Talk:Main Page/archive66

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Evangelist Values

Having been a reader of Conservapedia for quite a while I have frequently seen news referencing "professor values" or "hollywood values" on the front page. Recently, I stumbled across this: Evangelist Tony Alamo Arraigned on Sex Charges [FoxNews]. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to also create a page about "evangelist values"? I think most Americans consider FoxNews to be rather conservative, so I don't think the article is any sort of a liberal hoax. Any thoughts? --Maciej 19:36, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

And how does an evangelist going against the doctrines that he espouses count as "evangelist values"? Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, fair enough. By that standard, though, should rampant drug use be included as a Hollywood Value? Many actors and Hollywood celebrities use drugs, but drug use is usually portrayed in movies in a negative light, and very few Hollywood celebrities have ever publicly encouraged their fans to use drugs.--Frey 22:27, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Many movies portray drugs as trendy, hip, fashionable and cool. Many movie "stars" support decriminalizing drugs. And Hollywood values do nothing to ostracize or condemn drug addicts. Drug abuse is rampant in Hollywood and there is a high degree of tolerance for it. Deny that at the risk of losing credibility.--Aschlafly 22:39, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps instead a page on Evangelical Hypocrisy viz a viz the Liberal Hypocrisy page? --AndrasK 22:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Could you please name some Andy? Because most movies I have seen with drug use involved it has been demonised. I'm not saying they don't exist but maybe they aren't as rampant as you think? On a side note, and at the risk of opening up an entirely new kettle of fish, why is decriminalising some drugs so bad? As long as proper controls are in place it could lead to use of the drug to decrease, for example if a safe heroin was produced that was only available in small commodities to help addicts, why is that bad? I admit there are many potential problems, but surely the scheme isn't totally crazy... Bolly 23:05, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
I've never seen a movie "demonize" drug use. Every movie I've seen that has drug use portrays it as something "cool" people do. As to your support of decriminalizing drugs, well ... that serves to prove my point. A big fan of Hollywood types yourself?--Aschlafly 23:21, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Ever seen American Gangster? That movie showed a horrible side of drug use, the life of junkies, and their need for a quick fix. That is just one I thought of off the top of my head. --AndrasK 23:24, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Requiem for a Dream was A) A popular movie and B) Painted a very depressing picture of drug use. HowlesM 23:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Requiem for a Dream is an obvious example of a very stark look at drug use, but you have to be clear what you're talking about here. Marijuana is often treated in a comedic fashion (crap like Dude, Where's my Car?) but I defy you to show me a film which depicts cocaine or heroin use as "cool." Use of alcohol naturally has a wide representation in film, since the taboos aren't there. I can't imagine what films you're watching to get this impression. RodWeathers 23:47, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

While true, in a lot of movies majiuana is not demonized on its own however is often associated with someones first step into a downward spiral. HowlesM 23:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
There's two. As an aside, I'm far from a big fan of Hollywood types. I deplore the way they put material pleasure over intellectual, how they portray idiocy as ideal and intelligence as amusing but ultimately worthless. I actually agree with you that "Hollywood Values" can be harmful and dangerous however I don't believe that they are to blame in every single case where someone who has had the slightest contact with film or television media breaks the law. Bolly 23:59, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Bolly, you're clueless. There is a direct link between hollywood values and school prayer being censored. No one denys this except liberals who have breast cancer due to abortionist values. In summary, evolutionist style has blinkered you. You have free will to deny my logic. HowlesM 00:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Hollywood movies with drug references would include: Sid & Nancy, in which both of them die miserably; Scarface, which results in total and complete ruination and/or death of everyone; French Connection - drugs kill everyone; Godfather II - an entire family's empire (albeit a criminal one) is threatened by drugs, and finally destroyed in Godfather III; Blow - everyone dies or their lives are destroyed; Traffic - everyone is ruined or dead; Casino - drugs destroy the criminal empire; Go - drugs destroy rave culture; 24 Hour Party People- rave culture, business and careers are destroyed by drugs; Trainspotting - drugs destroy everyone except the main character, who escapes their grip. The vast majority of 'Hollywood' movies have for years been sermonizing about the dangers of drug abuse and addiction to power - the list is long, very very long, and in every single one of them, drug use is roundly condemned and pointed out as something from which most victims die horribly or are ruined. I think the exact opposite of your thesis is true, actually, ASchlafly. However, I will grant you that use of marijuana seems mostly jokey, as per Pineapple Express and all the other 'stoner' movies. I won't deny that use of that specific drug is generally treated lightly. BenHur 00:24, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
You're ignoring the elephant in the room, BenHur, which is that Hollywood might pay lip service to condemning drugs while at the same time making light comedies about marijuana use - and marijuana is the gateway drug that inexorably leads to greater and greater addiction and degradation (and is in itself very dangerous and a cause of psychotic conditions). Bugler 05:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
And, likewise, prominent evangelicals pay lip service to "conservative values" while, nonetheless, engaging in objectionable behavior (e.g. Ted Haggard). Hence, the point of Maciej's suggestion for an article on "Evangelical Values" or, at the very least, "Evangelical Hypocrisy." It's nice to see us reach a consensus for once. -Drek
Whilst I admit that the percentage of tele-evangelists who go against biblical principles is higher than insignificant, this is a small subset of "evangelicals", so they are still an insignificant exception to that group. And so evangelical hypocrisy is similarly baseless. Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I'll grant that Hollywood treats marijuana use too lightly, but movies and TV hardly encourage its use. The on-screen characters that use marijuana are portrayed as idiots, immature, or criminals. In the case of weed, it's usually played for laughs rather than drama, but it's still usually cast in an at least somewhat negative light.--Frey 11:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberals think they can fool people by citing unusual examples to deny a correlation. It's indisputable that Hollywood values are highly correlated with drug use, and that movie portrayals of drug use range from something that cool people do to something that is funny. Can anyone think of a movie that presented a sympathetic figure who was then senselessly murdered or seriously harmed by someone hooked on drugs? I can't. Hollywood is in denial about the harm caused by drugs, often to innocent third parties.--Aschlafly 12:01, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

An infant dies in the movie Trainspotting due to neglect during a long heroin binge on the part of the mother and father. It's a really, really horrible scene to watch. Corry 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
"Can anyone think of a movie that presented a sympathetic figure who was then senselessly murdered or seriously harmed by someone hooked on drugs? " Er, yes, - certainly, there's probably a few hundred. I'll get back to you with a list. BenHur 13:25, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
BenHur has provided ample, powerful examples, ASchlafly, which are quite opposite your assertions. Can you provide any counterexamples? RodWeathers 13:46, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think BenHur has provided a single example to address my point. He certainly hasn't explained it if he has. Corry's "Trainspotting", an obscure movie at best, comes closer to telling the truth about drugs but still seems to fall short.
Folks, admit the truth about Hollywood values: it's pro-drug, or at least tolerant of drugs, and will never tell the truth about drugs.--Aschlafly 17:27, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Trainspotting is not an obscure movie at all. Hollywood people may be tolerant of drugs (you hear enough reports about actors and actresses using them), but the movies usually show drugs, at least the harder ones, in a negative light. Philip J. Rayment 21:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly - every one of my examples addressed your point, and in each and every one them the drug abusers wind up either dead, punished or ruined. Trainspotting, hardly an obscure movie, being a huge global hit, even featured a scene in which a heroin addict kills their own baby, and then suffers the consequences. In every case, Hollywood paints drug abuse as a sickening road to desolation, death and despair, and it seems you must not be too in touch with popular movies. BenHur 18:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not a huge movie-goer, so I won't comment on the larger issue of Hollywood values, but I have seen Trainspotting, and I don't know how it "falls short" of telling the truth about drugs. There are some pretty nasty scenes, and all kinds of frank and sordid details about the effect of drugs on various bodily functions, the desperation that addicts will go to to get drugs, various health issues from HIV to death (in several ways, if I remember right), and the crime and violence that go along with the drug trade. It does not glorify drug use at all, IMHO. Trainspotting was nominated for an Oscar and won a BAFTA award. Another one I've seen is Traffik. (I saw the first, TV, version, not the second film version.) It is a gripping drama that, through the intertwined stories of several characters, shows the whole of the heroin supply chain, from farmer to addict. Each character is sucked in through a variety of circumstances, and it is a horrible experience for all of them, from the users, to the dealers, to the mules, to the farmers. In no way does this film glorify drugs or the drug trade. Traffik, originally a TV mini-series, won a BAFTA and an Emmy, and was later made into a feature film. A favorite of mine is Dogtown and Z-Boys, a documentary about the birth of the modern sport of skateboarding and the early influence of surfers on the sport. It's not billed as an anti-drug movie, but by honestly telling the story of the young teens who became stars in the early days of skateboarding, including one very talented young boy for whom fame came too quickly, with too many temptations, it becomes a true-to-life morality tale about drug use. Dogtown won two Sundance awards, an Independant Spirit Award, and an AFI award. I'd also add VH1's Behind the Music series, which detailed the downfall of many rock bands due to drug use. It should be mandatory viewing for anyone who wants a career in the music business. --Hsmom 18:12, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Hsmom, you describe very obscure movies, ones that were little more than a college film project. "Trainspotting", for example, had a film budget of something like only $5 million, when the average cost of a mainstream movie is over $100 million. Few saw Trainspotting.
Moreover, all I've heard is how Trainspotting portrays the drug addicts (and, apparently, their own infant) as victims. What these movies don't tell the truth about is how drug addicts are perpetrators of evil, and the real victims are the innocent people killed, robbed, cheated, betrayed, lied about, etc. Jails are filled with people as a result of perjured testimony provided by drug addicts in order to save their own skin. You can bet movies don't tell the truth about how evil drug addicts often are, thanks to the drugs.--Aschlafly 23:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Whilst it was certainly not one of the biggest movies ever, Trainspotting was not a "very obscure movie", and its production budget is not a measure of how popular it is. For what it's worth, IMDB puts the estimated cost at $3.5, and, of more relevance, its U.S. takings at $16.5 million (both would be 1996-era dollars). Expelled is estimated by IMDB to have also been made for $3.5 million, and took $7.6 million (but 2007-era dollars in this case). Philip J. Rayment 01:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Trainspotting wasn't a huge blockbuster, but has become popular around the world. It is far from obscure. Moreover, to answer a few points raised by Aschlafly: the film does show the heroin addicts to be perpetrators of violence and crime to fund their drug habits. One scene for example, includes them beating up an American tourist in a pub lavatory to steal his cash. So it clearly does contain a message about innocent victims, although they are not the main focus of the film, which is on the damage done to the users themselves and their friends and families. Regarding your comment that "Jails are filled with people as a result of perjured testimony provided by drug addicts in order to save their own skin", this is also reflected in Trainspotting. One of the key scenes of the film is where, having been arrested for shoplifting, Renton (the main character) secures a lenient sentence by lying about his intention to reform his life, while betraying his friend, who is sent to prison for the same crime. This reflects one of the major themes of the film, about how drugs and crime can make people destructively selfish. I think it is probably one of the most honest films about drugs ever made. It shows that people do take pleasure from hard drugs, initially at first, but get drawn into a dangerous life of addiction, with risks of overdose or AIDS infection, harrowing withdrawal symptoms, and a lot of crime and selfish behaviour, which can ruin friendships and cause severe distress for families. It isn't a comfortable film to watch, but I would recommend watching it before making further comments dismissing its impact. Sideways 08:34, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Agree. Trainspotting was an influential movie, and where Ewan McGregor got his first big international exposure. Some other instances of innocent bystanders being harmed- the movie opens with a scene of the main character running from the police after stealing for drug money. The main character's parents are constantly traumatized by his actions (and have a huge hand in bringing him back with their "tough love"). One of the main character's friends who is not a drug user wants to try heroin "just once" and soon becomes an addicted wreck who contracts HIV. This movie (along with Requiem for a Dream, another influential movie) shows people getting absolutely destroyed by drugs. It shows innocent people harmed by their actions, it shows how the family is harmed, and it shows the vicious lifecycle of addiction. Try watching the movie, but after the kids are in bed. There are some comedic parts, but overall it's tragic. There are movies that show all of these things that you say aren't discussed, Andy. There are plenty of problems with the way celebrities live their lives, but you're wrong about this particular point. Hard drugs like heroin and crystal meth are not portrayed as "cool and fun." Corry 09:45, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Trainspotting is a complex and well-made film, which has accounted for its critical acclaim and also its ability to take in certain editors posting here. Far from being an anti-drugs movie, it conveys a dark message about the glamour of drugs and the pallidness of 'clean' life in contrast. The much-noised line 'Choose Life' is itself a cynical message, for it goes on to imply that 'life' exists in drugs, and what is outside is 'death'. Insofar as a film can embody evil, Trainspotting does so. Bugler 11:46, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
There's what the character sees, and then there's what the outside observer sees. If a character sees drugs as a wonderful thing, and I as an audience member see how drugs have wrecked his life, that doesn't encourage me to take drugs no matter how the character is fooling himself.--Frey 16:35, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler's comment is informative, while the remainder fall for the "drug addict as the victim" lie of Hollywood. My points remain unrebutted: Hollywood portrays drugs as something done by cool people, and there is no realistic portrayal of the extreme evil done by these "cool" drug addicts. For example, you'll never the first hour of a movie building the audience's sympathy for a someone innocent who is then subjected to pure evil by a drug dealer or addict. Instead, the audience sympathy is built for the addict.
I'm sure the stars of Trainspotting are portrayed as the cool guys, and I'm sure a realistic portrayal of the evil is not made. Jesus spoke more about Hell than Heaven. Does Trainspotting ever suggest how God may judge these "victims" of drugs who inflict so much evil on others??? --Aschlafly 21:05, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
You're "sure"? So you haven't seen the movie, yet you're "sure" of how it portay's things? I haven't seen it either, but then I'm not commenting on its content. I accept that one can comment on something they haven't seen or tried if they have a good source for their comments, but that doesn't appear to be the case either. Philip J. Rayment 05:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
(logic and values discussion moved to a new heading below)--Aschlafly 10:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Did you miss the mentioning of Scarface, Godfathers II and III, American Gangster, French Connection, and Requiem for a Dream? These movies are all highly in the mainstream (especially Scarface, the Godfathers, and American Gangester). Andy, perhaps you should read all the examples instead of just one? Also, I am very interested to see your list of movies that put drugs (hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, crystal meth) in a positive light. --AndrasK 17:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

You might as well add the Godfather (original) as well. Had it not been for Sollozzo's drug businiess, none of the main characters would have been killed. HelpJazz 19:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
AndrasK, you are totally and utterly hopeless. Are you totally unaware of the whole supporting edifice of HV, of 'celebrity culture', the magazines, newspapers, websites of 'celebrity' tittle-tattle that condone or excuse celebrity drug abuse and worse? How the media continue to promote 'Cocaine Kate' Kate Moss despite her open (and unpiunished) flagrantly illegal abuse of Cl;ass A drugs? How drug-abusing pop stars are lionised in the media? Do you actually know what lip service means? Try working with the victims of HV. Try working as a helper in rehab hostels. Try mopping up the vomit, tears and worse of addicts attempting to fight back against the pernicious influence of HV and its Liberal apologists. And then come here and try to tell us that drugs are 'OK'. Bugler 17:46, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Just to clarify, Andras never said drugs were "ok." LiamG 18:15, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Not in so many words. But his espousal of an overt LPOV speaks volumes. Bugler 18:21, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, why the personal attack? I never said drugs were okay, and I have never held that position. To jump to that conclusion just because I called Schlafly on failing to recognize all points made is logically invalid. To set the record straight, I do not think "drugs" are okay in any such way. I think drugs are horribly addictive substances that destroy the potential for a person to do great things. I personally cannot watch interviews with addicts (which we often have had to do in my public school's health class) because I get physically sick from even listening to how far they have fallen. I do not condone drug use in any way. Next time please do not make assumptions of my views or put words in my mouth, it is rude to say the least. --AndrasK 18:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, Andy is trying to support the claim that "Hollywood values" goes easy on drugs (or whatever exactly it is he's claiming) by pointing to evidence of this in movies. Much of this discussion, including AndrasK's comment, has been about the evidence, not the underlying claim. You are responding to his claims about the movies by bringing up other, unrelated, evidence. That is failing to actually address his argument. Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

