Talk:Main Page/archive80

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

American Christian Aid Workers Arrested in Haiti

...as they try to help destitute children. story here. AlexWD 01:27, 31 January 2010 (EST)

  • Yes, I was adding that same story while you posted here, apparently, AlexWD. People need to be careful in trying to "help" in such devastated areas...there is a very real fear that amoral people who traffic in child prostitution and fake adoptions will use the situation to their advantage! Always feel free to let us know about good stories. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:01, 31 January 2010 (EST)
Following up: It seems as if this was indeed a case of good intentions going astray. Many of the children were not orphans, it is reported, and the group didn't have the proper permissions....they were leading with their hearts, which isn't necessarily bad, but if the situation were reversed, and the horrible earthquake was in California, and Canadian/Mexican/French Baptists were snatching up kids to take to Toronto/Mexico City or Paris, what would we say? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:22, 1 February 2010 (EST)

News Story about Wiccans and the Air Force.

I read the story linked from the article, because I couldn't believe that the U.S. Air Force would adopt Wiccan Prayers in any capacity. All the Fox story said was that the Air Force Academy was providing the Wiccan cadets with a dedicated place for them to practice their faith, which was consistent with the policy extended to other religions on base. There's no mention of the Air Force itself adopting any Wiccan prayer or practice - just a group of cadets being allowed to practice their freedom of religion. The Conservapedia headline should be revised. --ChrisY 19:51, 1 February 2010 (EST)

So do you think that the Wiccan's, in that space provided to "practice their faith", won't be praying? Are you splitting hairs, like a Lawyer? Conservatives value common sense, and this is a good example of exercising that. The Air Force is giving parity to Wicca, alongside that of Christians and Jews. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:18, 1 February 2010 (EST)
No Chris, it will not be changed. Essentially, the Air Force has opened the door to all sorts of crazy superstitions. The next logical step is for the Air Force to have Wiccan high priests as Christians have the chaplain. Logically, Wiccans had no influence, now Wiccans have influence.--Jpatt 20:19, 1 February 2010 (EST)
If you think I'm endorsing the practice of what Wiccans believe you've got me wrong, and I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue. There's definitely a slippery slope being started in this case, and I hope the Academy doesn't get bogged down in trying to accommodate everyone who wants to have their own place of worship on the premises - that's not their mission or obligation. It would just be better to have the headline mention the issues that Jpatt raises, which are legitimate, rather than stating that the article claims something it doesn't. That's why I suggested the headline be revised, and not removed. --ChrisY 20:31, 1 February 2010 (EST)
I have to agree with Chris on this one. Wiccanism is a fringe religion, but the First Amendment clearly states that everybody has the freedom of religion, so if these people want to believe that they are witches, I say let them do it and when they finally come to their senses, they will go back to being whatever they were before they became Wiccans. Until then, I think the headline should be changed because the Air Force is certainly not adopting Wiccan prayer, but supplying them with a place to worship their crazy religion, probably so that they don't end up getting sued for not having a prayer circle on base. --Jvasile 09:35, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Where do you draw the line on religion Jvas? If they offer human sacrifice are they still protected by the 1st? So it's legal to worship the devil, we need to accommodate the devil by law?--Jpatt 10:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Nobody is suggesting that human sacrifice be legalized. The Supreme Court has been able to draw a logical line when religion becomes dangerous, see their treatment of the snake handling rituals. And I don't think most of them worship the devil, it's based more on some mother spirit or something (I had an English teacher who was Wiccan). DomM 15:09, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Another public school success story. JacobB 15:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)
As if the religious beliefs of other people have anything to do with academic success. DomM 16:08, 2 February 2010 (EST)
That you deny this strongly indicates that you're a liberal. How often did you pagan teacher lead you in Christian prayers? Never, I'm almost certain. But how many essays did you have to write on the Mists of Avalon? At least one, I'd bet.JacobB 16:11, 2 February 2010 (EST)
No teacher in a public school will lead the class in prayer or assign essays on religious topics. It's illegal, Jacob. DomM 16:18, 2 February 2010 (EST)
That wasn't my point. My point is that she never WOULD, even if she could. I see you're against school prayer, too. How about you go contribute constructively, and stop pushing your agenda on talk pages? JacobB 16:24, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Oh c'mon, human sacrifice? That just crossed the line into the realm of the ridiculous. The First amendment provides freedom of religion but not to the point where you are violating another human being's fundamental rights (in this case, the right to life). What you are saying is hyperbole. Wiccans are protected under the first amendment as much as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, the numerous Native American Indian religions and so forth. If Wiccans want to pray to their god, gods, or spirits in their circle of stone, that is just as much as a legitimate religious practice as Christians praying to their god in a church building. I am sure to some Wiccans, your religious beliefs make as little sense to them and theirs do to you. You wanna live in a free society that allows you to worship freely, then you have to give that same courtesy to others. Granting military personal that courtesy is the least we can do. --BMcP 15:27, 2 February 2010 (EST)


