Talk:Main Page/archive45

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart". Now now kids, play nice!--IDuan 22:31, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. Pot, hi, this is Mrs. Kettle. Have you met? Weren't they both corporate lawyers? And both right successful ones at that? Hmmm.-MexMax 22:33, 21 January 2008 (EST) I'm sorry, I read the story wrong. I thought Hillary said that to Barack. Yeah, the converse, I see.-MexMax 22:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Lol, and on top of that, Hillary was apparently booed (from the article) "“It is very difficult having a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility,” she says, drawing huge boos from the audience for the first time."--IDuan 22:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
If they keep this up, we might have a prayer in November. Not much of one, though. Sigh.-MexMax 22:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I disagree - I think, obviously depending on the candidates, we would have a really strong chance. Now, as to our side if it's someone like Mr. Guiliani, I think our chance goes down, as many of the true conservatives, who often decide elections, will not be attracted enough to him, and thus may not vote (or might vote for an alternative). But if we nominate Huckabee, or Romney, or even McCain, I think our chance goes way up. Now for the liberals, if they nominate Ms. Clinton, we've won. End of discussion. If they nominate Obama, and he goes against McCain, it might be tough for us, as the age factor would play out against McCain, but if they nominate Obama, and we nominate Huckabee, we've won. I think this will be a very interesting election - it won't be as one sided as you think--IDuan 22:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I agree with all of your points Iduan, although much of what you say is right on point. But this race will come down in a very interesting way to which candidate ends up standing at opposite ends of the dusty street outside the saloon.

  • Giuliani, I agree completely - not enough Republican base there for the win, for sure.
  • Clinton - you may well be right, as there still seems sufficient hatred amongst Republicans to unify against her (though I'm of the mind that she is getting stronger and stronger). Her very strength is indeed her weakness, in this battle.
  • Obama v. McCain, I'd disagree - I wouldn't be surprised if experience won out there, Obama has a tendency to not seem battle-hardened enough (and I'm talking about political experience), and McCain's undeniably good - he's 'The Republican Democrats like'.
  • Obama v. Huckabee - I disagree. I think on a national stage, Huckabee's Creationist stance utterly dooms him, although it may serve him very well within his own base. I think in that contest, Obama is the clear, intelligent, lucid and rational choice America will go for.

It's fascinating stuff, for sure. Reasonableperson 11:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I really hope you're right Iduan! When I'm not work-traveling, I live in a fairly liberal city, so my fears may be a product of my friends & coworkers. I do believe Huckabee could take the entire race. We've seen a fantastic uptick in evangelical outspoken-ness, which I hope will be an enduring result of the Bush presidency, and could still yet power him to the presidency. I was going to say this last night, but the servers went down...-MexMax 16:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think the facts agree with you MexMax - evangelicals in the US only account for about 26% of the population [1], and they won't be powerful enough to overwhelm the vast majority of Americans who don't hold YEC views. When push comes to shove, most Americans will vote for less controversial views in their leader. Reasonableperson 18:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)

That is something non-conservative I would expect a self-described "Reasonableperson" to say. Do tell us, what would you think of someone who called himself "Brilliantperson"? The name you chose for yourself is no better.--Aschlafly 19:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)
An odd comment... Anyways, sticking with the issue, I think that Huckabee has a chance, but only in the right circumstances. Certainly he has a much greater chance at the Presidency Clinton's the Dem's candidate, but his chances are less if he's against Obama I'd say. There are many, many people who simply don't want Hillary in office, myself included.JKaplanek 20:08, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Ignoring ASchalfly's jibe, and continuing on the issue, I think you're right - Huckabee would indeed do better when standing against Clinton due to the right-wing hatred of her. But I don't think he'd beat her - though that's simply my opinion until the electorate has spoken. Obama - despite pointedly racist 'affirmative action president' comments - is, simply, less divisive, and most Americans will pick him over Huckabee. The really interesting thing about this election is that appropriate candidate choice is everything. Huckabee doesn't have as good a chance as anyone, as America would not stand to have a YEC President. International credibility and esteem is an extraordinarily important factor in the choice of the US President, and you can be quite certain that the upper echelons of Republican party look aghast at the thought that he would be their candidate. Reasonableperson 21:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Huckabee has a good a chance as anyone. To paraphrase your comment, there are many, many people who do not think an affirmative action presidency of either the inexperienced Hillary or the inexperienced Barack will prevail. Maybe they could get some military experience or trying running state first.--Aschlafly 20:16, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It's All Your Fault

Geez, thanks a lot. Nice going with the subprime crisis and everything, completely stuffing us up as well. Quite frankly I'm holding the collective you accountable on two charges:

  • It was your recession which caused ours (I am aware that it isn't definitely a recession yet, but there has been a significant downward movement in the market)
  • It's the capitalist system that you promote that has inevitably led to public companies being valued not on the strength of their business but instead on how one person thinks another will think about what a third person thinks about how a newly discovered acquatic organism will affect company A which will in turn affect company B which will in turn affect the original company. The interdependency excuse which veils the greed of share traders has its limits you know...