PMFJ, but there were several examples given of drugs being portrayed negatively in a host of movies. ASchlafly, you then used the rhetorical fallacy of "moving the goalposts". You demanded not merely movies that show the harmful consequences of drug use, but an example of "a sympathetic figure who was then senselessly murdered or seriously harmed by someone hooked on drugs" - an awfully specific example, and an awfully tiny set of goalposts! Surely senseless murders result from drug use, but the majority of drug users experience negative consequences that do not quite reach so dramatic a level - and which are portrayed in endless movies. Bugler, IMO the decadence of Hollywood celebrities' real lives comes from the conflation of immense amounts of money (to provide opportunities), a culture of celebrity worship (to provide feelings of entitlement and invulnerability), and jobs that have both lots of stress and lots of down time. Look at the royals of centuries past, who experienced roughly the same sorts of circumstances, and you'll see that they too fell into decadence. It's not about liberal or conservative - just a racket that looks like fun until you're stuck in it. Fishal 18:14, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Whilst I accept that money, peer pressure, stress, etc. are contributing factors, I don't accept that one's views—e.g. "liberal" or conservative—are irrelevant. They are also a factor. Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I venture to suggest that money and celebrity were also the corrupting influences for the evangelists who took drugs, enjoyed extramarital sex, embezzled, etc. etc. In those cases, their conservative views apparently did not influence their behavior. Perhaps Paul Newman might be an example of a Hollywood star with liberal values who stayed away from drugs and was a family man. Of course one's values are relevant and are a factor, but apparently not always the overriding factor. Wealth and power are corrosive, and human beings are complicated.--Leansleft 09:06, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
The film Trainspotting is a prime example of the entertainment industry cynically exploiting and endorsing drugs. Bugler 11:18, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, Trainspotting is anything but an endorsement of drug use. The movie portrays drug use, including how it does seem like a fun thing at the beginning of use. When the movie shows a mother crying over her dead baby, shows a person having hallucinations of the same dead baby while undergoing painful heroin withdrawal, and shows a person dying of AIDS from heroin use, however, it is definitely not glamorizing drug use. Look at the movie as a whole- it depicts many, many more downs than it does ups. Corry 12:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Trainspotting was made in a deliberately complex and multi-layered manner with the intention of confusing the audience and conveying its pro-drugs message in a way that rendered it immune from criticism - clearly with some success, if your response is any indication. Please read the article Trainspotting and you will appreciate my assertions about the film. Bugler 12:56, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
You might be talking about how normal life seemed boring to Renton (the main character) when he came off heroin. While it might seem like an advertisement for drug use, it's a complaint you'll hear when talking to people fighting to come clean from drug addiction. After living a life completely dedicated to the next high, normal, everyday life seems boring. Again, I don't think Renton discussing how boring he finds conventional life nearly as compelling as the downsides of heroin use that are shown. Remember Tommy's apartment after he contracted HIV? It's pretty damning. Corry 20:09, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, if a film intends to endorse drugs, deliberately convincing its audience that it's actually condemning drugs is...well, I honestly can't think of anything more counterproductive. That's like saying Obama is actually a hardcore conservative interested in converting everyone to conservatism by cleverly convincing everyone he's a liberal.--Loavesandfishes 21:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Of course Trainspotting was made "in a deliberately complex and multi-layered manner", Bugler. Its British and aimed at an audience with an average attention span greater than your average Hollywood thing is. Just like your average Brit whodunit out-thinks CSI.AlanE 16:26, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) On a different note, I would like to include the musical (and the movie) Rent. Roger, one of the main characters, contracted Aids along with his girlfriend from an infected Heroin Needle. The girlfriend kills herself by slitting her wrists after she learns her diagnosis. Another character, Mimi, continues to use Heroin throughout, despite swearing it off several times and in the end, she nearly dies from her addiction. NateE Let Us Communicate 14:21, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I realize that this is irrelevant to the central argument, but to be precise about that argument, I think we should note that "Trainspotting" has no particular connection to Hollywood. It is a British film based on a Scottish novel, directed by a Scot, produced in Britain with Scottish/British actors. The construct (and criticism) of "Hollywood values" doesn't refer merely to the social mores of Los Angles County; instead, it refers to the value system of many wealthy celebrities. Persons espousing that set of values seem to be over-represented in the American film industry, but not all members of that industry hold those values, and it isn't useful to taint them all. Furthermore, those values are evident in other industries and other geographic areas. Finally, condoning or romanticizing drug use is injurious to individuals, dangerous to society, and just plain wrong. Now I'm leaving my lectern.--Leansleft 10:03, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Might I just point out that the film Requiem for a Dream depicts four characters whose lives are completely ruined by drugs; one ends up emaciated and catatonic in a mental hospital, two end up in prison, one with an amputated arm, and the last ends up as a toy for drug dealers. Please understand, I do not want to detract from the damage Hollywood Values do to actors and innocents alike, nor the general approval of drugs in Hollywood. I merely wished to provide an example of a popular (it won an Academy Award) film which depicts the damage drugs do. I admit there are no scenes where an addict attacks an innocent bystander, but the damage depicted to the lives of the four main characters is more than enough.--PhilipV

Possible News Item

The MSM recognizes the dangers of liberal bias![1]--Saxplayer 09:54, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Posted. How about signing up for the news project? --DeanStalk 10:11, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Al-Jazeera and "Palin Smears"

I'm not disagreeing with the potential bias of the reporter (unlike someone neutral, like oh, Sean Hannity), but one part of the column struck me as misleading. The author wondered how many interviews Kaufmann had to conduct to get a collection of Palin-rally attendees who are upset about Obama being "anti-white", "a terrorist", or "a muslim". Interviews with GOP rally attendees like these have been turning up from multiple sources, not just Kaufmann, because the McCain/Palin campaign has been playing up these images in their speeches and through coordinated mailings by the RNC and 527 groups. When you can watch tapes of Palin working a crowd up until they're clearly yelling "terrorist!" and "kill him!" on the audio, you're looking at the seeds of a mob mentality, not isolated nuts on the fringe. Also, I had to laugh last night when watching the Daily Show, because Jon Stewart showed one of the supposed "fringe" attendees spouting venom later winding up on a Fox News show as a political analyst. Way to go, Fox. --DinsdaleP 10:01, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Palin's Wardrobe Budget in the News

This isn't an issue with Palin herself, but with the inept management of the McCain/Palin campaign. With 13 days left to win over voters, at best this makes her look out of touch with the small town / Main Street / Joe Six-Pack voting base she claims to relate to as one of them. At worst it makes her look like a hypocrite who says one thing to win over voters, but then has no problem replacing a wardrobe that was just fine for her as a Governor with one that comes from stores beyond the reach of the very voters she's trying to appeal to. It's not an issue of substance in this campaign, but it is another mistake in image-management at a point where there's no room left for any more. --DinsdaleP 10:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, I agree. It's one thing to look attractive, but a nice wardrobe from Banana Republic or somewhere similar would be way less than what she spent. Say $200 for a blazer, $100 each for two skirts and a pair of pants, $60 each for 6 blouses. Now you've got 18 different outfits, total cost = $860. Throw in a $140 pair of shoes, that's $1000 for 18 outfits. But she spent $150,000 - that's 150 times this much, or 2,700 outfits. Considering that the typical hockey mom is more likely to be shopping at Target or Old Navy and paying half that or less for similar items (and making do with maybe 2 mix-and-match sets, rather than 150) this may have been a very bad choice. What a shame a Republican candidate can't show American women that you can look nice, wear quality clothes, and still be reasonably frugal. Barbara Bush was well known for this. I also remember reading a nice article about one of the Democratic primary candidate's wives, who took the opportunity to shop at local consignment stores when traveling with her husband. While I don't expect Palin to go this far (she has, one assumes, little time to shop), I find her clothing budget, if it really is as reported, close to obscene. --Hsmom 14:13, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Another non-issue made by the corrupt media. The MSM is too busy getting dirt on Palin to look into the countless issues Barack has gotten a free pass on. It is disgusting to read. Appalling? McCain incompetence? If she dressed in soccer mom clothes, the media would be calling her white trash. If she dresses like an important women that she is, then she is out of touch. Gotcha anyway she turns. Hillarys campaign wardobe cost? never reported. Pelosi's wardrobe, never reported. Any other candidates wardrobe, not reported. If we add all candidates and former candidates, I bet Palins wardrobe was the least expensive. Hillarys collection of suit pants alone was probally 200k.--Jpatt 14:32, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Your argument basically amounts to "if she goes to one extreme, she'll be criticised, and if she goes to the other extreme, she'll be criticised", but fails to consider what has been suggested here, that she go somewhere in the middle. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
As I said above, this issue here is not whether Palin can or should be provided with new a new wardrobe for campaigning - to be fair, an Alaskan wardrobe is impractical when you bounce from Minnesota to Florida and back in the same Day). My point was about image management and the incompetency of the campaign managers in how they set her up with that wardrobe - she's promoting herself as a populist "everymom" who the average American can relate to, but the core of her campaign wardrobe is coming from high-end stores that most Americans can't afford to shop at. If they were focused on staying "on message" they would have put more thought into pulling together a look that's sharp and professional, but from stores most Americans can relate to, and at a cost that'd be less than $150K, which is more than most "joe six-pack" sized mortgages. Here's an LA Times article quote from a person on the street that sums up the backlash:
"It's hypocritical for her to say she's a hockey mom on one side and then spend $70,000 at Neiman's," said Floyd Allyn, 45, who was shopping at Target in West Hollywood. "It's just like McCain not knowing how many houses he owns."
If you're going to run as a populist and slam Wall Street greed and excess, then that last thing you should be doing is shopping where they do and running up a six-figure tab. That's image-management done wrong. --DinsdaleP 15:00, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

This is like saying Obama is a hypocrite on fuel economy because he takes several airplane trips a day. Having a nice wardrobe is part of the job. She's not wearing those clothes to be vain, she's wearing them because she's representing us, and she should make an effort to look nice. BHarlan 15:14, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Your comparison fails. Obama has to travel a lot and fast. Sure, it would have been better if he had taken a bicycle or a Prius, but that's not really going to work, is it?
The Republican National Committee on the other hand "has bought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family nearly $150,000 worth of clothing since September" (quoting the LA Times article there). In the best case, that was roughly eight weeks ago, which would translate to $18,750 worth of clothing per week. Or roughly $2,679 per day. And unlike the Obama example, there are alternatives. Ask any businesswoman how much she spent on outfits for a two-month period. I bet the answer will not be "$150,000". You can look great and professional without spending 150k in two months. And like DinsdaleP said, it's more about the message she wanted to send. You know, the hockey mom bit and all that.
Oh, and to put the number into perspective even for her: "It also totaled more than the $125,000 Palin makes annually as governor." Looking good is important, but a shopping trip worth more than even her own annual salary is overkill, and no pointing at Obama will fix that impression, I'm afraid. --AlanS 15:37, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

BHarlen is right, AlanS bitter critique of Palin fails. What can we hit Palin on today? She needs to look like the average person or she will not be considered average. Don't bring up she makes a quarter of what Biden makes yet, she was able to donate more to charity than him. Good one, the Palin-hate train rolls-on.--Jpatt 15:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

<edit conflict> BHarlan, there's a difference between a nice wardrobe (which I agree is part of the job), and an extravagant wardrobe, which is what she appears to have gotten. As DinsdaleP pointed out, she spent more than many Americans paid for their house, their largest asset. She spent more than my house cost, she spent more than I will pay for 4 years of college for my oldest child, she spent more than my husband's annual salary, she spent more than most governors' annual salary [2], she spent two thirds of the vice president's annual salary.[3] At some point, this stops being "what is needed to represent America", and starts being extravagance. I think she (or at least her advisers/managers) crossed that line. --Hsmom 15:45, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
This is about image-management. John McCain can have 8 houses, and Palin can wear whatever she wants from wherever she wants, but she should not be calling it a MSM smear job when news stories start reporting the sentiments of average Americans over this expenditure. "It looks like nobody with a political antenna was working on this just one more sign of the hapless decisions in this campaign," Ed Rollins, a Republican political consultant who ran President Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984, was quoted by the Times as saying.
The McCain campaign is being significantly outspent by Obama so every dollar counts - was it really necessary to spend $150K on clothes for Palin that have to be donated to charity, at the expense of buying time for ads or hiring more get-out-the-vote staff in key swing states? I can see the DNC ads that will come from this - "She claims to have said 'Thanks but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere, but said 'you betcha' to $150K in clothes paid for by Republican campaign funds" The judgment and spending discipline shown by a campaign tells more about them than the words they use in stump speeches, and if she's being portrayed as a maverick fiscal disciplinarian, they dropped the ball on this one. --DinsdaleP 15:51, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Only a liberal would complain that money should be going to political ads rather than charity. BHarlan 16:31, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
That comment makes no sense, BHarlan. If folks want their money to provide clothing donations then they'd give to those charities. If they give it to the RNC to get Republicans elected then that's what they expect the money to be focused on achieving. In either case, donors expect their contributions to be spent wisely and gain the biggest "bang for the buck". It's up to those RNC donors to decide for themselves if this is the case, and I'm sure that Palin's supporters will want her to look as good as possible. Others may feel like $150K for an an 8-week wardrobe from Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue was too extravagant for a self-proclaimed "small-town hockey mom", and that spending that much money in that manner did more P.R. harm than good. --DinsdaleP 17:10, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why Gov. Palin is exempt from 1 Tim. 2:9-10. DavidE 15:53, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

DavidE, please don't tell me you're one of those people that says if you believe in God, then you must be perfect person? Because that is not how faith works. That is how liberalism views religion. --Jpatt 16:00, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think Palin's campaign wardrobe is excessively flashy or immodest, just extravagant as Hsmom said. Maybe it's because I'm a guy, but when I look at someone on a stage or TV I can't tell if their shoes cost $100 or $700, or if their jacket cost $300 or $3000. This campaign is out to prove that they offer the right solutions for restoring fiscal discipline and getting the economy on track - if they can't find people who could make Palin look appealing and professional for 8 weeks for less than $150K, they are not winning me over. If they can't get something simple like this right, how are we going to trust them to tackle this economy competently? --DinsdaleP 16:09, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
One other point not taken into consideration. The wardrobe will be donated after the election. So, it is not exactly hers. --Jpatt 16:11, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Right - she's not allowed to keep it or it will be counted as income (and it's worth more than a year of her salary so I don't think she'd want that tax bill). That doesn't make the expense any less extravagant though, which is the core issue. Republicans donated money to the RNC campaign fund to get Republicans elected, and to see $150K of those donations spent on rental clothes for 8 weeks has to make some wonder if their money was spent wisely. --DinsdaleP 16:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Besides, be frank. who are you going to donate a 150K wardrobe to? There are great programs in Denver for helping abused women get suits for new jobs. but not suits of *this* caliber. "wow, Tina, your suit costs more than 15,000. are you sure you are fit for our program?"--JeanJacques 16:23, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
They could sell the clothes and donate the money, probably enough to clothe a couple thousand needy people for a few years. Mikek 16:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
If they were smart they'd auction the clothes and give the proceeds to charity - might be worth more that way than as a straight donation. People of wealth would get high-fashion clothes from a celebrity at a discount, and 'regular folk' would be able to buy a lot more real-world clothes with the proceeds. --DinsdaleP 16:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, what's in your wardrobe? I daresay you have one or two garments more than you might need, if one were to take a Shaker line on things. Are the starving children going to benefit, or will you continue to live a life of excess? Bugler 17:49, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Having a few extra pairs of $30 jeans is a bit different than having a few extra $2,000 jackets. Also DinsdaleP does not parade himself as the "common hockeymom" who understands the hardships of working class Americans. --AndrasK 18:45, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Changing the topic, Bugler? Okay, I'll play. I live in a renovated farmhouse in NJ with a wonderful woman I'm blessed to call my spouse, a handful of just-as-wonderful kids, and because of medical issues with several of our children, generally more bills coming in each month than income. We appreciate everything we have, though, and are always mindful that there are people in greater need than we are. Each spring, we still manage to round up several hundred dollars worth of clothes that are outgrown or underused and give them to Goodwill Industries. I also volunteer with Habitat for Humanity when time allows, and my spouse does charity work with an abused-women's group in NJ. I don't do the stereotype thing, Bugler, because I've learned from experience that when you actually take the time to get to know someone you'll find that many pre-conceptions you might have had were wrong. --DinsdaleP 18:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Prison Stripes

The woman who was allegedly mugged and mutiliated by an Obama supporter has admitted to falsifying the story to make Obama supporters look bad. This should be taken off the front page. --Countryforchrist 14:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

No, no--don't remove the item, just change it from, "Obama supporters come in every stripe..." to, "McCain and Obama supporters come in every stripe..."--XavierJ 14:58, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
It should be changed to say "McCain supporter falsified attack to discredit Obama" with a link to the article referenced above. MFAndersen 15:23, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
And to give a link to an article written by the same Pittsburgh Tribune-Review author who is currently linked on the front page: "Police say McCain worker made up attack story"
And I think that, if things had been the other way around (Obama supporter making up an attack story), we would now see a big "In The News" item like "Typical liberal tactics: Obama supporters use deceit to smear McCain". But as it is, I guess the news item will just be removed silently - at best. --AlanS 16:55, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Why do you so like to defame Conservapedia and its editors, AlanE? Bugler 17:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
What are you talking about?AlanE 17:39, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
if things had been the other way around (Obama supporter making up an attack story), we would now see a big "In The News" item like "Typical liberal tactics: Obama supporters use deceit to smear McCain". But as it is, I guess the news item will just be removed silently - at best. You're lucky not to cop three days for deliberate disingenuousness - and there's no need to shout. Bugler 17:43, 24 October 2008 (EDT

Check your eyesight! That was not me! I'm an E He's an S. Try thinking before typing! PJR was right...you're getting more like TK every day.AlanE 17:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe - sorry, AlanE. Is S any relation? Bugler 17:57, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
How the hell would I know? He may be a relation of yours as far as I know. I hope not for his sake. And it's not bloody funny!! AlanE 18:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I think this whole case of mistaken identity was hilarious! Philip J. Rayment 05:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Sysops can make things happen here pretty quickly if they want them to happen. I know that this site and what is going on, especially on the main page talk is constantly monitored. The fact that this is being ignored is very telling. If I made someone rotten remark right now about Palin or McCain, you can bet I would be banned or warned very quickly. So, why hasn't this issue been addressed? The only logical reason is that the higher ups here would rather keep a false article defaming Obama on the main page. MFAndersen 17:33, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
The story stating that this woman faked the assault is very shoddy. You could drive an eighteen-wheeler through the holes in it. Keeping the story on the main page until more evidence comes in is a good thing, as it will inform people regarding the depth Obama's supporters will sink to. SMichaels 18:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
The evidence is overwhelming and the source is the same local source that reported it to the national news. The editors realized this and the link is gone now, so what's the problem? --Countryforchrist 18:21, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Correct, they wanted to show how crazy liberals were and ended up with a crazy conservative. However, it has been corrected and any evidence of a crazy conservative is gone.--IanG 18:23, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Conservatives obey the law; the ones that don't betray those values. This one obviously did with her false story, and she should be punished according to the law. Karajou 01:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
AlanE and I are obviously part of the Alan Clan. We Alans unite once every year and discuss how we can enslave the free world and other fun stuff like that. ;)
And I wasn't trying to defame anybody or anything, but rather predicting events on the basis of the way the main page is usually handled. Fact is that negative news about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, etc. simply don't end up on the main page. The News Project even states that "News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views" and that it will feature positive news about conservatives and negative news about liberals. And look, I was right: The link to the story in question is gone, and not a single word about a deceitful Republican who lied to smear Obama is mentioned anywhere. --AlanS 18:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
AlanE, I don't expect you to last here long.--Jpatt 18:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
"Rabbit season!" - "Duck season!" - "Rabbit season!" - "Rabbit season!" - "No, it's duck season! Fire! ...no, wai-" - *BLAM* --AlanS 18:52, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Quack!