We are a Christian nation. Tolerance of others forms of worship does not require or obligate us to grant parity with tax dollars to every cult in the world. People arguing otherwise in this thread are taking matters to ridiculous extremes. So long as we are not actively stopping someone from praying to other (false) gods, we have fulfilled our obligation, IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:27, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Jpatt, I draw the line when they start doing physical harm to people and their possessions. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of this, but as i said, they probably just did this so that they would avoid a lawsuit, and not because they are promoting Wiccanism.--Jvasile 17:31, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Seems the Christians revolted at that academy. [1] The Academy under liberal leadership is an epic failure. --Jpatt 14:40, 4 February 2010 (EST)

I wouldn't characterize that as "Christian" behavior. Sneaking a cross into another group's place of worship like that was a cowardly act of disrespect, not an act of people who are proud of Christ's message. The cross is also a symbol that is to be respected, and not used as a prop for childish pranks. A true Christian would show character by meeting with the wiccans openly, treating them respectfully, and starting an honest dialogue as to why the wiccan faith isn't the road in life to take (and the consequences of staying on it). Some of these people may hear the message and be converted, but all this childish prank accomplished was to gain sympathy for the wiccans and draw attention to them. --ChrisY 14:57, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Good thing your advice was discarded during the Crusades or all of Europe would have been Muslim.--Jpatt 15:08, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Equating this incident to the crusades is a red herring, and I don't want to get caught up in excessive talk on this page. If you believe that another faith is wrong, and the practice that faith is not illegal, then sneaking into their places of worship to plant crosses is not the right way to show that Christianity is a better way. Do we condone sneaking crosses into synagogues, mosques, or Bhuddist temples? Of course not. Air Force cadets pledge to defend our constitution, and that means defending freedom of religion, not attacking it. Christianity is a better way to live, especially when compared to Wicca, but you won't get people to convert by harassing and intimidating them. You do it with reason, the lessons of the Bible, and acts of good faith that show these are more than words. --ChrisY 17:12, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Does anyone have a link to a more reliable source concerning the incident? No offense meant, Jpatt, but the site you linked spins pretty heavily to the left; when the very first line of the entry is "Evangelical Christians are at it again," I question the ability of the author to write an unbiased account. --Benp 17:25, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Ben, when I originally saw the story, on Fox News, there was a link to the AF Academy's own site. Search FoxNews.com --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:04, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks, TK. I just don't like this automatic assumption that if someone left a cross, it was automatically "evangelical Christians" trying to "tell others what to believe." Most evangelical Christians I know would speak openly and honestly with Wiccans to try to explain why their beliefs put them in spiritual jeopardy. --Benp 18:12, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Why ChrisY, why must Christians have tea-time with evil? Christians had better fight evil less they succumb to it. Turn the other cheek if evil ones try to murder your family? That's not what Jesus meant. --Jpatt 00:24, 5 February 2010 (EST)
Evil is evil and good is good, regardless of what clothing it wears at the time. I doubt that many true believers would sit down and have tea with Scott Roeder or Jim Bakker, because of their evil actions and the way they twist belief to match their worldviews. On the inverse, I believe it is possible to have a discussion with Wiccans on an intellectual level and not immediately brand them as 'evil' because of their belief system. Besides, Wicca is not the same as Witchcraft or Satanism [contrary to popular belief] and doesn't have a history of human sacrifice. Besides, I personally have never heard a story about a person or group of wiccans murdering a family due to their 'faith' [Though it may have happened...I just have never seen/heard/read about it]. I think you're taking the context a bit out of hand in this case. -- CodyH 05:51, 5 February 2010 (EST)