And in case you're wondering I just lost $274.80 today, which is quite a lot of money to a student. So, if you'd care to be a person ("be a man" is too gender specific) and pay me back feel free to drop me an email and I'll give you an address to post the cheque to. TheGuy 03:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

How did you lose the money? In the value of shares? If so, that means that you are taking advantage of (making use of) the capitalist system! And I'd suggest that it wasn't the capitalist system per se that was at fault, but they way some people use (or misuse) it. Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)
And remember - you didn't actually lose any money until you sold the damn stocks, eh? Maybe next time try try holding onto them for the long term, eh? Reasonableperson 11:34, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Thomspon Bows Out

He's gone. [2]. Reasonableperson 16:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)

How can this website continue to support Ron Paul…

…after this was exposed? --MakeTomorrow 20:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)

A) That link doesn't seem to work, B) this site in no way has endorsed any candidate - we report the facts on all the candidates--IDuan 20:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)
A) The link does, indeed, work, B) Yes, this site has shown a distinct bias towards Paul. --MakeTomorrow 20:23, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia and TNR and maybe the National Enquirer are trying to smear Ron Paul. Guess what? Liberals try to smear people they don't like. Fortunately many people rise above that. Why aren't liberals describing attempts at an affirmative action presidency as a form of bias???--Aschlafly 20:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Get over the bloody "OH NOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT" thing already. You cannot possibly deny that the content in question was contained in his newsletters. I don't care what the spin of the article was, the facts are there. --MakeTomorrow 20:47, 22 January 2008 (EST)
"Affirmative action president"? The only way a black man can ever get in office is through AA, eh? Barikada 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
By the way, as Iduan pointed out, Conservapedia does not endorse or support any candidate. Our edits are span the political spectrum.--Aschlafly 20:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Well, you've been awfully amiable towards Ron Paul… --MakeTomorrow 20:47, 22 January 2008 (EST)
If I could add, though, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas (if this is an ok place to say it). Even if it is true that some bad people have supported him, so what? Good people support him. The bad people can be saved. Paul wants to keep government out of the lives of individuals. More freedom is always good. What people do with that freedom can be good or bad, and that is between them and God.RobertK 20:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I am of the opinion that most of Paul's ideas are terrible, but that's just me. And I'm not talking about who supports him I'm talking about his newsletters, which he sent out. --MakeTomorrow 20:47, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Two things. First, people's views change. Second, in an America where we are all free to practice religion, education, etc as we please, his old ideas wouldn't matter anyway. RobertK 20:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Gaaaaaaaaaaaah! That's… yeaargh! *goes limp* --20:56, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well, this is something to consider, but I suppose no candidate has a perfect record - ultimately it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of each, with respect to your own values and ideologies. Feebasfactor 21:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I would like to add that some of the ideas expressed in Paul's newsletter, regardless of who wrote them, are not at all conservative. For example, one newsletter called for black people to have a younger minimum age to be charged with crimes then white people. That's liberal, that's affirmative actions. Real conservatives don't support that. So the whole conservative movement should not be smeared by proxy. DanH 21:49, 22 January 2008 (EST)
No one should be. My local newspaper, if it reports on a murder, that doesn't mean it like murderers.RobertK 21:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I disagree that writing about the newsletters constitutes a smear. They were published under his name for years. If a Democratic candidate was in that position, I would hope that we would have been all over it. I do not support Ron Paul at all - he does not support Israel, he is of the blame America first camp, and I agree with Michelle Malkin that he is not a true conservative. DanH 12:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Vote in my informal poll. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 22:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)

The link doesn't work. But, here's the quote.

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." DanH 23:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Where do you guys stand on the issues?