Khoar! I leave the house for half an hour and the conversation takes off without me...(it's ten something on a fine spring Saturday morning down here). I blame Hollywood values. All those movies where the bloke - sorry, guy - who shoots, punches, kicks and takes the law into his own hands is usually the hero. And there is not a nuance in sight. The brain goes into automatic before the weapon. For what it is worth Alan, I agree with your sentiment - the one that got me in trouble. Jpatt: so long from when...my original showing in May07, or my later reincarnation last August? I manage as long as I keep my head down and think of the homeschoolers. There has to be some of us slaving away down in the depleted "Encyclopedia Section" keeping the place honest to its name and doing all the boring things that very few people read. Every now and then when the sciatica is playing up, I get my bowels in a knot about something and appear up on deck. AlanE 19:34, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I know I am a little late to this conversation, but the young woman who claimed she was attacked has a history of mental problems. In all likelihood, her problems can probably be traced to being exposed to liberal values. I notice now the link goes to another story where Obama supporters shot up a man's home, simply because he had McCain-Palin signs in his yard. That's those tolerant liberals for you! If they get bent out of shape over a person speaking their mind during a political campaign, what do you think will happen if they win the election. We all need to tunr out on November 4th, vote, and defeat this all encompassing evil.--Saxplayer 19:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
To paraphrase(sort of) a great Conservapedian, liberals don't use guns; the ones that do betray those values. These guys obviously did with their attack, and they should be punished according to the law.--Frey 13:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Per Michelle Malkin, this is likely an October surprise, Democrat trap. It has the earmarkings of a lie, perpetrated by Democrats. Add one lying GOP worker(perfect MSM coverage), false accusations of race-hate (African attacks white lie), dumb backwards 'B' carved in the face (like an idiot would do in the mirror.) As Michelle said, I apologize if I am wrong. Would she if caught? AlanE is estatic because why? all I mentioned above, tailor-made for GOP bashing. Stay tuned. --Jpatt 01:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I awake to find my name mysteriously in use. Again. Why is AlanE supposed to be "estatic? (Good word - what does it mean?) Seeing as I have not made any comments at all on this page except to react to Bugler's inanity, and subsequent giggling discourtesy, I am starting to wonder about this sudden attention. Can you explain please? Politely if at all possible. AlanE 14:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)Well? (Oh dear, I'm shouting again.)AlanE 18:21, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Sorry AlanE, some how Igot you lumped in with AlanS, who makes much noise.--Jpatt 18:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Sigh... Look! He's the (probably) good looking yank and I'm the wrinkled old Aussie. Can't you tell by the accents? AlanE 18:48, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Are you this opposed to the idea that a supporter of the Republicans lied (for whatever reason - it appears that this is simply a young lady with issues and that this entire hoax wasn't some sort of planned political move by either side) that you have to speculate about her being some sort of sleeper agent who sacrificed herself (and is now being charged with filing a false police report) for Obama?
I'm not saying that your baseless speculation has to be wrong. It's of course possible that this is some sort of elaborate Xanatos Gambit. However, right now, there is zero evidence for this, and your only argument is basically "I don't like the idea of a lying Republican - that's something only liberals do!"
What is going on here is clear and open bias. Several people here are openly siding with the Republicans/conservatives to the degree of being in denial about even the possibility of wrongdoing. Guess what, the Republican party isn't a party of saints. You can claim as much as you like that only liberals do bad things, but that won't make it true. --AlanS 07:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt is on to something here. The Liberals will give us an "October surprise" but it is still too early. Some of us might recall the 2000 election when the liberal media spread the false story that George W. Bush had a DWI conviction on election eve. They will wait until the last minute to unleash some horrible toxic smear on Senator McCain and Governor Palin. It is their MO.--Saxplayer 11:41, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Suggested story

Middle-schoolers at a public school in St. Louis, MO are facing suspension for striking Jewish students during what they called "Hit a Jew Day". Maybe if our public schools taught that anti-Semitism is wrong, this would not have happened. Link SMichaels 18:26, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I attended a public school, and I can assure you that Antisemitism was taught to be wrong. These students most likely are raised in a household where this kind of behavior against Jews is acceptable. --Konstanty 11:56, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I find that hard to believe - unless it was many years ago. The teaching of 'right' and 'wrong' is anathema in public schools these days; rather, what takes place is indoctrination in political correctness and moral equivalence. Bugler 07:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Political correctness would include not victimising people for their race or religion. Since the school is punishing these children, & may refer some of them for counselling, the argument that public schools condone this kind of behaviour simply doesn't stand up. Sideways 07:37, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
That is plain naivety. Political correctness does not imply any true respect for other races or religions; rather, it is an expression of the self-hatred felt by white middle-class Liberals, who seek to impose their ill-thought-out views on everyone else. In fact, by their arrogant behaviour, these Liberals patronise and demean those whom they so loudly claim to support. Bugler 08:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Logic and values

(moved from above) Philip, I comment on things all the time that I have not personally experienced, ranging from smoking to Hell. It doesn't require "a good source" to do so, but merely logic. That's what logic is for. As to my comments on Trainspotting, people who have seen it can prove me wrong, but they won't be able to. It's obvious that Hollywood values embrace the drug culture, and no Hollywood movie is going to tell the truth about it. Such a movie would be ostracized immediately, and it would be a fool's errand for the participants.--Aschlafly 08:02, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I also comment on things that I have not personally experienced, mostly because of good sources (science in the case of smoking, God in the case of Hell), and yes, logic can also be used at times. But the only logic you have provided for claiming that this particular movie must be as you presume is incomplete and therefore inconclusive. Are you suggesting that every single movie is made by and with "Hollywood values"? If not, then that means that there are at least some movies that are not made with "Hollywood values". And given that, you have to show why this particular movie does not fit in that latter category. And that's not taking into account that such people will often disagree amongst themselves, just as the witnesses against Jesus could not agree on what He had done wrong. So on that basis, I would expect that at least some movies would show how bad drugs are. Again, you have now shown why that is not the case with this movie. Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Logic can and should be applied to draw conclusions about the output of a culture that embraces particular values. I do not personally know any terrorists, for example, but I can predict with a high degree of certainty what terrorists will do if given the opportunity, simply by knowing their values. And it would be foolish to expect otherwise.
Trainspotting is the product of Hollywood values, and one can apply logic to those values in order to predict with certainty greater than medical expections what the product of those values is. The public availability of information about this movie, including its new entry here, confirm those expectations.
It's liberal deception to resist applying logic to values. Logic can apply as effectively to values as to anything physical.--Aschlafly 10:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay, so you could have predicted the 11th September attack? Of course, we can all predict with broad generalities (terrorists will terrorise), but it's when it gets to specifics (flying planes into buildings) that it gets hard. Sure, people with "Hollywood values" will generally produce movies that undermine Christian values, but determining the specifics of the stance that a specific movie will take is another matter. If you are going to start using the publicly-available information, then fine, that's a legitimate thing to do (as I already mentioned), but that's not what you were doing when I commented. I also note, incidentally, that our article says that the opening song is rather anti-drug. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
There's a big difference between applying values to a person based on their prior actions and history (terrorists are so labeled because they've committed or been involved in terrorist attacks) and labeling a person based on the industry they're in, with no basis in personal history and/or fact. Your comparison would be better stated as "I do not personally know any Muslims, for example, but I can predict with a high degree of certainty what Muslims will do if given the opportunity, simply by knowing their values. And it would be foolish to expect otherwise." With the above prediction being terrorism, and the edited quote hopefully sounding as foolish to you as it does to me. If you were predicting the outcome of, say, a Michael Moore movie, you might have a better shot since he personally consistently follows the same theme.Mikek 11:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
One thing that has me curious, from watching this debate, is the - so far overlooked - fact that most of the films under discussion have been based on a book, that must have reached a certain level of popularity to warrant it being made into a film. So, allowing for the fact most films do glorify drug use, are they not merely picking up on a meme that has already been spread? Should the original authors, publishers and readers not take some of the blame too? --KotomiTKonnichiha! 11:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Andy, first of all you say that "The public availability of information about this movie, including its new entry here, confirm those expectations." The fact that you are editing the entry yourself, particularly considering that you have not seen the movie, means that it's not a good publicly available source for you to use to make this argument. Second, you say that you can extrapolate what Trainspotting will be like with "certainty greater than medical expections," by which I assume you mean 95%. I have actually seen the movie, you have not, yet you are making statements about the movie's message and saying that you know more about it than I. Logic would direct you to assume that I know more about the movie than you do. Deny this, as you say, and lose credibility. This movie does not glorify drug use. Corry 11:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I have seen Trainspotting and my view is that it definitely, while subtly, promotes and endorses drug abuse. Mr Schlafly is entirely correct in his assessments. Bugler 12:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Again, it covers, in an extremely blunt manner, the downsides of drugs and addiction. Hopelessness. Regret. Pain. AIDS. Death. When do they make Renton look cooler- when he's dumped in front of a hospital after an overdose or when he is hallucinating about a dead baby when he is going through withdrawal? They're about as subtle as a sledgehammer when depicting the consequences of drug use. Corry 13:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

My reasons are given in the article. Bugler 13:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Corry, your comments are non-responsive to my points. I said that Hollywood portrays cool people as using drugs. Trainspotting does that. Of course that promotes drug use. Hollywood sends this message loud and clear: cool people are on drugs. Take the side effects like a man, and ignore the pure evil that drugs are, according to Hollywood. And pretend that Hell doesn't await those who facilitate the evil. Guess what: logic dictates that it does exist.--Aschlafly 13:10, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
First of all, I never said anything about "the logic of Hell," and I don't intend to steer the conversation that way. Now regarding Trainspotting, it shows people that seem cool at first, and shows deep, terrible character flaws as they descend into misery. They betray each other and live aimless lives. The movie shows eventually how while they think they are cool, they're actually not, that they're just junkies that refuse to grow up and live productive lives. By the end of the movie, they look anything but cool, and Renton, the main character, finds that he can only live a worthwhile life by turning his back on drugs and his old so-called friends with whom he shared that life. The main character actually decides that he needs to stay off heroin and hold down a job. How is this a bad message? Again, you haven't seen the movie, and your logical extrapolation is inaccurate. If you are 95% certain, consider this part of that pesky 5%. Finally, you want the movie to discuss whether or not the characters will go to Hell. Does a movie have to discuss damnation in order to be anti-drug? Corry 13:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
By extension, Andy, and in my view every bit as damaging, is the portrayal of decent, clean, studious, sober, chaste and hardworking people as 'ncool', 'nerds', 'squares, 'boring'. What a concept to put before our young people! Bugler 13:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Excellent point, Bugler. The promoters of evil know what they're doing when they portray drug-free people as boorish nerds. That portrayal is a lie, of course. The most tedious and boring people of all are the drug addicts. And their evil has no limits.--Aschlafly 13:46, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Hopefully, the messages are subtle enough to elude those who are tempted by drugs, but I doubt it. I fear the subliminal effects. Has anyone checked for verbal subliminal messages in Trainspotting? Google has 14,200 hits for subliminal trainspotting. BHarlan 13:20, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

And I get 35,100 results for subliminal Oprah Winfrey, 892,000 results for subliminal Bible, and 28,800 results for subliminal Right Said Fred. Do we need to fear subliminal messages from those three things? Since when has Google hits meant anything for validity? There are 1,880 results for the exact phrase "McCain is Hitler", but only one for "Dawkins is Hitler". Do that mean we really need to worry that the former is true? Or at least 1,880 times more likely to be true than the latter? DRuss 21:21, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I think I can put this discussion to rest with an anecdote from my own life. A few years ago in my neighborhood on Halloween, a number of rowdy teenagers dressed up as characters from Trainspotting. Would they do that if they didn't think they were being "cool"? --DRamon 15:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, a couple of years ago some kids in my neighborhood dressed up as zombies, axe murderers, and velvet-clad spies from the British 1960's caught up in a cryogenic freezing error. Clearly, those are role models for them. Aziraphale 15:56, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I thought the idea of Halloween was that you dress up as something scary, not something nice, so the fact that some might dress up as characters from Trainspotting is hardly an endorsement of those characters being "cool". Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
One year I went for Halloween as a guy with a dinner fork stuck in his head. I was not aspiring to have a dinner fork stuck in my head, nor did I think it was particularly cool to have a dinner fork stuck in one's head. Corry 23:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
You're not fooling anyone, and neither is Obama. Deny it, and lose credibility. DRuss 00:02, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

ASchalfly, here's the one sentence plot synopsis of "Trainspotting", a movie you have not seeen but wish to judge: Main character Renton learns by experience that his drug-riddled lifestyle leads to nothing but death, incarceration, violence and desolation, and turns his back on everything and everyone he knows to start a new life, closing the movie with the statement, "Choose Life!". That is the simple, all-encompassing message of what is a brilliant, painful, harrowing story. It was the 9th largest grossing film in the UK in 1996, and had worldwide box office of about 30 million dollars. It was based on a book by an author who himself had turned his own back on such a lifestyle to write and clean up his life, and who has gone on to become one of the more respected and successful authors of contemporary fiction in the UK. I'm sorry to say that your preconceptions about this movie, and most other Hollywood movies, are completely incorrect. EngelUmpocker 23:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I've come to this discussion rather late, and somebody may have mentioned this already. If so, kindly ignore the following. For anyone who would like to see for themselves how many Hollywood movies have featured characters who use drugs, or movies in which the use of drugs is an important part of the plot, the dreaded Wikipedia has an entry: List of drug films You can then read about the plot of each film, and count how many movies depict drugs or drug users positively, and how many portray them negatively. Eoinc 10:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for an example of the quintessential Wikipedia: it claims that many movies are "anti-drug" (they really aren't), and then has a subtle slap at such effort by calling it "judgmental". What's next from Wikipedia? An entry listing movies that depict murder, some pro and con, and others "less judgmental?" God help us from those being raised on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 10:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Simply repeating that the movies are not anti-drug does not make it true. And in context (as Eoinc provides below), there's not much wrong with Wikipedia's use of "judgmental" in this case; all it's saying is that some make drugs look good or bad (i.e. they are "judgmental"), whilst other don't. Philip J. Rayment 00:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Another film off the top of my head would be The Basketball Diaries, in which Leonardo di Caprio plays a kid at the peak of his High School basketball team, with a huge career ahead of him, who lets it all slip away in the pursuit of a heroin addiction, plummeting into a life of crime, prostitution and street life. In the end, his career, education and life are all destroyed, but he is offered hope of recovery through a friend who will help him get off drugs. It's an extremely harrowing, desolate and bleak picture which should be shown to any kids at the edge of the precipice. And, again, it's typical Hollywood fare in its negative view of drug use. StatsFan 10:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
You are in total denial. Whatever overt message that these films purport to have is subverted and negated by the near-universality of Hollywood Values in the entertainment industry. Simplistic readings of the situation, which is all that the Liberals and quasi Liberals here seem capable of, are not sufficient. Mr Schlafly has correctly interpreted the situation and explained it to you, and any further debate on this point is moving away from legitimate discussion and is becoming sterile word-mongering with the aim of disruption and discord - quite apart from its impertinence. Disruptive actions will be dealt with appropriately. Bugler 10:57, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
You know, it's amazing how many of your criticisms of other can be applied to you. I could equally say that you are in total denial, and that you are being simplistic, and that your comments are disruptive and impertinent. I should also point out that blocking rights are granted to stop vandalism, not to quash discussion. Philip J. Rayment 00:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, to be fair to Wikipedia, the full quote is "some movies are unabashedly pro- or anti-drug, while others are less judgmental", implying that it is just as judgmental to be pro-drugs. Eoinc 10:46, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
The middle way between being pro-drug or anti-drug in a movie is to do what I believe Trainspotting does. In Trainspotting, we see the drug-taking characters' lives be destroyed by drug taking. The addicts all enjoy taking heroin (as addicts presumably do), but we see the horrible toll of their addiction. Surely no sane audience member would see film and think "I want to be like those guys!". The drug-using characters see themselves as cool, and the drug-free lifestyle as boring, but the film is narrated by one of the addicts and seems to be an obvious example of an unreliable narrator. Eoinc 10:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Eoinc, there is no middle way in this issue. Bugler 11:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, yes there is. Aziraphale 15:06, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
What, you think you can be anti drug, but a bit pro-drug at the same time, and still have moral standing? A movie that compromises on this is as dangerous as one that says 'Hey kids! Away you go and do some heroin. It's great!'. Extraordinary. Bugler 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Fascinating assumption, but I reject it. Eoinc explains how there is a middle way very thoughtfully, and you simply respond "nuh unh" without explaining how he's wrong; which of course, you can't, because he's right. You reject him out of hand, and I don't see any reason to offer you any better than that. Aziraphale 15:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)


Every Hollywood movie, including the new one mentioned by StatsFan (The Basketball Diaries), sends the same message: cool people do drugs, and then act like victims when problems arise.--Aschlafly 15:16, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Look, I know exactly how juvenile this is going to sound, but at this point you're simply wrong on the facts. So many of the movies listed describe drugs in the harshest possible terms. You have most likely either not seen any of these movies, or you've seen approximately 30 minutes before giving up on it. When you're factually wrong it becomes impossible to offer a logical dispute, because it would be a waste of time. You're wrong about these movies. Aziraphale 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Your commentary is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Hollywood movies still portray drug users in a sympathetic light, and Hollywood values still praise drug use. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Aschlafly is correct. SMichaels 17:20, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Can we just outright drop this conversation? At this point, there's no convincing either side of anything. No one is even offering any new points at this point. This conversation has gone nowhere, is going nowhere, and hasn't accomplished anything. It's just two competing echo chambers now. Isn't it time to just stop? LiamG 17:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Possible News Item