To answer your question, Jpatt, you and many others may consider Wicca an evil religion, but if they are not doing anything illegal in their practice of it, they have the right to do so in this country, just as people have the right to say offensive things as long as no laws are broken by them saying it. We could go off on a whole thread as to why it should be okay to call one non-Christian faith evil, and condone vandalism of their places of worship, while tolerating other non-Christian faiths and condemning any interference with their practices - we don't stick crosses in synagogues or burn copies of the Koran to make pro-Christianity points. If you want to discuss that on your talk page I'll be glad to, but I'm trying to avoid 90/10 problems on this page.
In this specific case, the practicing Wiccans were U.S. Air Force cadets found worthy of serving on behalf of all of us to defend our constitution and our freedoms, possibly at the cost of their lives down the road. If they do well as cadets and serve their country honorably, the least we owe them is the freedom to practice their religion without interference, no matter what we think of that religion.
Jesus didn't force people into abandoning their beliefs, or intimidate them by violating their places of worship. He taught simple, clear, powerful messages that have been convincing people there's a better way to live for over 2,000 years. How many Wiccan universities are providing quality educations? How many Wiccan charities are helping the victims in Haiti? If we are going to call ourselves Christians then we should lead by lesson and example as we were taught to do by Jesus, and if people are exposed to them and fail to get the message then Jesus will be the one they answer to, not us. --ChrisY 09:38, 5 February 2010 (EST)
I am sorry but still disagree. The Judeo-Christian religion is essential to our survival as a nation. When you give equal-rights to evil, than you are weakening the religion and the nation. There is no doubt it is not against the law to be Wiccan, Devil worship, multiple gods, or no God. However, you are applying the "what would Jesus do" argument to modern times. Would Jesus say let them think as fools and they won't bother us if they disagree, move along. Wrong. He would say to cast them out of your families, out of your communities, destroy their sacred cows and throw them out of our temples. For they are wicked in God's eyes. Notice I didn't say kill them? They get to choose, free will, to practice their beliefs. Though, they are not to be accommodated. You may say "they are harmless". But read Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Put a cross on your shield and fight evil my fellow Christians, don't surrender to politically correct religious 'tolerance'. --Jpatt 19:28, 5 February 2010 (EST)
We'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that. I'm sympathetic to anyone who wants to promote Christian values, and it's good to be an activist for those values rather than sitting on the sidelines hand-wringing while things go to Hell (literally). What's important to remember is that while it's important as a Christian to stand up for what God told us to do, as Americans it's also important to stand up for what our constitution tells us to do. It's one thing to "cast them out of our temples", it's another to cast them out of theirs.
My attitude is, let the Wiccans have their circle, because I have my Church and the community that stands behind it. I don't have to suppress them, because that would only make it look like I fear them and their messages, as if suppressing them was the only way to stop them. Freedom of religion is a beautiful thing, Jpatt, because when they get to do their thing and we get to do ours, it's inevitable that anyone who can think for themselves will figure out that Jesus is the way. We should never hesitate to allow an open, side-by-side comparison of the Christian way versus any other way. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by showing others that we don't have to shut them down to prove that we're right. --ChrisY 20:52, 5 February 2010 (EST)

"ChrisY", I am going to encourage you to make productive and substantial edits now. Hopefully a smart lad like yourself understands what I am saying, eh? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:52, 5 February 2010 (EST)

"Belt-tightening" apparently doesn't apply to people like Pelosi

Just to us poor, unwashed masses:

Taxpayers pay $101,000 for Pelosi's in-flight 'food, booze'

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

$101,000 of that was on food and booze. Jinx McHue 01:10, 3 February 2010 (EST)

I suppose, Jinx, you really have no idea about today's cost for good faux gras from Dean and DeLucca, not to mention their sandwiches, do you? And what about Jamaican Blue Mountain and Kona coffees? Have you no idea what they cost per pound? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:01, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Osama Bin Laden and Climate Change