I've been wanting to ask the Sysops's this for a long time. You keep trashing "neo-conservatives" on your front page. So I want to know, where do you guys stand on foreign policy? Do you believe that we need to complete the mission in Iraq by hunting for terrorist, and build up the U.S. military so it can meet new treats to the United States? Why is this site so favorable to Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, when they disagree with conservatives on so many issues? I've just been wondering. Chippeterson

They apparently believe that neoconservatives are individuals who are socially libertarian but fiscally conservative, as opposed to more socially authoritarian, but still capitalist. I believe that attempts to disabuse them of this incorrect conception have come to naught. --MakeTomorrow 10:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
"They" and "them"..? You falsely assume that all sysops have identical political and philosophical stances. You also falsely assume that there is some kind of conspiracy among us to push a single POV or message. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:18, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I'm referring to the people responsible for the definition of "neoconservative" here purveyed, not you, Fox. I know you have nothing to do with it. --MakeTomorrow 11:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Rest assured, "MakeTomorrow", that there is no conspiracy here. If you see an error or way to improve neoconservative, then let's hear it.--Aschlafly 12:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Regrettable or good?

I found a video showing an action against a show of perverted photos (very perverted, including homosexuality, bestiality and so on), by 4 men claiming to be Swedish National Socialists, they destroyed part of the collection. Can I put the link or does it harm Conservapedia's standards? Thiudareiks 12:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)

How does such an article fit in with Conservapedia's general main page standards/focus? Aren't National Socialists Nazis? Even if they weren't (which I'm pretty sure they are), I don't really think we want to be linking to a video showing such photos. DanH 12:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Ok then. No links. Thiudareiks 13:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Duncan Hunter endorsement

Duncan Hunter has endorsed Mike Huckabee now! Here's the link to the story:

Great Article

Too often, the comments here on the Main Talk Page are criticisms, so I'd like to break from that trend: Kudos to whomever posted the news item about liberal media attacks on our military. For those who did not click through, the New York Times wrote an article smearing our entire military establishment by suggesting that it turned good men into criminals. Essentially, they cherry-picked a few cases where soldiers went bad and committed murders here in the USA, claiming that it was the military values they were taught that made them evil. Of course, the article ignored the fact that there are many other causes that could make someone turn criminal, and it also ignored the fact that the vast majority of soldiers are fine, upstanding citizens. As the item notes, it's "disgraceful"--a crazed, ignorant twist of the situation for liberal political gain.--RossC 08:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Sort of like suggesting that everyone who is in the movie business has "Hollywood values" by taking a few cases and painting the entire community with one broad stroke? --Jdellaro 09:28, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Hush--this is not the item for pessimistic liberal fussiness. If you want to gripe about Hollywood values, keep it under that heading.--RossC 09:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Not griping, just trying to understand how to differentiate between cherry-picking Hollywood stories and cherry-picking military stories. --Jdellaro 09:53, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Surely the vast difference in rates between the military and Hollywood is not to difficult for liberals to understand. The rate of self-inflicted death by prescription drugs, illegal drugs, or otherwise in Hollywood is ten times higher or more than in the military. See these examples here: [3]--Aschlafly 12:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Unfortunately, you're wrong. You offer no comparison for the rates of suicide, and your claim that suicide in Hollywood is "ten times higher or more" than in the military is absurd and arbitrary. Tragically, rates of suicide in the military are sky high. Read this article: [4].

"In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week, in just one year."

"It found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets. (Veterans committed suicide at the rate of between 18.7 to 20.8 per 100,000, compared to other Americans, who did so at the rate of 8.9 per 100,000.)"--Claypool 12:57, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Just to correct your statement, Aschlafly, we are not comparing (as you write, though I don't think you meant) the rates of self-inflicted death from drugs in Hollywood v. the military. Rather, we are comparing the cherry-picking of stories of actors in Hollywood who die from drugs to the cherry-picking of stories regarding soldiers that turn to crime after service.
But it seems the commenter above me has provided statistics that call into question your own response. --Jdellaro 12:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Furthermore, having read the article you provided showcases only ten entertainers who died under the age of 30. Of course, Aaliyah's death has nothing to do with Hollywood values, as she died in a plane crash. So really, you have to subtract that from your example. And James Dean died in a car accident, thus you have to subtract two from your paltry list. --Jdellaro 13:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)
One explanation for sodiers mudering people after they come home is that they were criminals to begin with. I saw a history channel special wher gang members joined the military for the sole purpose of learning how to fight against police.--Steve 13:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Wrong link!

This[5]is the Giuliani poll slipping story. The other link is about Bill Clinton, but has this other story near the bottom.--Steve 13:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)