Even the MSM admit they are biased against Republicans! [4]--Saxplayer 11:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Another, albeit depressing, news item

The lawsuit to force Barack Obama to reveal that he was born outside the US has been tossed out of court. In all liklihood, the judge is a misguided liberal[5]--Saxplayer 16:28, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

A cursory glance over his previous rulings show that yeah, he's pretty much in the liberals' pocket. RodWeathers 21:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
One would hope that if Obama were actually born in the US then even a conservative judge would throw out the case. HelpJazz 21:08, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain's time running out

The betting market sees little hope for McCain in next week's election. Update here. -- Ferret Nice old chat 19:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Please leave the Michael S. Malone article on the front page

at the top. It's the best thing you've ever posted. Don't bury it under a mountain of crazy. EmmanuelG 10:44, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Typo

"tounge-in-cheek" Human 19:21, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks for the alert. --DeanStalk 19:37, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

New user registration

I don't know if this is old news, but the Verification code is almost impossible. I got it right at the fifth trial, and I never fail other similar codes. I guess many potential new users get disheartened after 2-3 failed attempts and never register. --JulianAdderley 07:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

In the news/mind control techniques

Why does the "In the news" section mention the analysis of Obama's mind control techniques, but did not mention Palin's use of basically the same techniques? [6] --Afox 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

You're not fooling anyone with your ridiculous comparison. Palin is popular for her intelligence, wit, and charisma, Obama is popular through mass hypnosis, and will make people vote for him against their free will. It looks like he's already gotten to you. This is the most vile attempt to subvert democracy this country has witnessed, and I prefer you not to make light of it. Now make some substantial edits or your account will be blocked. JeremyM 14:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Afox, the difference is obvious. If you read the article that the main page cited, Obama does this verbally. Palin in innocently winking at her audience. Additionally, it is apparent that Obama is doing this very consciously, because his arguments are, taken by themselves, very weak, whereas Palin made some very strong points. When you separate the substance of what Obama and Palin say from the style factor, it is obvious that Palin is sincere. True conservatives differ from liberals in that they are not swayed by style, but by substance.--Saxplayer 14:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Clearly this man and will do anything to win the election. Well done Conservapedia for showing the world just what the Liberals will do to subvert democracy! Has anybody given thought to how this mind manipulation might be the reason for the apparent sudden surge in voter registration in the USA? These people could well have been hypnotised into wanting to get their names on the register just vote for a Liberal candidate. Malakker 14:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I would not be surprised to see a lot of dead people voting for Obama. Liberals know (or should know) that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative. Dishonesty is the only way that they can win an election, whether it be through mind control techniques, or outright fraud. --Saxplayer 14:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
So conservatives are either feeble-minded or the victims of fraud? Does this hold for every election in which progressives have won?Thecount 15:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
No, "count." Conservatives, if you have been paying attention, are anything but feeble- minded. However, a clever evil person like Barack Obama can fool a lot of people, and with organizations like ACORN around, you can bet a lot of dead people will "vote" for Obama on November 4th. You should open your mind and embrace conservative principles, You will be a much happier person if you do.--Saxplayer 15:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

People who publish this nonsense, spread it and then gobble it up should all be ashamed. MFAndersen 15:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I have to say it's quite amusing to watch liberals and parodists debate each other, as in the discussion above. I just wish they did so elsewhere. --DRamon 16:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, although I wonder how many are actually arguing against their own alter-egos. Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
No, MFAnderson, shame comes from ignoring the truth. Conservapedia deserves a lot of credit for placing this story on their main page. The next time you are listening to Barack Obama, and you feel yourself being swayed to his point of view, remember what he is really up to. Remember, Barack is a Muslim and will try to make his religion the official faith of the United States. And DRamon, if there are any liberals here (I wish they would visit this site, they might learn something), I hope they take the main page story seriously and realize that they , and their country (but then again, liberals hate America) are about to be led astray.--Saxplayer 16:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I was going to stay out of this, but I would just like to say, I am a liberal, I have voted early for Obama, and if I hated America, I would live in Canada. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Nate, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about. Liberals are typically weak minded and easily led astray. It is too bad that Consevapedia did not post this article earlier, otherwise you would have realized that Obama was manipulating you and you would not have voted for him. You cannot recall your vote, but I would urge you to read Conservapedia on a regular basis. You will learn to embrace conservative principles and you will be a better person for it. --Saxplayer 17:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I will not take this any further, except to say you are both an idiot and a rather obvious parodist. How about you tone down the rhetoric and at least try to act like a normal person. NateE Let Us Communicate 17:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Nate, I am hardly an idiot, and I am very much a normal person. Liberals often resort to insult when confronted with conservative, unassailable logic and facts. Like nearly all liberals, it is obvious that you are a very unhappy person.--Saxplayer 17:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberals would never identify a parodist, since they support the parodist "mission". Anyone that an admitted liberal calls a parodist is someone the liberal thinks is making arguments that do too much damage, and therefore must be shut down in order for the liberal to avoid his cognitive dissonance. For this reason, we can be sure that NateE does not think Saxplayer is a parodist.

This would probably be obvious anyway, but I thought it deserved mention. BHarlan 17:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I am a liberal and I think that Sax is a parodist. It seems obvious to me. He is like a Conservapedia parody machine. He just takes a bunch of the same phrases and shakes them up and spills them out with every post. MFAndersen 17:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

NateE violated our 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk, as liberals often do. He has been blocked for a month. Indeed, after a while one can tell the liberals just by how often they talk and how little they say.--Aschlafly 17:37, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

So you blocked NateE for a month, but not Saxplayer? Here's a comparison:
NateE Saxplayer
Joined (first edit) 3rd September 3rd September
Number of talk and user talk edits since joining 73 36
Number of other edits since joining 30 15
Talk and user talk edits as percentage of total 71 71
Number of talk and user talk edits in last month 21 30
Number of other edits in last month 4 4
Talk and user talk edits as percentage of total 81 86
Does that make Saxplayer a liberal too? Of course he doesn't act like one, but perhaps MFAnderson got his block not for namecalling, but for an accurate description?
Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

MFAnderson, you're the next to be blocked for your namecalling.--Aschlafly 17:37, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, that is an excellent point. Liberals will talk a lot (like Obama) while saying little of substance (like Obama). As for NateE and MFAnderson, they had little to say. I feel sorry for both of them because they are apparently unwilling to even attempt to embrace conservative values. Many former liberals do become conservatives, and as a consequence, they are healthier and happier. --Saxplayer 18:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Speaking of excessive talk, Saxplayer, you certainly violate the 90/10 rule yourself. While you make valid points, if you made more contributions to the actual encyclopedia, it would help alleviate any misconceptions people may have about you. --DRamon 18:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Hate Crime Statistics

The FBI has just released 2007 statistics for hate crimes. approx. 9500 crimes were reported, with just over half being race motivated, about 16% were because of religion or sexual orientation and about 14% were due to ethnicity. The overall number is down from last year with only a surge in hate crimes directed at homosexuals, but the FBI does not consider that significant because the number of reporting agencies varies from year to year. NateE Let Us Communicate 14:27, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

US raid in Syria

Recently a group of US helecopters performed a raid in Syrian territory.In an alleged attempt to kill a terrorist smuggler. Considering the impact that a violation of another nation's borders can cause, I feel like this would be an important story to post on the news feed.--ScottA 16:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Results of experiment

About 6-12 months ago (I won't be too specific) I registered a set of sockpuppets on your Wiki to run an experiment. As a note for your checkusers, I used a different IP for each sock and this IP was not one of them. Over a few weeks I added increasing ridiculous "scientific facts", but was never challenged and not one of the throwaway accounts were blocked. My "facts" remain to this day, which I think shows that nobody here has much idea about science. Good luck in finding them, I hope you learn something in the process. CraigBell 18:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, an accusation like that which has no specifics carries no weight whatsoever. How do we check and see if you are telling the truth? We can't. If you did indeed register several different ones, and it sounds like you are not using them any more, then what do you have to lose by naming them? The fact that you don't strongly suggests that this accusation is total fiction. And even if you did name say one or two, and they checked out, it would still not demonstrate that "nobody here has much idea about science", as it could be that the people that do simply didn't come across your vandalism, or perhaps they did find some but you only mention examples they didn't find. So to repeat, this claim is baseless, and nothing more than a slur, throwing mud and hoping some sticks. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
His socks Exophile, JohnDavis, SimonT, and LoxP were found and blocked last month, so apparently he's got nothing to back his assertions up. Typical liberal liar. Karajou 12:36, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
And none of their edits have been reverted. Way to go! --Afox 13:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
It's the nature of a wiki-based project that if people want to be destructive, they can be. Those who set up wikis put their trust in human nature and believe that overall, there will be more sincere contributors than saboteurs, so the trend will be towards improvement. We already knew that it was possible to make damaging edits - of course it is, and the same thing happens all the time at Wikipedia and other wikis in proportion to their profile. All you have proved is that you are in the minority of people who are (or have been) content to waste their time undermining other people's productive activity. Congratulations.--CPalmer 07:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Wow. That was petty. You've taken advantage of a trusting system that allows anyone to register in order to do as much harm as :possible. You call it an experiment. What purpose did it serve, other than to prove that a vandal can do damage? What conclusions :have you drawn, except that one person bent on sabotage can destroy a system built on trust? Above all, who has benefitted from that :"experiment"? As far as I can see, only your smugness has benefitted.
Even if, hypothetically, you felt it would be beneficial to run this "experiment", surely the sensible thing to do would be to :remove all traces of its existence and not mention it. Instead, you felt the need to gloat over your (likely imaginary) victory. :What is there to gain in that?
KarlJaeger 08:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
You both seem to think that he's telling the truth. He may be, but he could be just as easily be lying about the whole thing. What's easier? Do what he did, wait six to twelve months, then gloat without any evidence that he did what he said, or simply make the claim above without having done anything? If he's going to make the claim he did, why waste all that effort actually making the changes?
Of course perhaps he did make the changes, and he might yet point to some of them to prove that he was not lying. But so far, we have no reason to believe him. And even if he does point to some, the fact that he says they were made under different names means that we can't be sure that he's told us about all of them, so he could still be lying about never being challenged and never having been blocked.
Philip J. Rayment 08:44, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I think his point is that statements that support CPA's mindset are subject to less (or no) critical scrutiny, whereas established facts that refute CPA's assertions are usually removed or ridiculed. The numerous pages "disproving" evolution by using arguments that show no understanding of evolution are the best example (especially the anti-Lenski stuff = that just makes Andy Schlafly look like a fool). This entire wiki smacks of anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-liberal propaganda. All someone has to do to contribute is propagate those agenda, and the door's wide open. Someone refutes those assertions, and they're banned. Some "encyclopedia" this is... --KathrynMonroe 08:41, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
The asserions may have been rejected, but they have inno way been 'refuted': use a dictionary in future. And also learn to keep a civil tongue in your head. Bugler 09:28, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I know what you mean. But everybody has a right to an opinion, including Mr. Schafly and the Conservapedia sysops. The best thing to do is stay clear of anything controversial and do something positive, rather than just complaining.
KarlJaeger 08:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
KathrynMonroe, yes, I agree that that's his point, but it's still a baseless claim without his evidence. Your example of evolution is begging the question, and even though I don't like the evolution article myself, I would disagree with your assessment of it. As for Lenski, note that some did disagree on that, including at least two administrators. So that doesn't support the vandal's claim that nobody knows much about science. And you yourself are of the same irrational view that creationists, the people who started modern science, are somehow anti-science simply because they disagree with evolution! Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
As for Lenski, note that some did disagree on that, including at least two administrators. So that doesn't support the vandal's claim that nobody knows much about science. So those that disagreed with Andrew Schlafly's stand against Lenski's questionable behaviour are those who "know about science", while presumably Andy and those of us who care about truth, logic, evidence and facts rather than atheistic theory-mongering "know nothing"? I should have said the opposite, and so should you, Philip. Bugler 09:26, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure that I follow you there, Bugler, and I don't recall what you said that should have been the opposite. But I stand by my comments then that the Lenski matter should not have been pursued. I totally reject your inference, if I'm reading you correctly, that I'm not interested in truth, logic, evidence, and facts, and in fact I seem to recall you denying that facts were important (in a different context). The remarks above about Lenski were made in the context of a discussion about nobody at Conservapedia knowing much about science, so the point of my response was that the mere fact that there was disagreement on the Lenski issue tends to refute that as evidence, regardless of who was right and who was wrong. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
It seems he is telling the truth (see microbiology page) however if his edits on other science pages are of a similar nature, then an expertise in the field in question wont really help. If his other edits involve false dates and names as well, then perfect knowledge regarding the history and people involved in the fields is necessary as well.--ScottA 14:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
We don't need perfect knowledge to check an edit. A few Google queries are usually more than enough. And if you can't find a source for something, remove the claim. Of course, it's a dull and thankless task, so the people here naturally focus instead on things they like (if they stay at all). What I wonder is why we even allow articles on such topics when we don't have the expertise and/or manpower to make sure those articles are more than pure invention. The central CP editor team is very small, so it would be natural to limit the scope of the project to things those people can and will monitor easily, at least until we get momentum. --AlanS 16:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
As I pointed out above, even if it's shown that he's telling the truth about making some edits, he still may not be telling the truth about never being challenged or blocked.
No, we don't need perfect knowledge to check an edit, but unless there's something there to raise one's suspicions, you're not going to go and check every edit you see someone make.
Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Funny, I already refuted Craig's claim ("My 'facts' remain to this day, which I think shows that nobody here has much idea about science") on another website, but I guess he had to go and try it here as well. Really, Craig, bragging is not an endearing quality. HelpJazz 16:53, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Christian Values not on display here

Not all Christians dislike Obama. I very much hope he'll become the next President of the United States.

God should stay out of politics. Good people of both persuasions are in his flock. Please don't narrow the world such.

I want to contribute here, but every time I feel tempted I'm driven off by this constant 'Liberal' (As a European, I find that word meaningless) 'bashing'.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChester (talk)

As a "Lying, Marxist liberal" myself, I agree that the attitude of CP (which goes way beyond just having a conservative viewpoint) is very off-putting. That being said, I hope you decide to stay and contribute; there are a lot of articles that need creating. Being a contributor has been a very rewarding experience for me.--Frey 18:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
You're both liberals and you will see many truths here that you have probably never seen before. Open your minds, and you'll do yourselves and those around a big favor as you learn. Welcome.--Aschlafly 20:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Andy, User:JChester, the first person you spoke to, doesn't appear to be a "liberal". According to his user page, he is an Irish priest who taught in a Catholic school. I don't think you should be quite so dismissive of him. He's clearly already opened his mind to the Lord. DRuss 21:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Speaking just for myself, I've gotten a lot more out of researching and writing articles for CP than from reading the articles on CP. Sorry, A.--Frey 21:19, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
While it's true that 'if you want to learn, write a book' has much to recommend it, Frey, you're doing yourself a disservice by not reading the articles by our team of editors, expert in so many areas. And if it is your political views that cause you to close your mind to articles that are conservative in tone, then you are not only not getting the best of CP; you are not getting the best you can out of life. Bugler 04:16, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

JChester, when you say that "God should stay out of politics", I take it you mean that people should not make political decisions (e.g. who to vote for) with Christianity in mind? If so, then do you think that, as a Christian, you would be happy to have a Muslim, Hindu, or animist (for example) to be President? (I'm not suggesting that Obama is any of those things; I'm just challenging your statement with a hypothetical example). Philip J. Rayment 22:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As a Jewish person, I'd prefer to have a Muslim president who didn't govern based on his religious beliefs than a Jewish person who pushed Jewish values into the law Mikek 00:04, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
It's not for us to say where God should and shouldn't be involved. That smacks of the grossest arrogance, of the kind that caused the fall of Lucifer. God is present in all our activities. I wonder that a supposed priest would express such a view. Bugler 04:16, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Mikek, if he doesn't govern on the basis of his Muslim beliefs, what beliefs will he govern on the basis of?
Bugler, I think that JChester was not meaning that God shouldn't be involved in politics (despite wording it that way), but that we shouldn't involve God in politics.
Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Many political decisions are unrelated to religious beliefs, or are only related if you choose to interpret it as such. If a Jewish politician planned to mandate that all businesses close on Saturday, or ban the consumption of pork products and cheeseburgers, I wouldn't support them, whether I personally choose to follow Jewish law or not. That's why I'm liberal on many social issues - for example, homosexuality is primarily a political issue because many religions say it's bad. It has very little basis in social effects of homosexuality, there's just an "eww" factor, and the Bible says no (I know there are many social effects listed in the article here, but even if I granted those points, which I don't, there are many legal activities that can cause the same effects, ranging from heterosexual relationships to alcohol use). There are some things that should be governed by the government and some things, which if left alone have little effect on the people as a whole, be governed by groups that have their opinions on it, and have no legal authority in their governance (eg churches). To avoid making a trainwreck here, if you want to respond to the social views section, my talk page is lonely. Mikek 14:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I've responded on your talk page. Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps it is not a matter of where God is and is not involved, perhaps it is merely a matter of where His name is dragged for the sake of political success. Perhaps God's hand will remain in all works regardless of whether we use His name as both a neccesary and sufficient reason for our actions as though we know His mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk)

As the protagonist in Cold Mountain said to the preacher, 'I think God is sick of having to choose a side'. This is what I mean by the bible thumping politics. I'm a priest and I have no right to tell my congregation how to vote. This is what I mean by what I said.