Head of Al Qaeda jumps on board the climate bandwagon, and aparently it's not the OECDs fault, but George W Bush's, as he didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol. A weird and rather sudden new direction for Islamist terrorism? Maybe they should kiss and make up with PETA and Sea Shepherd... [2] --BishoiH 07:00, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Debate News Story

There's a spelling error in the description, which should state "that there will be" instead of "that their will be". It sounds interesting, but is the "lightweight vs. heavyweight" meant to reflect the strength of the positions, or of the debaters? When are the details about the debate itself coming out? --ChrisY 09:33, 4 February 2010 (EST)

New Zealand

Is New Zealand really socialist? They are one of the most free economies in the world. The "Index of Economic Freedom," ranks them as the 4th free-est economy in the world. Many of the markets were de-regulated, allowing business to set standards. The economy is far from Socialist, but the socio-political environment is quite clearly liberal. It just seems that the term socialist just isn't apt to describe the country, which is clearly a bastion of liberal (in both senses of the word) capitalism. --Rcgallup 12:35, 4 February 2010 (EST)

How bad is gun control in New Zealand?--Andy Schlafly 13:32, 4 February 2010 (EST)
It looks like New Zealand is similar to the US: [3] JacobB 13:49, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Probably rather oppressive, but that would seem to fall under the purview of the gov't and society rather than the economic structure of the nation. Socialism as defined by MW does not indicate if the society itself is liberal or conservative. The nation is clearly liberal, to the point of depravity. The economy itself, and those that act within it as business owners and operators are a shining example of what free-market capitalism can produce. Their unemployment is low, and the impact of the credit crisis is much lower compared to the US, and other more socialist economies. I fully agree the social situation there is awful, but I can't criticize their masterful operation of capitalism.--Rcgallup 14:10, 4 February 2010 (EST)

As a New Zealander I obviously find the story in question appalling, but please research the country further before throwing around words like 'socialist'. New Zealand has a conservative government in power and is economically free. AndrewJay 16:03, 4 February 2010 (EST)

How about medical care in New Zealand? It isn't socialized? What about the National Sales Tax of 12+%?, and the 33% tax on incomes up to $30,000(US) without deductions? I don't consider that economic freedom, even in the U.S., and socialized national health certainly isn't. One needs to keep in mind that the so-called "conservative" government is more akin to the U.S. Democratic Party in ideas and schemes than anything "conservative" here in America. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:47, 4 February 2010 (EST)
It's true we have both private and government run healthcare. You are also correct that sales tax is 12.5%, but income tax is 21% for incomes from 9,000 to 33,000 USD. 33% Comes in above that. Of course it should not be this high, but the report Rcgallup referred to still places us above the US for economic freedom [4]. AndrewJay 18:54, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Since this is an American encyclopedia, New Zealand is a socialistic government, more than America is now becoming, being not greatly unlike the U.K. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:18, 4 February 2010 (EST)
So, because Conservapedia is America-centric, a country that ranked above us in economic freedom is Socialist? I think there is a flaw in the logic there, though I may be wrong. -- CodyH 07:07, 5 February 2010 (EST)
You are using logic well in this discussion. Do you feel that this type of reasoning should be applied to liberal politics, as well? Or do you only hold conservatives to such a high standard? --Ed Poor Talk 07:09, 5 February 2010 (EST)
Yes I do. A logical fallacy remains a logical fallacy regardless of what party, belief or motivation you follow. -- CodyH 07:35, 5 February 2010 (EST)
Well, even if TK phrased it poorly, there is some evidence that New Zealand has a socialist economy. I have found an article criticizing New Zealand's socialism, on the grounds that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. [5] I have also glanced at the Heritage Foundation ranking of economic freedom, which places NZ slightly ahead of US. [6]
And Wikipedia is no help, because they have not provided any definition of the word "socialist" their article, Socialism in New Zealand.
I wonder how much "economic freedom" correlates with where a country is, on the spectrum between free enterprise and socialism. --Ed Poor Talk 07:56, 5 February 2010 (EST)
With all respect, I think you're mixing Fiscal policy with Social policy. AndrewJay 08:09, 5 February 2010 (EST)

