "This website will gain more credit and respect if it stops its policy of knee-jerk hatred and caricaturing of this amorphous group of "The Liberals"." itself contains... caricaturing of liberals!
Seriously, what happened to the good old Golden Rule? I can't help but shake my head. --Jenkins 10:18, 13 January 2008 (EST)
There are deceitful people of all political stripes. And as for how well, liberals would do on the exam, according the marker, I did "well" and I am a liberal.--JimmyB 10:30, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "there's good and bad in everyone ...." I think that was popular song. Let's set aside the political correctness and admit that liberals tolerate, enjoy and perpetrate deceit with a much greater frequency and degree than conservatives who teach that deceit is wrong.--Aschlafly 14:21, 13 January 2008 (EST)
No statistics? Sorry. Do you have any contribution to this topic that is not "Liberals, deceit; Conservatives, non deceit"? --MakeTomorrow 22:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)
"MakeTomorrow", perhaps you could give us a compelling first-person example???--Aschlafly 22:09, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I am absolutely POSITIVE that Aschlafly is just about to provide the statistics and the evidence that show that "liberals tolerate, enjoy and perpetrate deceit with a much greater frequency and degree than conservatives". And I am sure that he wont give a couple of anecdotes, and I am just as sure that he wont play the no true scotsman game. I am looking forward to it.--JimmyB 21:52, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Playing Cards

When I saw the question "Has Barak Obama overplayed the race card?" on the breaking news page, I couldn't help thinking of what Mark Levine has said [5] about Mike Huckabee. Has the Huckabee campaingn overplayed the "I'm a Christian leader" card? --Steve 19:02, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Excellent point, Steven! Maybe so ...--Aschlafly 19:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Oh Mark Levine is just another deceitful liberal. I read one of his books which said that those evil Muslims are actually good people like us! Imagine! Jonathanswift 21:01, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, "Jonathanswift", thanks for your informative liberal sarcastic insight! :-) --Aschlafly 21:26, 14 January 2008 (EST)