As to the whole 'Liberal' thing, this is a divide that confuses me somewhat. I don't understand the division in America between Liberals and conservatives. All I know is that I devoted to spending my entire life to correcting false attacks on protestants - both verbal and physical. This wild hysteria and rhetoric attributed to Liberals here has the same current as that of Belfast, where Catholics and Protestants hated each other (And still do in some places). Anyone who has spent time in that city during the 80s will easily tell you this. The hatred I see expressed here and on the main page - and the self righteousness know-it-alls who claim their politics is right and the adversary is wrong are sad, sad people who have a very narrow and dim view of the world. And I feel sorry for them.

Luke 6:37-42

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.'

He also told them this parable: 'Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Taken from Bible Gateway, to get it just right) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChester (talk)

Former Hitler Youth Warns

I find this headline a tad strange as it seems that we should agree with former Hitler Youth. Maybe reword it for something a little less inflamatory like "Reformed Hitler Youth" or something similar. The way it looks now makes it look to mean something that clearly isn't true. I may be a filthy Canadian Liberal but even if it were a slam against McCain, it still wouldn't sit well. it just looks... wrong.--Incide 19:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Having followed that link, I find it a little disturbing that this guy is validating his opinion on the US elections based on being a former Hitler Youth member. Bear in mind that membership was mandatory from 1936 to 1945, so all it really confirms is that he was growing up in Germany during that era. Obviously that may give him some insight into political extremism, but billing his book as 'by a former Hitler Youth' seems more than a little sensationalist, especially when most former members would prefer to dissassociate themself from the movement. Sideways 19:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Not every German youth was a HJ pansy. Haven't you seen Swing Kids? HDCase 11:08, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Gang-like?

I'm a bit confused at the Hudson murders being described as gang-like. Not only is there no mention in the linked story of the murders being gang-related, but this murder does not "sound" gang-like in the least. Some clarification is called for. Thanks. Thecount 20:28, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The 7-year-old was executed gang-style with a bullet to his head. Enough said.--Aschlafly 20:50, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
A) Shooting people in the head is not a method exclusive to gangs. B) To quote this CNN story, the Cook County medical examiner's office died of multiple gunshot wounds, and did not release information as to the location of the boy's wounds.--XavierJ 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Look harder. "A source close to the Chicago murder investigation says Julian King suffered at least one gun shot to the head."[7] Yes, that is gang-style with respect to killing children that way. Typical criminals, even murderers, would not harm a child in such a manner.--Aschlafly 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
You get your "news" from this site? Wow--I did not see that one coming...--XavierJ 09:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
A typical murderer? Wouldn't a typical murderer... murder people? With a gun? Corry 21:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Also, I think you're ignoring the larger point, Andy. If you're going to tie this case to Obama's voting record, it only works if this murderer had contact with his gang prior to the killing. There's no evidence that he did, and in fact the CPD said it appeared to be a domestic issue. The two statements on the page have no correlation. Thecount 21:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

It isn't Gang-Style Andy, it's typically known as EXECUTION-STYLE. Because that's how they execute people sometimes. Do gangs sometimes kill people execution style? yes. is everyone murdered that way the victim of gang violence? no. the article says nothing about gangs. it just say he was killed with at least one bullet to the head. Nothing about gangs. -nAllen

Stop evading the truth like a liberal. Simple logic dictates that this is the work of gang activity, as it shows their trademark. Don't argue with evidence you don't have just to deflect from Obama's hideous record. RodWeathers 12:12, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
There's ample evidence that this isn't the result of gang activity; that's why the CPD is treating it as a domestic issue. Your attempts to shoehorn a political angle into a family tragedy are despicable. Thecount 14:14, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

FWIW, the "suspect" "person of interest" in question is the estranged husband of Jennifer Hudson's sister. I'm not sure how prohibiting him from having contact with a street gang could have prevented this tragedy. This looks to me more like domestic violence than gang activity. Our thoughts and prayers should be with the family, who have suffered such a horrible loss. --Hsmom 16:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah. a classic example of Andy Schlafly's argument style. act like you have irrefutable evidence, but once you're proved wrong, you quietly disappear from the argument. where'd you go andy? isn't it still gang-like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LukeSW (talk)

"LukeSW", read and learn, and then comment. "Police think [the suspect] may have had an accomplice ...."[8] The suspect had gotten drugs from others, and gangs are heavily involved in drug dealing and this type of heinous crime. Moreover, the statement about Obama's voting record is 100% accurate, and you don't even challenge it.--Aschlafly 10:35, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
You're relying on anecdotal evidence Andy. Yes, sometimes people acquire drugs from gangs but not always. Besides, it's not like that law would have done much. there are laws against murdering aren't there? not to mention that he'd already violated parole in other ways. so he would have violated that aspect as well. your attempt to tie Obama to this tragedy have failed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LukeSW (talk)
Didn't that bill pass anyway? It didn't seem to help . . . FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 10:37, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Give it up, guys. The laws against murder didn't stop this crime, and it's no consolation to the victims' families now. A law against gang activity by convicts could have stopped this crime, but Obama opposed it.--Aschlafly 13:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
To be clear the law in question DID pass (although obviously Obama voted against it). So sadly in this particular case the law against gang activity by convicts did not stop the crime. Here is a link to the actual bill. --DRamon 13:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
The version that passed may have been watered down based on Obama's opposition. In final form the bill (from your cite) is virtually worthless:
"Provides that it is a Class A misdemeanor for a person who is sentenced to probation, conditional discharge or supervision for a criminal offense or who is released on bail to knowingly have direct or indirect contact with a streetgang member if a condition of that sentence or bond is for the person to refrain from contact with streetgang members.
--Aschlafly 22:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Great insight Andy! I completely didn't think about how the bill may have been watered down based on Obama's opposition, which I now see as quite likely. Once again you prove how being open-minded can lead us to good insights. --DRamon 11:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
You're being hopelessly naive if you think this scum would have obeyed a law against gang contact when he had no trouble violating the much more serious law against murder three time. Unless you think it's important to nail a guy for a parole violation on top of three murder charges. Thecount 22:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
It seems like this is quite a stretch. Ignore for a minute that there is no proof that this is gang-related (in fact the police involved in the investigation seem to think otherwise). Obama voted against a law which passed anyway, and now he's blamed for the ineffectiveness of the law, all so he can be linked to this heinous crime? Is there any evidence that his opposition forced a change in the bill (I'd think if he did force a change, he'd have voted for it)? It seems that nothing will stop the attempt to connect Obama to gangs and murder. It's possible that Barack Obama is a decent human being, and is horrified by this murder, too. Why try to force a flimsy connection to make him seem like an inhuman monster? Why do you hate him so much? --KathrynMonroe 22:56, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
You're both so clueless about law-and-order that it is hardly worth debating further. Obama didn't vote against the law because it did too little, obviously. As to "Thecount", the point is to arrest the felon when he first has contact with a gang so that the ultimate result of the gang activity never happens.--Aschlafly 23:03, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think you're clueless, Thecount. I respect your opinion and value your comment.--KathrynMonroe 13:15, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Idol

I'm being kinda picky, but Jennifer Hudson was only on American Idol for a short time. Her most notable achievement was probably an Acadamy Award (for the movie DreamGirls). That would be the thing to mention on the news section. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 08:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's religion

For those that continually criticize Conservapedia for saying that Obama is a Muslim, here is some news that proves our views are in line with much of the population. A recent poll found that 23% are intelligent and independent minded enough to ignore the MSM's propaganda and realize that Obama is in fact a Muslim. --DRamon 11:25, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Good to see. It's sad that 23% is the HIGH point in the nation, though. At least the word is spreading. RodWeathers 13:52, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This is scary. What if he is a Muslim? Why does that even matter? As Colin Powell put it, Are Muslim children disqualified from ever becoming President of the US? I will pray for you. JChester 14:05, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it's sad when people's words, personal statements, and history are not enough to say "he is a Christian". I realize he's a liberal Christian, but it seems silly to say that he's Muslim based on heresay. There are so many legitimate reasons to not want him in office, from his extremly leftist politics, to his flip flopping, to his unwillingness to lay out details of his plans. I don't see why the "he is a Muslim" thing has any traction. Shouldn't we focus on the political things about him that are seriously a problem and would lead to a worse economy, a threatened military position, a strained relationship with other world leaders, an huge taxes? Aren't those always better politics than "he's a black Muslim maybe gay terrorist friend" smear job? I dislike that our party has decided we won't address real issues about his policies and continue to worry out things that are likely wrong but are irrelevant if they are not wrong.--JeanJacques 14:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
The linked article says 23% of TEXANS believe he is a Muslim, and that most other national polls only show 5-10% believing. The article also goes on to say that the view is false. So no, "much of the population" is not in line with that view.--ScottA 17:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

since when is being muslim a cause for fear? So much fear has been brought into this election, form both sides, though I suppose that we conservatives have been more vocal, The Liberals are afraid of Palin because her record of being very conservative and working with both parties, and Conservatives have brought multiple things into the race such as Barack Obama being: Muslim, Socialist, A terrorist and my personal favorite (thank you conservapedia) being gay, I think that a lot of these accusations are phony. Though obviously McCain is the better canidate and the better man and as such, he should do his best to call off these baseless attacks that bring needless fear, even if he loses, he will know that he was the better man, after all isn`t that the most important thing? I am not disagreeing with the fact that Obama is a muslim, I`m saying that it isn't probable, and if it is true and is released, then he will most likely lose because of fear of terrorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnQNixon (talk)

I think voters like to know whom they are voting for, and many voters don't believe for a moment that Obama is a Christian convert from Islam, or that his father was Muslim atheist, or countless other claims that Obama has made in connection with religion.--Aschlafly 23:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Main page news suggestion

Man-made global warming inequivocally found. Conservatives should unite and show that they are more responsible than Liberals by taking concrete steps towards a more environmental-friendly society. --JulianAdderley 17:06, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Please post Main Page news suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]. BrianCo 17:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but that page is open to members of the Wikiproject:News project, and I am unlikely to get membership there anytime soon. --JulianAdderley 17:54, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

LA Times "supressing" tape

If the Times was wanting to protect Obama, they wouldn't have written the original story. They would have acquired the tape and kept their mouths shut. According to the Times (unless Palin or Andy have evidence to the contrary) they were provided with the tape on the condition that they did not release it. I notice that the front page manages to miss the story about McCain chairing a group that gave over $400,000 to Khalidi. It could be that McCain would have preferred that Palin kept her mouth shut, but then she's just so mavericky. Boomcoach 12:58, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Your statement lacks logic. One person at the Times may have approved the original story, only to be overruled by those at the Times who endorsed Obama.--Aschlafly 17:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberals control so called impartial science journal.

The science journal "Nature" has endorsed Hussein Obama for President. More evidence that the so called "scientists" are just part of the liberal Hollywood media elite. SamSmith1 13:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

The elitists show their true colors. RodWeathers 17:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Will post. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:29, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Could I just ask why "Nature" is liberal exactly? Is SamSmith1 implying that the people that submit papers or participate in the review process aren't scientists? Does that mean other prominent scientific journals are also dominated by non-scientists? Isn't a greater problem that Nature is based in London as opposed to it having specific political views? Dare I suggest that Nature might have endorsed Obama because he might encourage scientific research in general more than McCain? Joldy0 22:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think the reason is because Nature supports things Conservapedia doesn't like, and so gets branded with the generic dismissive insult "liberal." In order to be considered good science by Conservapedia, the findings have to be supportive of the idea that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Anything that does not (such as showing examples of evolution) is dismissed as "liberal" brain-washing. Ditto for politics: support McCain = good, support Obama = filthy liberals. A corollary to that: it's news if it draws some tenuous connection between Obama and some evil act.
At first when I came here, I thought it could be a source of information to parallel that of Wikipedia. My father taught me never to trust one source of info, but to collect many sources and evaluate it all to find the truth. I should have been forewarned by the name. It turns out this this wiki is a place for ASchlafly and the sysops to put an "encyclopedic" veneer on their right-wing (hate-filled) blog, and a place for ASchlafly's students to turn in their homework. I've seen many religious and/or conservative people leave after a few days or weeks after being turned off by all of this.--KathrynMonroe 09:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that "Nature" supports things that Conservapedia "doesn't like". That is, we disagree that "Nature" does support things like evolution, yet your comment amounts to saying "I'm right so you're wrong". In a similar vein, in order for something to be considered good science, we expect it to follow the scientific method, but dispute that evolution meets this requirement. Your comment amounts to presuming that it does, and therefore criticising us for not believing that you are right. Philip J. Rayment 10:26, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Kathryn, back up your statement that you've "seen many religious and/or conservative people leave after a few days or weeks." I think your statement is deceitful. Liberals, and perhaps yourself, often don't like hearing the truth, and liberals do leave (more often they are blocked for vandalism). The truth is not a popularity contest.--Aschlafly 10:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Certainly some who claimed to be religious and/or conservative have expressed their dissatisfaction and left, but the problem is in knowing for sure where they stand. You could ask her to prove her claim that they were really religious and/or conservative, but then she could equally as validly ask you to prove your claim that it's "liberals" who leave (or were blocked). Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Exactly. Their are extremely few cases of religious and/or conservative people dissatisfied with this site. Typically deceitful liberals leave some parthian shot about how they fit those categories, but viewing their edits inevitably proves otherwise. RodWeathers 12:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Given that, judging by your edits, you've only been here for about five weeks apart from a couple of days last Christmas and a couple of days in February, I wouldn't think you'd be a position to be aware of that. Philip J. Rayment 08:02, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Baylor study

Interesting post on the Baylor University study. I think it’s been featured before. However, I notice you link to someone writing about the study for your source instead of the study itself. If you do examine the study, you’ll find the results are not entirely accurately represented. The study can be found here, click Download American Piety at the bottom of the box on the right for the actual 74 page survey and results. If you look at page 51 you will see people who describe their religious tradition as “none” score lower in “paranormal” belief than all groups except Evangelical Christians and Jews (beating Catholics, mainline Protestants, Black Protestants, and “other”, as well as the overall average). The average scores actually don’t vary much at all between any groups. Furthermore if you look at page 48 you will see that far and away the most common “paranormal” belief is that some alternative medicine is effective. Now, you can call things like acupuncture and herbal remedies controversial, or even quackery, but they are not paranormal the way psychics, astrology, or haunted houses are. The ability for dreams to foretell the future is something backed up by the Bible, keep in mind (remember Joseph?). The survey is flawed in that it doesn’t break down by religious affiliation which of these so-called “paranormal” activities the adherents believe, so one cannot say which group is more likely to believe in any specific one of the individual examples. Also food for thought: people who attend church weekly are about twice as likely as those who never do to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even though that has been entirely discredited (page 39). TylerC 14:47, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

McCain pulls ahead!

According to Friday's daily Zogby poll, McCain pulled ahead of Obama by 1%!! Even the liberal pollsters now can't deny that McCain has momentum, and now has a huge change of overtaking Obama nationwide on Election Day. --DRamon 17:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

DRamon, you may have misread that poll result. McCain is at 44.1%, Obama at 49.1%. Zogby says that McCain "outpolled" today, but single-day polls are inaccurate - too much volatility. That's why they all average over a few days; Zogby reported a single day. The three-day rolling poll numbers still show Obama ahead by 5%. There's a good analysis of polls on 538.com. Currently, that meta-poll analysis site has Obama winning 344-to-194 electoral votes. The website assigns probabilities of outcomes, based on margins of error. As a result, they come up with McCain having a 3.8% chance of winning the election.--KathrynMonroe 19:11, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Oh please, that's ridiculous. Where do you find these sites? Realclearpolitics, which has a tendency to favor Democrats, tracks it at 16.5%. While it is true a single day is inconclusive unless there is followup, we all know that changes can take place in the days before an election and it wouldn't be the first time a shift has taken place right before voting occurred. Recent stories about Obama, if they actually reached the press, are pretty bad. An illegal aunt, praise for a man at an event where he's villifying Israel, previous speeches that smack of solid socialism, etc. We'll just have to see. Learn together 19:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
OK, I think that we can agree, though, that McCain has not "pulled ahead." As to 3.8% or 16.5%, of course there is disagreement since these are probabilities. I note, though, that Realclearpolitics has a similar prediction for the electoral outcome: Obama with about 170 more than McCain.
Learn together, when you say RCP tracks it at 16.5%, are you referring to the InTrade odds displayed on their homepage? If so, a comparison with the fivethirtyeight.com probability is not valid. InTrade odds are based on gamblers putting their money on the election outcome (not unlike the odds I'm tracking here). The probability is not based on any specific assessment of the polling data, but rather on the views of the multitude of gamblers (who may or may not using polling data, and may be factoring in other information also). The fivethirtyeight.com probability is based on one statistician's mathematical model of the outcome, using only the available polling data in every state as inputs. I'm not saying one is more valid than the other, but they are measuring different things. I will say however, that the model used by fivethirtyeight is extremely thorough, and I (an actuary) have not found any major problems with it. In one sense you make a valid point - the InTrade odds factor in the gamblers' view of the likelihood of there being some unforeseen event that will change the course of the election, whereas the polling data does not. However, KathrynMonroe's comment was purely about the current state of the polls (using fivethirtyeight's model to support her point), so reference to RCP's odds (which are not based on polls) does not refute it. It's also invalid to slip in the comment about RCP favouring Democrats (implying that they may be underestimating McCain's chances), as they are simply reporting the factual prices available at InTrade.-- Ferret Nice old chat 23:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Just a minor point: RCP tends to favor Republicans, not Democrats. [1] But I agree with LearnTogether that at this point, we'd be better off waiting three days until we get the results of the only poll that matters.Thecount 00:30, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
I've found over time that the "gamblers" have a much better handle on things than the people who think they've found a formula, since the formula guys have a tendency to be rather rigid and can't see beyond their own shortcomings and their own biases, which are obvious in the case of the 538 site. I could put similar formulas to match what I wish to see, but he doesn't account for polling number changes. How well did his model predict the 10 point swing in 1980, Ford's roaring back in '76, the sudden turn where Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, Kerry losing in 2004 when until the last day it seemed unlikely (although not impossible), even Dukkakis' upswing at the end of 1988 to take a few states. I don't think McCain will win, but anyone who puts the odds at less than 15-20% is sniffing more than the sweet aroma of life. Learn together 01:49, 2 November 2008 (EST)