One must also consider just who is Gallup, and what is their POV? As a person who often commissions polls, I am aware of different results for different ways in which questions are phrased. The fact that NZ has a vibrant, and recently winning socialist party, shows more interest in such politics than the U.S., which has flirted with socialist ideas with Obama, and look where he is now. Finally, CodyH, as conservatives we use common sense -- we don't split hairs just to argue. If one reads just a little of the social commentaries from the Kiwi's it is pretty apparent their society, in large numbers, follows the thinking and pattern of the U.K. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:17, 5 February 2010 (EST)

My understanding of socialism is that it is essentially an economic system, but major variants like Communism are political systems which incorporate socialism. It is the marriage of socialist economics with leftist tyranny that makes it hard to distinguish "fiscal" and "social" policy.
I have heard it said that a prerequisite for political freedom is economic freedom (e.g., "No taxation without representation").
None of us in these online encyclopedia discussions wants to suffer under tyranny, whether atheist (as in Cuba, North Korea, or the former Soviet bloc) or religious (e.g., Taliban). Few of us aspire to poverty but rather for a higher standard of living. However, many feel that centralized control of the economy is the solution to pressing economic problems.
As a student of science, I would merely suggest that we compare the socialist theory to the economic facts, wherever the experiment has been applied. Is Sweden a shining example? If so, is it the only one? In general, which works better to promote general prosperity, free markets or socialism? --Ed Poor Talk 08:35, 5 February 2010 (EST)
1. I have no connection in any way with the Gallup Organization. 2. The study I mentioned was commissioned by the WSJ, and the Heritage foundation, another study is available, produced by the Fraser institute (a Libertarian Think-Tank) gives similar results. What is important is that a term that, properly used, only applies within the sphere of economics is used here to describe a nation where some people have a particular proclivity towards behavior that some find offensive. If this is to be an educational tool, the use of terms at best ought to be consistent within the encyclopedia. Even the NZ article gives no indication that NZ has a strong welfare state, it makes it clear that there have been broad based market-freeing reforms there, allowing business to flourish. --Rcgallup 10:39, 5 February 2010 (EST)
We provide links to thoughtful, interesting articles that conservatives and Christians will find thought provoking, and sometimes commentary on those topics. Please stop confusing the "In the news" column with encyclopedic articles. Also remember that this is Conservapedia, we don't shy away from language others might eschew due to it not being "politically correct" in their eyes. This is absolutely no different from millions of other on-line and print publications. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:04, 5 February 2010 (EST)

I'm not so sure where the "Conservative Party" in New Zealand is on the US liberal-conservative political spectrum, but Ian Wishart said that they have "strongly globalist political parties and a strongly globalist bureaucracy." Also their former prime minister Helen Clark "was a key figure in the leftist global organization Socialist International." [7] --Ed Poor Talk 15:54, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Waitangi Day

Just a short note to say that I have created a Waitangi Day page to go with the news headline. As a side note 'New Zealand Day' was a term introduced by the liberal government in 1974 and was reverted almost immediately. AndrewJay 01:24, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Yes, I knew that. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:27, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Typo

For your description of Obama as a political one trick pony, there is a grammar error that has been sitting there for the last few days. Now that I am no longer banned, I can finally tell you about it: "insure" should read "ensure" in the entry. Thank you for fixing that. 15:56, 7 February 2010 (EST)


1/3 of Iowans support the Tea Party movement

Not only do 1/3 of Iowans support the Tea Party movement, but a poll put out by CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/poll.tea.party/index.html?section=cnn_latest shows that 1/3 of Americans support the Tea Party movement. Of course, in typical Liberal style, they title the article "Tea Party movement fails to make any impression on 4 in 10". No wonder 41% of Americans say they don't trust CNN and that Fox is now the most trusted news network!--Whizkid 00:50, 8 February 2010 (EST)

There is always more than one way to present statistics, depending on what side you are on. The only thing the liberals cannot explain away is why such a nascent, underfunded, loosely organized movement has captured 1/3 of American voters, more than those who claim to be liberal! To be an incumbent in 2010, and I think in 2012, is to have a bullseye painted on your back. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:25, 8 February 2010 (EST)

NOW now says Tebow ad promotes domestic violence

Unbelievable!