What are those obvious biases on the 538.com site? Murray 19:37, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Liberal Media Mocks Palin

Talk about childish; some Liberal radio hosts decide to prank Palin. [9] RodWeathers 21:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Childish? Definitely. Funny? Absolutely. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I voted for Tony Blair, but I still find Jon Culshaw's prank call to him hilarious. Why does it matter?
KarlJaeger 12:13, 2 November 2008 (EST)
KarlJaeger, you are hopeless. The call is intended to draw the candidate into indiscretion (a case of projection of Liberal atributes), and is a piece of political spite all too typical of leftists. Your naivety - I will flatter you by assuming it is that - speaks volumes. Bugler 12:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Sure, it makes her look a little stupid, but that's politics for you. You just get up, dust yourself down and fight the election. She seems like a nice enough person, acts like a good sport even when she's been had. You Yanks cry foul when somebody so much as sneezes at one of your politicians. I just don't get it. British politicians just take it in their stride. Nobody bases their vote on things like that. KarlJaeger 12:25, 2 November 2008 (EST)
For example; Jon Culshaw prank calls Tony Blair. Funny! [10]
Respect for state institutions is a fundamental of democracy. Straight-playing politicians should be treated straightly. Bugler 12:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Ah, see, that's where our views diverge. I feel that a hostile media (to an extent) is beneficial to a democracy. It keeps the politicians on their toes. If they wanted not to be in the public scrutiny, they should be civil servants, not running for high office. A complacent media is just as bad as an overly hostile one. KarlJaeger 12:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I don't think we disagree on principles. A well regulated democracy requires on observant media, certainly not a complacent one. But oversight can be made without resort to this kind of demeaning trickery, which lowers respect for politicians and media alike. Bugler 12:46, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I wasn't saying that we need things like this call (though I was saying we need to not have a media that is afraid to be aggresive), I was saying that it was harmless fun. They remained in (relatively) good taste, and Palin remained a good sport.
Nobody is going to base their vote on that! KarlJaeger 12:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Nobody is going to consciously base their vote on that. But most people don't vote purely on policies, or purely objectively. Instead, they vote on impressions. A prank like this has the potential (depending on how the politician comes through it) of affecting people's impressions, and in that way can affect the vote. Philip J. Rayment 15:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)
So? That only applies if all such pranks are directed at one group of politicians. And I know where this is headed: "evil Liberal media is out to decieve the American people, all of whom are normally good conservatives into voting for Teh Ebul Liberals". The fact is, media, and particularly newspapers, pander to their readers' prejudices more than they shape them. The vast majority of people reading The Daily Telegraph are going to be right-inclined, before the paper spins the news that way for them. (Sorry, I don't know the equivalent US papers). Same goes for the Guardian and left-wingers. Which means that the influence a paper has will be in direct proportion to the number of people who agree with its views. If truly, all media outlets save Fox News are run by liberals, then America is a more liberal country. Since conservative governments seem quite common in the USA, I must conclude that this is not the case, and thus that not all media outlets are controlled by liberals. QED. KarlJaeger 16:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)
It doesn't necessarily apply only if they are directed at one group. In trying to deceive someone (which is what it is), a politician of one side might fall for it and the other one mightn't, for reasons other than their own gullibility, so the "prank" ends up having different effects. You might have a point if they did all politicians (when those that fall for it and those that don't would tend to balance out), but when there's only one or two or so, there's no reason to think that the result will be even-handed.
Secondly, Even if what you say about the media reflecting the people is correct (more on that below), I would think that playing this prank is something that the more liberal media would do more than the more conservative media
To some extent, the media does "pander" to their readers. But there's no reason to think that the media accurately represents their readers' views. I recall reading years ago about a survey (the figures have probably changed since) which showed that 80% of the American population were opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists supported abortion.
Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)
So? 80% of journalists prove nothing. If 80% of people oppose abortion, then, 80% of newspapers bought, for example, will oppose abortion. I'd say it's quite likely that the journalists do not accurately represent the population. But in a free economy, broadly speaking, media that better represents the views of the populace will thrive. KarlJaeger 13:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I don't believe that 80% of newspapers bought will oppose abortion just because 80% oppose abortion. For one thing, you don't buy a newspaper solely because it agrees 100% with your views. It may agree more than an alternative newspaper, but you have to take the bad with the good. Further, your argument amounts to saying that the 80% of journalists who supported abortion worked for the 20% of papers bought by people who supported abortion, whilst the other 80% of papers sold that opposed abortion were produced by only 20% of the journalists! I don't accept that these figures would go that far against the rule of thumb that the more sales a newspaper has, the more journalists it can afford to hire. Therefore, the newspapers that make up 80% of sales would employ roughly 80% of all journalists. And one more point; your argument also assumes that a given newspaper will employ only pro- or anti- journalists, rather than a mixture. Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 3 November 2008 (EST)

McCain's odds improving

The betting market is starting to see more hope for McCain in this week's election. Update here. -- Ferret Nice old chat 22:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

healthcare

People get rejected by health insurers all the time for having a pre-existing condition. that isn't some crazy thing unique to state-sponsored healthcare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LukeSW (talk)

True. I'd like to see some justification of that item myself. Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Obama's superpowers

"Doctors expose the mind control techniques used by Obama" What "Doctors"? It's an anonymously published article in a quack journal. The only reason it's here is because Andy used to work for the journal. [11] Really, I think publishing quackery and scaremongering like this lowers our credibility. HDCase 16:56, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Obamas Grandmother Dies

I wouldn't vote for him but is always sad to see someone succumb to cancer (I have experienced it myself) so my prayers go to the family. AdamBeyer 18:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Election Day

If Obama wins the election, will all these slanderous criticisms about his religion and his associations cease? This is the wing of the Republican party that condemned those who opposed Bush during war time for bordering on treason. Last time I checked, we're still at war, and accusing the newly elected President of having ties to terrorists, be it William Ayers, Hamas or Hezbollah, seems... well you tell me.--JohnSeymourOO 23:27, 3 November 2008 (EST)

A President elected through voter fraud is not my President. QWest 00:17, 4 November 2008 (EST)
So you're willing to validate all the liberals who say Bush II wasn't their president for the first 4 years of his term either? There are plenty of people who would still argue he was not legitimately elected and that there was fraud in Florida. If you reject Obama if he wins because you believe there was voter fraud you simply validate liberals who felt/feel the same way about Bush. - EternalCritic
What does that mean? If he becomes President, will you ignore laws or policies for the next four years? Will you pay taxes to McCain and not the IRS? I don't want to sound too snarky, but I don't understand what your comment really means. If it just means that you'll spend the next four years complaining, then OK, I understand.--KathrynMonroe 08:18, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Jokes on the main page

President Obama? Brace yourself for "live video from Palestine where members of Hamas will be celebrating in the streets. There will be video reaction taped by Al Qaeda and uploaded to their websites, there will be celebration in Tehran and Damascus. It's going to be a party to never forget!" If we're going to have jokes on the main page, they should be clearly labeled as such, so there are no misunderstandings. This one, however, should be removed, as the linked page has some very offensive content. --Hsmom 07:59, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This has been up for most of the day and it's utter nonsense. Can we get rid of it please? --Hsmom 13:36, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Deleted. --Ed Poor Talk 13:53, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Police Force? No - "Army" of Volunteers Helping Those in Need

Remember the Boston Massacre? Remember that one of the conditions for the American Revolution was a standing army ordered to act as an intimidating police force against the civilian population? If Obama has his way, that will return This sounded odd to me, so I looked into it. Here's an article giving a context for Obama's words:

Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers. "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said. Obama had first outlined many of the proposals he talked about Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students. For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service. Obama said he realizes there will be skeptics, but stressed that greater public service will make the nation safer.[12]

So he's talking about getting young people involved in public service - increasing America's security not through police force, but through good works at home and abroad. "The teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia" - these folks aren't carrying guns. One could argue whether a bunch of college students doing good works on their summer vacation increases American security or not, of course, but that's not the way this issue is presented on the front page. I think this item, as it is currently worded, needs to be removed from the front page, at least until more substantial proof of "an intimidating police force against the civilian population" is provided. --Hsmom 08:16, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Removed. Thanks for the suggestion and the link. --DeanStalk 08:55, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks a bunch! --Hsmom 09:03, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hooking Up? - and Adding a Reference

The crimes against Jennifer Hudson's family highlight Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois for convicts to hook up with gangs. Can we add this cite as a reference on Obama's voting record? [13] It's in a previous item but it also relates to this one, as it verifies the statement on Obama's vote. Can we also change for convicts to hook up with gangs to "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang"? The phrase "hook up with" in some circles implies sexual contact, which is not the meaning we're going for here. Here's what I'm suggesting, in ready to cut-and-paste form:

The crimes against Jennifer Hudson's family highlight Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".[14]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsmom (talk)

Updated. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 08:36, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Very nice. Thank you. Could you take a look at the other concerns I've found (if you have a minute)? Gotta have the front page all spiffy for election day! --Hsmom 08:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Minor formatting issue

A study carried out at Baylor University ... they are in fact its biggest proponents." Link Can we remove the word "Link" from the end of this item? I couldn't see the code to discern the specific error, but most of the main page items simply have the URL in square brackets, which produces a numbered link, which should be sufficient.

(Yes, I'm doing on of my periodic fact-and-grammar checks of the front page. I'm not taking sides on this stuff, just looking at it with an editor's eye!) --Hsmom 08:40, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 08:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Super-Duper! Thanks! --Hsmom 08:55, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Source?

A Democrat asks rhetorically in an email being widely circulated: "Can you name just one thing Barack Obama has done for our country???" While this raises an interesting question, there is no source for it at all. A Democrat? Which one? Can we link to the full email? I Googled it but could only find the main page item - no other source. Unless we can document this in some way, it seems kind of odd to have it on the front page. (And why is everything on the front page about Obama? Why don't we have more about McCain?) --Hsmom 08:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I meant to ask about this too. I also Googled the "widely-circulated" email, but also only got one result. It would be very useful to have a link, or a name, or the full text posted somewhere. DRuss 09:07, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Even then, is it relevant? So many of these "widely circulated" e-mails are lies and hoaxes that they don't serve as much of an information source. If you ever have some time to kill, take a look at www.snopes.com. It's a webpage that examines urban myths. (Please note that I am not advertising- I'm not connected to Snopes in any way) Corry 09:37, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I'd say it's relevant, as at this point there's no indication that this actually is a widely-circulated email, or that it is from a major democrat. It could just be a random Clinton supporter whose email was widely-circulated around their office. If this is a major, front-page-worthy story, then why are there no other hits for the quote from the supposed email? Is it paraphrased from the email? Either way, without link there's no way to verify any of the claims in the story, as Hsmom pointed out above. (FWIW, I do regularly read Snopes. It's a good site that only rarely has lapses in the quality of its research) DRuss 11:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I meant to ask if the e-mail is relevant. We might be arguing the same thing here. Corry 12:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, I agree with both you and Hsmom completely, though I admit I misunderstood your first sentence until just now (I had a late night last night, and woke up early this morning). Input from an admin on this would be helpful, rather than silently letting it just stay on the front page. Where did the admin in question get this from? How did they know it was "widely circulated", if noone else on the entirety of the internet seems to mention the most important bit quoted on the main page? DRuss 13:42, 4 November 2008 (EST)

It's typical of partisans to strengthen their criticisms of a target by claiming a source who is supposedly loyal to the target. That's why Conservapedia gets dozens of pranksters every week claiming to be Christian or conservative.
The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth. A new source with no track record is useless, especially if it's anonymous.
Conservapedia is more trustworthy than Wikipedia, because most of the senior staff are real people (not anonymous hacks hiding behind their clever pseudonyms). --Ed Poor Talk 13:58, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Since we all agree, perhaps someone who has the powers to do so can actually remove the item? --Hsmom 14:16, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for this place of sanity on the internet

Thank you, all editors of Conservapedia, for this place of sanity on the Internet. Sadly enough, the internet seems to be ridden with liberal and atheist views, and I'm glad to see there is an encyclopaedia focused on bringing the Truth to the world. The Truth is to be found in the bible after all, and these 'scientists' are only deluding themselves, hoping they can go on without the obvious Truth that can be found in the bible. Now, I'd like to help, but I'm no expert on wiki editing, and English isn't my native language, so I hope I did this right. EuropeanChristian 09:12, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Greenhouse Gasses

Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he will intentionally drive coal companies out of business (which affects the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio) in order to reduce phony "greenhouse gases"[20] Why do we refer to greenhouse gasses as "phony"? The issue is whether or not they increase global warming, not whether or not they exist in the first place. I suggest we remove the word "phony".

As to driving coal companies out of business, this is what the cited article quotes Obama as saying:


Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.[15]

Now let's look at McCain's plan: (Sorry for the over-use of caps - they're in the original)

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options. How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work? A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions. The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.[16]

Aren't they both proposing the same thing? Obama is being more frank in pointing out that the cap and trade system will discourage the building of new coal plants by making it prohibitively expensive, but McCain's discussion of "market forces" says the same thing (though more diplomatically). I'd love to see a more nuanced discussion of the differences in the candidates' plans. (And do any third party candidates take a different position on the issue?) In the meantime, we can get one of McCain's positions on the main page by using a more accurate description of the issue, perhaps something like this:

Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that, under his cap-and-trade plan for reducing greenhouse gasses, "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted".[17] John McCain also favors using a cap-and-trade plan to "allow for the gradual reduction of emissions". [18] --Hsmom 09:28, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Updated. Thanks for the suggestion. The difference in the policies is this: Obama's plan is punitive - it penalizes companies whereas McCain's plan is "market-based" - it uses market incentives to encourage change. --DeanStalk 09:57, 4 November 2008 (EST)
DeanStalk, both policies use a "cap-and-trade" plan. The idea is that the companies have to buy "credits" to cover all of the greenhouse gasses they emit. If they have excess credits (perhaps because they've installed equipment to reduce the gasses), they can sell them to the highest bidder. As the number of credits is gradually reduced, the market price of the credits goes up - which gives more incentive for companies to reduce the amount of gasses they emit. This is true for both candidates' policies, and cap-and-trade plans in general - both use market forces to provide incentives to companies to reduce their emissions. Similarly, both plans will essentially penalize companies that produce large amounts of gasses, by requiring them to purchase credits, at market prices, to cover the amount of gasses they emit. This is my understanding, anyway - I'm not an expert, and I'd be interested to read information to the contrary, if anyone can find any. --Hsmom 10:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hsmom, look at McCain's plan again:

Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

See the profit motive? Businesses are motivated by profit.

Look at Obama's plan:

The Obama‐Biden cap‐and‐trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all industries pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these valuable emission rights away to companies on the basis of their past pollution. A small portion of the receipts generated by auctioning allowances ($15 billion per year) will be used to support the development of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements, and help develop the next generation of biofuels and clean energy vehicles – measures that will help the economy and help meet the emissions reduction targets. It will also be used to provide new funding to state and federal land and wildlife managers to restore habitat, create wildlifemigration corridors, and assist fish and wildlife to adapt to the effects of a warming climate. All remaining receipts will be used for rebates and other transition relief to ensure that families and communities are not adversely impacted by the transition to a new energy, low carbon economy." [19]

Do you see a profit motive here? I don't. Obama wants to penalize companies - "all industries pay for every ton of emissions they release" and use this money to "provide new funding to state and federal land and wildlife managers to restore habitat, create wildlife migration corridors, and assist fish and wildlife to adapt to the effects of a warming climate." This is another way Obama will redistribute the wealth. --DeanStalk 10:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

As I understand it, the profit motive of any cap-and-trade plan is the built-in incentive to reduce the amount of emissions - thus avoiding having to purchase permits for those emissions, and/or being able to sell excess permits. This is the case for both plans - the industries pay for every ton of emissions they release by buying emissions permits. McCain's plan will auction emissions permits to "support the development of advanced technologies" - a different use of the money, but spreading the wealth around just the same. Both plans require companies to pay for the right to emit each ton of greenhouse gasses by buying permits. Cap-and-trade policies in general differ in details like how the first round of emissions permits are distributed - do you give them gratis to everyone who is currently emitting gasses (thus inadvertently rewarding past polluters and penalizing those who have already taken steps to reduce their emissions), or do you sell them at a standard price, or do you auction them off - but after that, the market sets the prices as either companies sell them to one another or they are auctioned each year, gradually reducing the number available and thus driving up the prices. I think McCain is marketing his plan to folks who respond positively to phrases like "market forces", and Obama is marketing his plan to folks who respond positively to phrases like "charged to the polluter", but I don't think they're actually that different in practice. (I'm not arguing here for one plan over the other - I'm just saying that they're pretty much the same.) --Hsmom 11:33, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hsmom, no their plans are not "pretty much the same."


In fact, the candidates' cap-and-trade plans have three major differences that could prove extremely important:
  • The cap: Obama's would reduce carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050, while McCain would reduce emissions 60% below 1990 levels in that year. Obama says that 80% is "the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts." However, both candidates agree on a short-term cap reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
  • Permit allocation: Obama's plan would auction off all pollution permits to businesses, and would not give away permits to specific businesses or industries. He says that this will ensure that "no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free." McCain's plan initially gives away emissions permits to specific sectors rather than auctioning them all out. He says that starting off with many free permits would ease the transition for businesses, and that his plan would eventually auction off all permits.
  • Offsets: McCain's plan would allow unlimited purchases of domestic and international carbon offsets. This would allow U.S. businesses to produce emissions without permits as long as they paid for offsets -- equivalent emissions reductions from businesses not covered by cap-and-trade or in other countries. Obama's plan allows for "some" offsets "in the developing world," but the candidate does not support unlimited use of offsets.