Pro-Abortion Group Claims Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad Promotes Domestic Violence

They are desperate. Jinx McHue 11:51, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Obviously the president of NOW is a nutter. Thanks for the tip, Jinx! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:46, 8 February 2010 (EST)
I bet NOW is all for domestic violence if it produces a pregnancy to terminate. Planned Parenthood was very good about hiding domestic violence to get their hands on another life.--Jpatt 17:00, 8 February 2010 (EST)

IRS Shotguns

If the justice department hunts down tax criminals, what do they need a criminal investigation department for at all? JacobB 15:26, 8 February 2010 (EST)

The IRS is the one who does the actual investigation. IRS special agents go to the person being investigated and look over their books and do the investigation. Here's examples of people convicted of tax fraud so far this year, and what they did wrong. http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=213772,00.html --Whizkid 15:58, 8 February 2010 (EST)
Correct answer, WhizKid...but remember potentially violent offenders and criminal enterprises are passed off to the FBI and/or Justice Department. Perhaps Obama's IRS is thinking of dealing with his Tea Party critics in another way.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:44, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Billboard

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the 'Miss Me Yet' Billboard is a rehash of a 'Demotivational Poster' with the same picture and tagline. It's been around for some time, and cafepress even has a 'Miss Me Yet?' Shirt on their inventory. I think the billboard was a prank, but that's just my idea. -- CodyH 01:14, 9 February 2010 (EST)

According to the link, they still do not know who placed the billboard or for what purpose. Ideas range from being a commentary on Obama administration policies to being anti-Bush and tying to get other opponents of the former president from forgetting. Of course your theory could be correct also Cody (in which case it would be hilarious). The real answer should prove to be interesting. --BMcP 09:41, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Gibbs mocks Palin

While I was tickled to see Sarah Palin's writing on her hand at a recent speech, I was a little surprised that WH press secretary Robert Gibbs would mock her so openly. You can see the video here: VIDEO. Doesn't this qualify as liberal namecalling or mockery or something of the sort? I mean, I expect this sort of thing from Colbert or Stewart, but from the administration? DanieleGiusto 16:25, 10 February 2010 (EST)

The more the liberals keep it up, the closer we move toward November's inevitable "Obamageddon" at the polls, and making The One a one-term President in the tradition of failures like Jimmy Carter. I can't stress strongly enough just how mad the voters are and how, once again, the liberals are mis-reading the polling data. The only thing that could make it better is for the usual liberal "mad dogs" to go after Palin's family again. I pray she manages to set them up for it! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:18, 10 February 2010 (EST)
I agree. The childish antics of the left wear thin on voters after a while. After merely a year of liberals running the country and behaving in the manner described, voters are ready to move on to elect people who actually want to help the nation for a change.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 10 February 2010 (EST)
Well said, Daniel. This is exactly the sort of thing we expect from the liberal media, but to see government officials behaving in this way shows that liberals always find a way to stoop lower. This is a classic example of liberals being unable to criticize someone for their politics so resorting to childishness. DwayneD 22:21, 10 February 2010 (EST)
Liberals have always resulted to vile personal attacks, what has been called "the politics of personal destruction", instead of tackling ideas head-on. Why? Because liberals are lazy, and always consider the end justifies the means. To this very day, 21 years after he left office, the liberals still routinely mouth the vilest of insults about Ronald Reagan, even though he proved them wrong year after year, not only with words, but with actions. Go to any liberal website and the place is replete with such personal insults and profane remarks that they would never be reproduced here in our family-friendly environment! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:55, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Typo

Could we get a little subject-verb agreement on the main page?