Overall, Obama's plan would likely go farther in reducing carbon emissions, but McCain's plan would be less expensive to industry. [20]

Do you still think the plans are "pretty much the same?" I don't. --DeanStalk 12:03, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hsmom, here's another perspective on the differences between the two plans:


The differences Carey tries to mention go to both substance and style. On the former, McCain has made clear in his Lexington Project proposal that he wants to continue using current sources of energy while we transition to cleaner processes and renewables. Coal has always been a big part of that plan, but McCain doesn’t want to put crushing fines and other cost burdens that would decrease available energy now.

In terms of style, Obama’s offhand remarks about bankrupting coal producers demonstrates a lot of hostility towards that industry. It’s a revealing moment, as Obama talks casually about killing an entire industry in order to seize the capital for his preferred projects. Obama now wants to claim that he got taken out of context and that his plans are not much different from McCain’s, but Obama seemed a lot more sanguine about bankrupting energy providers than McCain has ever sounded. Obama did say that eliminating coal would be an “illusion”, but if he bankrupts enough of the coal producers, he could magically make that illusion a reality. [21]

I still think Obama's plan is quite different from McCain's - both in substance and style. --DeanStalk 12:20, 4 November 2008 (EST)


I'm not an expert either, but here's what it looks like to me, based solely on what's been said here, no outside sources - In McCain's plan, the government distributes sells permits up to an amount equal to the cap on emissions. You're not fined unless you have more emissions than you have permits. If you have fewer emissions than permits, then you can sell the excess permits to companies that have more emissions than permits, presumably for slightly less than what the government would fine these companies, and for more than you had to pay for the permits in the first place. All companies have a flat base expense to purchase the permits. Clean companies increase revenue to increase profits at the expense of dirty companies that increase expenses to decrease profits.
In Obama's plan, you're fined for any emissions (flat rate, or scaled?). There is no flat, up front expense, and you pay for exactly what you use. Clean companies would end up with a smaller expense than in McCain's plan, but no potential revenues. Dirty companies end up with a higher expense to the government than in McCain's plan - presumably the fine would scale up to get pretty nasty for extreme emission rates.
Summary: In McCain's plan, everybody has a flat expense with the potential for revenue to offset the expense, or additional expense on top of it (with the additional expense adding up at a higher rate than the initial expense). The incentive for being very clean is to offset the flat expense, and possibly to make a profit. In Obama's plan, there's no potential revenue (and so no potential profit), but the expenses are lower for clean companies than in McCain's plan, and the incentive is to try to eliminate the expense as much as possible. Clean companies are better off with McCain's plan when there are several dirty companies in need of extra permits, and they're better off with Obama's plan when there are few dirty companies, so less potential revenue. The government makes more money with McCain's plan when the industry is clean because of the constant revenue, and more with Obama's plan in a dirty industry because of scaling revenue.Mikek 12:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
DeanStalk, this is interesting stuff and I'm learning a lot. There are differences in the details, most markedly how to ease into the system, and how offsets work, but I still think that both plans are "market-based" - Obama's possibly more so if he initially auctions permits rather than giving them away. (Mikek, I don't think you've got it quite right - you said there is no flat, up front expense in Obama's plan, but as I understand it from DeanStalk's info, the plan calls for permits which have to be bought at auction. I assume both plans call for fines or other sanctions for companies which emit gasses for which they don't hold permits.) Let's get back to the text of the main page item:
Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that, under his cap-and-trade plan for reducing greenhouse gasses, "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted".[21] John McCain favors using a market-based cap-and-trade plan to "allow for the gradual reduction of emissions". [22]
I think that both candidates' plans are market-based (as both allow the buying and selling of permits, plus both eventually include auctioning the permits). Thus I suggest we remove the italics from the sentence about McCain. Other than that, I'm happy with the item as it currently stands.--Hsmom 13:32, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Don't lose hope!

For all the McCain supporters out there - don't lose hopes. There is still a chance, but only if you go out there and vote! Every vote can make a difference. Also, in a note of encouragement, I recently discovered that all the latest polling is done by querying merely thousands of voters, which is very insignificant compared to the millions and millions who will vote. So don't trust them - the margins of error could be huge! --DRamon 11:01, 4 November 2008 (EST)

The margins of error are usually +/- 4% for a 95% confidence interval. Statistics are funny like that. HelpJazz 14:34, 4 November 2008 (EST)
That's not true. For example, before the 1936 presidential elections, 2 million people were polled, indicating a victory for Landon, but Roosevelt won in the biggest landslide ever. You can even look this up on your [22] liberal Wikipedia if you don't believe me. --DRamon 15:40, 4 November 2008 (EST)
My liberal Wikipedia? Huh?
At any rate, your example doesn't go against my statement. For one thing, the article states "the cause of this mistake is believed to be due to improper sampling", so the actual number of samples is irrelevant. If you poll 1000 death-row inmates and ask their opinion on the death penalty your results can not be applied to the general population. However, if you ask 1000 people at random what they think about the death penalty (assuming there is no bias in the way the question is asked) you can be 95% confident that whatever answers you get represent the answers of the population to within 4% either way. Secondly, there is not a 100% confidence in the numbers, there is a 95% confidence. That means even if you show me a poll that was outside of a 4% margin of error, that doesn't disprove that the statistics work; the negative result was fully accounted for! HelpJazz 15:51, 4 November 2008 (EST)
PS: "That same year, George Gallup, an advertising executive who had begun a scientific poll, predicted that Roosevelt would win the election, based on a quota sample of 50,000 people. He also predicted that the Literary Digest would mis-predict the results." HelpJazz 15:56, 4 November 2008 (EST)
No, better that that Liberal of McCain loses. Next time we want a true, conservative candidate, not a Liberal in disguise. --Jonsen 11:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)
DRamon, polling thousands of voters is a perfectly accurate way of assessing opinion over millions of people, and the results are significant. As HelpJazz points out, as long as polling is systematic and unbiased, the margin of error is small. Yes, there are occasional exceptions (notably in the primaries), but there are so many polls giving such similar figures that I suspect the outcome will match them pretty well.
Regarding McCain, agreed. I think the Republican party are better off sitting out, and rebuilding their base. You guys fielded two awful candidates in McCain and Palin. MikeR 15:29, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Sitting out is not an option MikeR. Unlike Liberals, Conservatives do not raise the white flag of surrender just because the going gets tough. I voted for McCain-Palin and I encourage every American to do the same. The alternative of an Obama presidency, backed by veto proof democratic majorities in the house and senate is too horrible to contemplate.--Saxplayer 16:14, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Consolidating Hudson Story

Here's a consolidation of the two items currently on the main page regarding Jennifer Hudson. I've put all the info from both items into one - perhaps the earlier one can now be archived, as we don't really need two at the same time:

The crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlight Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".[23] The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions. [24] "More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides. ... 'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer.'"[25] --Hsmom 11:02, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Updated. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 11:21, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Signs of Sanity in Academia?

A Texas college makes a professor take a "God is Dead" sign off his office door [26]--Saxplayer 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure how that's a sign of Sanity. While I don't think that religious statements should be censored I don't think Atheists should be either. It sets a bad precedent on all sides. When a groups bans something like this type of expression it encourages even harsher challenges in other ways. Bible quotes, quoran quotes, or anything similar would be just as subject. Particularly things that are potentially exclusionary. (paraphrasing) "Nobody comes to the father but through me" being an example. No. This is not a sign of sanity. This is a sign of a possible wave of censorship in that university and potentially beyond. - EternalCritic
EternalCritic, it is a sign that perhaps Christianity may be welcome in some small corner of academia. Atheists in the academy should open their minds, embrace conservative principles, and the Lord Jesus Christ.--Saxplayer 16:09, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Is this a parody, or is your message here that this is a good thing because the professor's message was wrong (in your opinion) so he shouldn't be allowed to display it - unless your religious message conforms with Christianity, it shouldn't be displayed in view of the public? Mikek 16:17, 4 November 2008 (EST)
This is not a website where we promote atheism and godless socialism. Nor do we condone those who insult religion. If you can't stomach that fact, Mikek, I suggest you go to Wikipedia and indulge yourself in Liberal slobber. Bugler 16:19, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Slobber? AlanE 16:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry if you misunderstood me, I meant to be defending freedom of speech. I didn't say his message was right, just that he has as much right to insult religion as you have to insult atheism. Mikek 16:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
One universal about "exclusionary" laws, is they will be used against you. Laws used to vote gay clubs out of schools, were used by others to get Christian groups out of schools. Likewise, laws used against Prayer in school, have been used to remove evolution from science classes. Someone is always waiting from "the other side" (which ever side that be) to pounce. I love telling people about my faith and how Jesus has giving me strength to try things I might never attempt, find confidence where it was lacking - but I cannot imagine a world where I would tell other people that they should not be allowed to share their views of the world. If i don't agree with those views, I can ignore them or walk away. --JeanJacques 16:24, 4 November 2008 (EST)
But the 'freedom' to hurl insults at God is not freedom; it is the spiritual slavery under which atheists suffer and which will, if they are not careful, condemn them to an eternity in hell. If we don't confront these vile beliefs, we are partially complicit in the fate of those who express them. Bugler 16:29, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, you said "Because one is a truth, that will bring everlasting life, and one is a lie, that will bring a terrible non-existence in a howling spiritual void. Bugler 16:34, 4 November 2008 (EST)" You essentially just insulted his beliefs no less than "God is dead" insults yours. Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. The fact is, if you have the right to say it about his beliefs, he has a right to say it about yours. Unless a law is being violated (i.e. if my beliefs directly condone illegal activity, like human sacrifice, murder, or stealing or what have you) then they can say what they want and expect the same from the opposition. We can't have it both ways, and we can't allow a double standard on freedom of speech. Once that ball is rolling religion in public discourse will become a target as well. -EternalCritic
MikeK, the message was "God is dead," and that is obviously wrong. A professor especially, should not influence students toward atheism.--Saxplayer 16:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I actually agree that the message "God is dead" is wrong, since it's a paradox - if you believe in God, you're probably unlikely to believe that He can die, and if you don't, then he can't be dead if he never was. But when you say that a professor should not influence students toward atheism, would you then also say that he SHOULD influence them toward Christianity? If so, can you explain how that's not hypocrisy? Mikek 16:32, 4 November 2008 (EST)
In all fairness the original quote "God is dead...And we have killed him" was a metaphor. It cannot be literally correct, no matter what ideology, religion, philosophy or creed you hold.
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"
Yes, I apologize for taking that off Wikipedia, but it is the important part of the quote and should illustrate my point. It is mostly anti-nihilistic, and has little to do with Atheism at all, though the frequency of such a quote to be appropriated by Atheists is not surprising as it comes from a well respected philosopher who tended to be critical of religion. - EternalCritic

Because one is a truth, that will bring everlasting life, and one is a lie, that will bring a terrible non-existence in a howling spiritual void. Bugler 16:34, 4 November 2008 (EST)

MikeK, because it is obvious, to all but the most blind, that there is a God. Indeed, a professor who professes atheism, as in this case, is not fit for professional employment, and should be removed. If such a person cannot open his mind to conservative principles and the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, he must lack basic teaching skills.--Saxplayer 16:49, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Whatever this site may profess to be I know it does not promote bigotry, which you are clearly encouraging. Whether an Atheist be right or wrong is not the point. The point is that he has a right to be one whether we agree or not. He has a right to state his opinion publicly or privately. Taking away that right is a step in the wrong direction. Restricting this professor's freedom is not a positive thing. As soon as you close one ideology from public discourse you offer up all others for potential exclusion as well. -EternalCritic
The problem with the argument about taking away a right being used by the other side to take away the first side's right is not that it's incorrect—you are actually correct—but that you have it back to front. First, they took away the right to express support for God in schools. Now, for once, it's worked the other way to take away the right to express opposition for God in schools. So the "Signs of sanity" that I see here is that they are starting to be even-handed. Of course this one instance is little more than a token gesture. It's still unacceptable to teach the Christian view of origins while the atheistic view of origins is taught as fact. When that bias is rectified, then I will start to get excited. Philip J. Rayment 03:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
My opinion on this was reflected in the linked article. I think you will see that it bears out my view here. In this particular instance it is in fact not the other way around EternalCritic 08:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Ignoring the claim that they would take the same action against a Christian quote that someone complained about, then yes, it is not the other way around insofar as this particular school is concerned. But that doesn't change that it is usually the other way around, and it doesn't change that the college will be teaching the atheist origins myth to the exclusion of the alternative. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into this. I have an unpopular opinion (here) on that particular issue and have no desire to incite flaming or. Suffice it to say I think that it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. EternalCritic 10:19, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Bad News. The sanity did not last long [27]--Saxplayer 08:54, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Hooray for first amendment rights. EternalCritic 11:11, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Being picky again

Illogical "thinking" and the embracement of a failed methodology is still quite popular among evolutionary scientists an evolutionary journal reveals.[23] Can we have a comma after "scientists"? Thanks. --Hsmom 13:58, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Why is the front page all about Obama?

As I write this, in the news section:

Mentions of Obama - 29

Mentions of McCain - 3

Does anyone else find this absurd? MikeR 15:29, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps Obama's massive lead in donation-based funding has allowed him to wrest media initiative even here? --Wikinterpreter
I somehow doubt that's the case. HelpJazz 15:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
What's more important is probably that most are news stories that may reflect negatively on the Senator, that the biased liberal "mainstream" media don't cover. Because of the shear number of these it's no surprise there's so many mentions of Obama. --HenryB 16:21, 4 November 2008 (EST)
So where are all the positive stories about McCain then? MikeR 19:01, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Its alot easier to dig up dirt than rainbows. -EternalCritic
Obviously trying to maintain the same proportion as the electoral votes. Thecount 22:53, 4 November 2008 (EST)


Obama Wins

I wish him the very best, I thought McCain's concession speech was emotional and gracious, I'm glad that he was so dignified. Good night DLerner 23:33, 4 November 2008 (EST)

As a supporter of Obama, I enjoyed McCain's speech. I had a lot of respect for John McCain to begin with, and I now have more. It was very touching and gracious, and it showed that he had a lot of class. A lot of Democrats and Obama supporters said a lot of bad things about McCain, not about his policies, but about his character. I'd like to say they were and are wrong to have done so. McCain is no better or worse a person than the next patriotic American. My congratulations go out to McCain for putting up a good fight during the campagin, and I wish him the best for the future. That being said, my congratulations also go out to President-Elect Barack Obama. He fought hard and won, and his speech was beautiful. Good night. NSmyth 00:21, 5 November 2008
With all due respect, do you think this is your blog or something? (remember, I said "with all due respect" so you can't get mad...) HenryS 00:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I want to know where THAT McCain was the ENTIRE race. He was elegant, he was real, he was insightful, he was inspiring. Let me repeat, HE WAS INSPIRING. Throughout this entire campaign I was sickened by my own party's choice, because he seemed chaotic, rushed, hurried, irrelevant, comedic, and in the last two months, ugly, rude, and vile. The man I watched last night, in concession, was the the reason McCain won the nomination. WHERE DID HE GO? What happened from his "handlers" that let him choose an inexperienced fool of a woman for VP, when people like Olympia Snow were standing guard, ready to be his VP. The man last night knew what was best for the country - unlike what he presented when he tossed and turned on the economy. If John McCain had been allowed to be who he **is**, if he had been allowed to run a campaign of his choosing, perhaps this morning our headlines here and around the world would have been totally different. Bless you, the REAL John McCain of last night, and not the stranger you were turned into for 3 months. --JeanJacques 09:59, 5 November 2008 (EST)
The theory I've heard that sounds the most likely is that McCain got beat in 2000 trying to be completely true to himself and figured he had to try something different. It's a shame, since the McCain of 2008 cost the McCain of 2000 my vote. Aziraphale 11:00, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I know. McCain looked more presidential during his concession speech than he did at any time in the campaign. That McCain, I might just have voted for.--Frey 18:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Bob Dole had the same problem. Elections can bring out the worst in a candidate.CraigC 01:44, 9 November 2008 (EST)

An inadequate black male elected

Well, that seems to be it. Obama has been elected. What a surprise that he won in Ohio and Pennsylvania where his ACORN cronies were out in force. I can't be too niggardly with my criticism for the RINOs in Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico. Democracy as we know it is over and Conservapedia's mission is clearer than ever. We must be one of the last bastions of America until we can take back our country. QWest 23:16, 4 November 2008 (EST)

You're not fooling anyone. I know what niggardly means, but there's no need to use the term when another will easily suffice. Heck, you bolded the word for no apparent reason. You knew straight up it would cause an issue. Your racism is poorly hidden. -EternalCritic
QWest, you are actually claiming that you aren't a racist with a comment like that? HelpJazz 01:01, 5 November 2008 (EST)
It's fine to use any word when it's meaning is what you're trying to convey, even if that word sounds like another. However, given the unnecessary bolding, I'd say there's another motive for that particular word choice. The bolding doesn't make sense in terms of emphasis, so there's obviously some other reason to draw attention to it. LiamG 01:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Whether or not you are a racist or parodist, the woman in your YouTube link seems to have prognosticated poorly.
Should we change the post? Please comment. Corry 01:38, 5 November 2008 (EST)

QWest, I am looking forward to reading some of the banking articles you promised on your user page. So far they have been a little thin on the ground. Inadequate even. Like the banking sector , wouldn't you say? With or without the racist overtones, how about a little credit where credit is due? He won. Won well. Democratically. He got the popular majority and the college majority. To say he's inadequate (whatever that means) shows a certain lack of Christian charity. No generosity of spirit. John McCain is a good man and his stocks as a man have risen immeasurably throughout the world with his speech, because of his generosity of spirit and respect for his opponent. Obama also showed respect. How about joining the club, eh? AlanE 01:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'll readily admit that I haven't had the time to devote to the banking articles I'd like to do. I've been a little busy with this economic crisis, and everything. Work's been quite demanding. And as I've said before, someone who earns the popular vote and electoral college vote through a fraudulent manipulation of the electorate doesn't deserve the office. QWest 01:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)
It's not what you said, it's how you said it. HelpJazz 01:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Please. your attempt to explain away Obama's victory as fraud is ridiculous. All that happened with ACORN was that several bad employees RIPPED OFF THEIR EMPLOYER by slacking off and just filling out false forms. they were being paid per registrant and they just didn't want to do any work, so made fake ones. The only people who this affected was ACORN. they were the victims of this and no one else. it was not a concerted effort to force an obama presidency. just because Mickey Mouse is registered, doesn't mean he's gonna show up and vote. Besides, it's not as if ACORN really could have influenced the results through fraud. they weren't in control of voting machines, they weren't in control of counting ballots. you just can't accept that Obama won fair and square. -LukeSW

McCain's gracious speech

I am delighted to see Conservapedia reflecting the goodwill articulated in McCain's speech. America has always achieved its greatest success at home and respect abroad when it is united. Perhaps Obama could do worse than appointing McCain, a non-partisan patriot if ever there was one, to a role in his administration. Ajkgordon 08:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Franken-Coleman Election

Thought I'd point out that Coleman's margin of victory was 571 votes, which falls under that states mandatory recount laws, Franken would be a fool to concede.

Frankly I'm surprised I don't see more gloating about all the anti-gay initiatives that passed... DLerner 10:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Conservatives don't gloat, or whine. The California initiative is still being counted, but we'll get it (and also get to the Arizona and Florida ones).
The conservative movement is on more of a personal level than liberals realize. It's not contingent on the outcome in elections. The benefit of the movement is personal as well as national.--Aschlafly 11:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Conservatives don't gloat, or whine. Really?! Since when? BTW, You forgot to mention the Arkansas ban on gay adoption and Nebraska ending affirmative action...
Interesting, that none of the anti-abortion initiatives passed, I guess more people care about gay marriage than human life, doesn't speak well for us IMO.
My home state legalized medical marijuana and stem-cell research, but we're a blue state and it was expected. DLerner 11:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)
While I'm happy that homosexuals have been denied special rights, I'm not gloating over the anti-homosexual initiatives because there's so much more work to be done. Biblical morality is in no way limited to the subject of gay marriage, despite what liberal cafeteria Christians might have you think. DavidE 12:04, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Heh. Andy opines that "conservatives don't gloat, or whine", and then posts an "In The News" item that gloats about Michelle Bachman's win, and whines about the media "ignoring" said win.--RossC 13:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Ted Stevens

Isn't it bothersome that a convict can win a Senate election? DLerner 12:22, 5 November 2008 (EST)

At least he's alive HelpJazz 16:51, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Obama is as much white as he is black

So why does the headline say he's the first black man elected president? It would be just as accurate to say he's a white man who was elected president. Why is it that his white half is treated as if it doesn't exist? Jinxmchue 14:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I guess it's like the American Indian blood quantum laws, some tribes will consider you a member even if you're 1/32 indian.
Besides it's not as if it's a major achievement for a white guy to win a presedential election.
To all the white guys: congratulations! you (halfway) won again.
/Is still waiting for a Jewish president. DLerner 15:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)
It's a major achievement for anyone to win a presidential election. HenryS 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Indeed, and it is a major achievement and landmark for the United States for being (as far as I know) the first Western country to elect a man of color to high-office, that is something we all can be proud of. DLerner 16:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Jinxmchue, apparently that was a sincere question from you. The answer is that for a long time, a person with a black father and a white mother, or vice versa, was considered black for the purposes of discrimination. As far as legal and social discrimination were concerned, there was no difference. I can't imagine that you didn't realize that, but perhaps I credit you too much. Murray 20:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Or perhaps the question should have been "Why does the headline perpetuate the myth that a half-"black"/half-"white" man is a "black" man?". Philip J. Rayment 21:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
That's a much better question, Philip. I would guess the answer is because of his skin tone, but it's a sign of how far we've come that people of color (and I use that for lack of a better term, no offense meant) don't have to hide it. Thecount 23:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Note that most African Americans who descended from slaves have Caucasian parents somewhere in their ancestry. Thomas Jefferson himself contributed his genes to such a lineage, as did the late Senator Strom Thurmond.--Argon 23:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Instead of focusing in the color of his skin, I think people should pay attention to his religious views instead. I really am scared whether he'll subtly bring any muslim customs to the office. Speaking of which, has anyone seen any news regarding whether he might want to be sworn in using a Koran, as our Barack Obama page hypothesizes? --DRamon 23:20, 5 November 2008 (EST)

While it may be true that few blacks are currently of 100 African descent, but to society as a whole, he is black. I don't think that the GOP women who emailed around the Obama Bucks image, complete with watermelon and fried chicken would have stopped had they thought about his white family members. While his mixed race heritage was quite well known, it didn't stop various bigots from using the N word to describe him. Race really only comes into play in terms of people's reaction to it, and people seeing him see him as black. Will that ever change completely? Probably not. Has it changed considerably, within my lifetime? Yes, and I hope it will change much more. His race is not the reason that I voted for him, but I was still in tears at the thought of how far we have come, as a nation. Boomcoach 12:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Another silver lining to the election

This should put to bed once and for all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories--the idea that the voting machines are fixed to "guarantee" a Republican win and so forth. --Benp 15:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Sadly, nothing will ever disprove conspiracy theories. Should a Republican beat Obama in 4 years, the crazy left will just claim that this was a break to convince people that their is no conspiracy. SamuelA 15:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I'd like to hope that isn't true--our country badly needs to regain faith in its own institutions, including the electoral process. While I wish the vote had gone differently last night, I'm pleased that it went smoothly for the most part. While there will always be a few who believe in the conspiracy theories, I hold out hope that this will force them firmly back into the fringe where they belong.
(As a side note, I'd be shocked if a Republican doesn't win in 4 years. If he wants to have even a chance of fixing the problems this country faces, Obama is going to have to take steps that will be wildly unpopular with his base of support. If he doesn't take those steps...well, the same problems will still be haunting us 4 years from nowe.) --Benp 15:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Outsing an sitting president, even an unpopular one, is much harder than it seems.... SamuelA 16:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I disagree. I have it on reliable sources that the fraudulent voting machines were accidentally left on the grassy knoll (jk) DLerner 16:18, 5 November 2008 (EST)

It is ridiculous for liberals to rant against "biased" inanimate objects while simultaneously using ACORN to steal an election through widespread fraud. DavidA 22:16, 5 November 2008 (EST)

You do realize, of course, that losers can cheat too, right? Aziraphale 09:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Sure. But if they cheat and still lose, that's rather strong evidence that they didn't have a "vast right-wing conspiracy" backing them up. Let's face it: if someone wants to believe that the voting machines were rigged in favor of McCain, then they also have to accept that whoever did the rigging was pretty amazingly bad at it.
I prefer Occam's Razor: the election was (mostly) honest, there is no vast conspiracy, and the people chose a candidate I wouldn't personally have chosen. --Benp 17:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama's Wealth Spread

How can a person who wants a website to be taken seriously post items like this on its main page?--JArneal 19:57, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Chiefs of Staff

Obama's chosen chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was never Bill Clinton's chief of staff like your news page indicates. Thanks. Rockthecasbah 23:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I fixed your links for you ;-)
He did have a position in Clinton's staff, though, I just saw it on the news. HelpJazz 23:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama's Arab lineage?

"Reflecting his lineage, Barack Obama's support from Arab Americans was extraordinarily high."

I thought his father was Kenyan? According to the CIA World Factbook, 1% of all Kenyans are "non-African (Asian, European and Arab)", which would mean that fewer than 1% of Kenyans are Arab. So, according to Conservapedia's own logic from the Barack Obama article:
"Conservapedia tries to shoehorn in a bizarre smear by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was "arabic", but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are Asian, European and Arab".DRuss 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)


What is interesting is that the article is saying that sites like Conservapedia actually increased the Arab American and/or Muslim vote for Obama by saying that he is a Muslim, which apparently isn't what Arab Americans and Muslims in America think at all. In fact, the article states that the 'slurs' against Obama made them overlook slights to the Arab and Muslim communities that Obama may have made. Tordenvaer 10:21, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Is ASchlafly really a lawyer?

I'm curious. I don't mean any disrespect, but is that kind of a put on or is that real? --Limbo 09:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Of course he is and it's very easy to find the details of his acomplishments on this site and in many other places. Your questioning his qualifications makes me think you're trying to undermine all the good work he's doing, and has done, on this site and if I had the power I'd make sure you didn't do it again. Go away! This site is not for those who would seek to demean and challenge those doing the work of the Lord. BetsyNewson 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
I won't go away simply because I'm curious. I just want to know if he's really a lawyer. --Limbo 10:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Now you're being silly...of course he's a Lawyer and no doubt an excellent one at that. One only has to read his material here and elsewhere to realise that. You're wasting peoples' time with your silly questions and just trying to bring the site into disrepute. I've no doubt your one of those liberals wh are doing whatever they can to try and show this site up and discourage honest Christian people from visiting here to get the truth. I supose it's only to be expected given who the American public were conned into voting for, that this sort of nonsense attacking the founder of this site, has started to appear here again. Go away and do something useful. Gods blessing on you BetsyNewson 11:04, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly is a lawyer. Period. --DinsdaleP 11:11, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Andrew Schlafly is a member of the bar in New Jersey and is counsel to a medical association. There are I think three lawyers in his family. His mother and father(deceased) were also lawyers. He also holds an engineering degree . Markr 12:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I remember how much of a fuss you guys put into finding proof of Obama's birthplace. How you wanted like 3 or 4 different papers proving it, none of which were copies. You could probably disprove this Limbo guy if you posted a picture of some certificates proving that Andy is a lawyer. Period.--Totallytravis 14:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)

And if I sought a government job that depended on that, I would. By the way, the request of Obama was for 1 authentic birth certificate, not 3 or 4.--Aschlafly 15:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Obama Pals Around with Another Terrorist

I think the story in the Irish News featuring a photograph of Obama "palling around" with Irish terrorists deserves to go on the news page. Tellingly, his mates in Sinn Fein did not release the photo until the election was in the bag. I wonder why! http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/11/6/602129_362559331642Obamapict.html

--KeithJoseph 16:30, 7 November 2008 (GMT)

That article's dated June 11... the election was hardly in the bag at that point. But anyway, a source that doesn't require a subscription would probably be more valuable. Mikek 11:52, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry? The article is NOT dated the 11th June. It is dated 6th, November. It's an Irish paper, remember, and, therefore, uses the DD/MM/YY format. The full story is here:

http://www.irishnews.com/articles/540/5860/2008/11/6/602129_362559331642Obamapict.html

--KeithJoseph 17:01, 7 November 2008 (GMT)

Heh, forgot about the whole European date thing for a minute... was going to edit that out but you beat me to it... Mikek 12:06, 7 November 2008 (EST)
What "European date thing"? Not only are you yanks ignorant of what other people do, but when do realise that others don't do the things they way you do, you minimise it as though it's just the Europeans, or just the British. In fact, I believe it's the case that the Americans are the odd oes out with this, with most of the rest of the world using date/month/year, and only the Americans and places under their influence doing it month/date/year. (That rant was said in love!) Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Not quite alone-- Canadians do it, too, but we're smart enough to read both. HDCase 21:23, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Well, being next door, I'd say that Canadians are under America's influence! Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Well spotted Keith! I presume the Irish authorities know he's a friend to Marxist terrorists. If I remember correctly, it's an offense in Ireland to mingle with IRA members? Wouldn't this mean that there might be a warrant on him under Irish law? I wonder if the Irish authorities will pursue it? ArnieS 12:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Since the Irish High Court refused to extradite her for the alleged crimes, I doubt that they'll back a warrant for Obama's arrest. --Jareddr 12:53, 7 November 2008 (EST)
I don't think we need to overuse the word "alleged". She served time in one of the Republic of Ireland's own prisons for smuggling explosives. The woman standing next to a grinning Obama is -- no possible doubt or ambiguity about it -- a terrorist. Bill Ayres looks like an Eagle Scout by comparison. --KeithJoseph 18:11, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. --KeithJoseph 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

KeithJoseph, you have hit on a real conundrum. Apparently the 'war on terror' is really only be a war on islamofacists. IRA terrorists are treated as heroes in the US, they are Grand Marshals at parades, get to rub shoulders with US politicians and are granted political asylum. Several times I have been in 'Irish' bars in NY or Boston and seen the 'little donation tin' passed around. Not to mention organisations like NORAID. So it is no suprise that a mainly American site is touchy about this subject. --nik77uk 13:21, 10 November 2008 (GMT)

Hitler youth

So Obama is trying to recruit young people to do volunteer work for America and that makes him Hitler? Adolf's name is tossed around frequently on this site. Until Obama orders the execution of millions of people, the comparison makes light of the sufferings of holocaust victims. My opinion.CraigC 22:23, 7 November 2008 (EST)

No, Craig, it's better to recognize and stop the march towards atrocities before they can happen. Don't remain in denial until it's too late.--Aschlafly 22:27, 7 November 2008 (EST)
And exactly what atrocities would these be? Are you suggesting that Obama is going to actively discriminate against a particular group of people, leading to torture and murder? NormanS 22:31, 7 November 2008 (EST)
NormanS, I can't predict the precise future, just as no one could when Hitler created his Hitler Youth either. What is obvious is that mind control programs for the youth lead to terrible outcomes, and it is going to require some of the Obama supporters to wake up and start objecting.--Aschlafly 22:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)
They're being encouraged to perform volunteer work, exactly how is this brainwashing (other than reinforcing the Christian truth that it is good to help others)?
Also I would advise you refresh your knowledge on the Hitler Youth, they were from their outset the youth arm of a political party dedicated to racial purism. This initiative does not seem to be politicaly orientated (although being organised by a politican, participants do not have to be a member of a political party, nor is a political mesage being instilled). Similarly, they're not being told that a particular group of people is unworthy, so I think it's quite safe to predict a more positive future. NormanS 22:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Hitler was pretty frank about his plans for the Jews in his book, 'Mein Kampf.' I really don't see any of that.CraigC 22:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Several of the volunteer organizations Obama mentions exist today, and assisting teachers and Veterans doesn't sound like the start of a path to fascist indoctrination. He's also tying volunteer work for this program to a $4000 education tax credit, so it embodies the conservative principle of working to earn college money instead of expecting handouts from the government. Obama's also looking to expand volunteer opportunities for Americans over age 55. I'm sure there will be Obama initiatives worth criticizing, but this one doesn't seem to fit. --DinsdaleP 22:47, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Guys, your knee-jerk defense of Obama's government mind-control program for youth only illustrates how dangerous it is. As to Craig, rest assured that a 21st century type of Hitler would adapt to 21st century culture, and not announce his goals in a book for all to see on the internet.
Stay tuned and we'll see if any Obama supporters here ever object to anything he proposes.--Aschlafly 22:52, 7 November 2008 (EST)
We'll also see whether any Obama detractors here ever support anything he proposes of course. -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)
And just for the record I'm not an Obama supporter. However, I believe there are genuine policy issues he can be called out on (abortion rights, illegal immigration, crime etc) rather than resorting to near-ridiculous attacks and assumptions, which alienate fence sitters and do nothing to help the conservative cause. NormanS 23:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- Can you name one aspect of this program that is anywhere near mind controlling? Are you also suggesting that Obama is secretly prejuced against a certain group of people as Hitler was (yes or no)? NormanS 22:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Everything posted on CP is supposed to be truthful and verifiable, so unless there is an objective, credible source that shows how these volunteerism efforts are tantamount to mind control (and contrasted to George W. Bush's similar push for faith-based volunteerism at the start of his administration), I'd follow NormanS's advice and focus on genuine policy issues. Conservapedia can and should be one of many voices that hold the new administration to account over the next four years, but this is not the way to do it and be considered a credible voice for conservatives. --DinsdaleP 10:26, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, I'm sorry, but I have to protest this nonsense. You've compared your President-Elect to Hitler, on the basis of the fact that he wants to promote the engagement of youth in local communities. Personally, while I obviously don't support Obama, I think that this is an excellent idea.

When you start talking about Mind Control, then you seem to be going into the realm of conspiracy theories. Unless you have something concrete to substantiate it, making this kind of allegation turns Conservapedia into a parody of itself. I disagree with Obama, but I see no reason to believe that he doesn't love America just as much as the next man.

Obama won the election. He won because the majority of Americans felt that he was the better choice. Now I think they were wrong, but I despair of the fact that Conservatives have been so poor at promoting their message. As an example, I notice you still haven't replied to my earlier point on this page, that Conservapedia was more interested in Obama than McCain all through the election. You were more interested in smearing Obama than in putting forward positive articles and views about McCain, Palin and conservativism. The night before the election, you had more than 20 mentions of Obama on the front page, and virtually none of McCain. In a time when people are sick and tired of campaigns resorting to smears, rumours and general negativity, sites like Conservapedia have probably done more than their fair share when it comes to turning moderates away from Conservatism.

No doubt this will be censored or I'll be banned, as seems to be the way of this site when the slightest hint of criticism is leveled at it, but unless you take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why, on the night before the election, your front page was almost entirely about Obama,then you will never achieve your aims here. MikeR 18:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Michael Crichton

Thanks to the folks who posted this. --DinsdaleP 10:20, 8 November 2008 (EST)
  1. http://politibits.tuscaloosanews.com/default.asp?item=2260417