"A record-breaking 10,000 is expected for this year's CPAC." should read "A record-breaking 10,000 are expected for this year's CPAC."

or "A record breaking number of 10000 in attendance is expected..." DanieleGiusto 14:49, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Approval Rating

Surely this deserves a mention? NickHeer 00:40, 16 February 2010 (EST)

It doesn't merit anything, actually. Did you at all read about what it was?
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval-- Each result is based on a three-day rolling average
In the polling business aggregate results are what count, not daily ticks. What you observe in the chart so far is Obama is currently at a 53% approval rate for February, with roughly half the month yet to go...so his actual approval is looking to be about the same as it has been for the past several months, half the country approving of him, the other half not. Still, he has dropped more than 20% from last year. What is more telling about Obama is not this general type of poll but the more specific ones, like on Obamacare where recent polling data shows 70% of likely voters showing their disfavor of him. So nice trolling post, but no cigar....it merely shows your ignorance about polls, and what they mean. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:27, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Facebook pro- and anti-evolution groups

Evolutionist mentality on display: evolutionists have pretty much taken over the comments on an anti-evolution Facebook group here (and are posting insulting and often vulgar messages) despite having their own group here. More proof that evolutionists dogmatically oppose any questioning of their belief system. Jinx McHue 12:42, 16 February 2010 (EST)

That's liberal network abuse. DMorris 22:11, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Mount Vernon Statement

I read more about it after reading the headline, and found this link to the statement itself, which you may want to include in the story. --ChrisY 10:40, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Probably not newsworthy, but worth sharing anyway

There are some very interesting, innovative possibilities in the works for a different approach to building new nuclear plants - go smaller instead of bigger, as in the size of a railway car. --ChrisY 11:52, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Joe Stack

IRS attacker portrayed by the MSM as TEA partier. Just from reading his online rant there is no doubt he is a liberal nutjob. As more information becomes available, expect the 'liberal' to be exposed. Guarantee no God in his life. His hatred for America is nonsense. I sure the commie punk would have loved N. Korea.--Jpatt 22:17, 18 February 2010 (EST)

I think he feels he's been taxed enough already. AndrewJay 18:47, 19 February 2010 (EST)
LOL! That was clever! But like Jpatt said, he was most certainly a liberal. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:58, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Please tell me what evidence is there that shows he was a so-called liberal nutjob. Isn't the entire platform of the tea baggers the fact that they want no income tax, which is collected by whom? Oh, that's right the IRS! So thus by attempting to destroy the IRS headquarters he was fulfilling the main goal of the Tea Party platform? Sounds really socialist to me... Template:Unsigned=User:VictorHugo

I don't see you lasting here too long with that attitude. The Tea Party doesn't want the elimination of taxes, is that what Keith Olbermann told you? View this link for the answer. [8] --Jpatt 11:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Even the Huffington Post Has To Give Palin Credit!

From a recent article there:

"Sarah Palin is playing chess. I don't know what game the Administration is playing, but they just walked right into her carefully laid trap. Palin, the strategist, is amazing to watch. Her brilliance is her ability to tap in to the class conflicts that drive American politics these days. Obama, whom I have supported since Iowa, just doesn't get it." [9]

Who'd have thought it? --Benp 11:00, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Possible main page news story: NY Governor considering withholding tax refunds

[10]

Seriously--this speaks volumes about the liberal mentality. It's not enough that New York has one of the most oppressive tax rates in the country...now Paterson wants to hang onto taxpayer money that doesn't belong to the state! "It'll generate revenue for the state!" That's nice, Governor, but it's not YOUR money. It SHOULD be generating revenue for the taxpayers to whom it belongs! --Benp 13:51, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. JacobB 16:20, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Peter Schiff news Story typo

The word "crises" should be "crisis", since this is not plural. --ChrisY 10:50, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Meaning of news sentence

I'd just like to say that when I first read this sentence "The nanny state philosophy micro-regulates every aspect of your life in the interests of keeping you safe, their so-called superior minds know best.", it sounded like the kind of sarcastic, tongue in cheek thing a liberal might say. What I mean by this is it feels like a liberal would say this as a thing a conservative might say ("nanny state philosophy micro-regulates every aspect of your life"), but then putting their liberal justification on the end ("in the interests of keeping you safe"). I wonder if there might be a clearer way of saying what I think it actually means. If it's just my odd personal impression of the sentence, then never mind. --LucyJ 14:38, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for your comment, but the sentence seems like clear irony to me. Liberals do micro-regulate everything, from chopping down trees in your own yard (better check with the environmentalists first!) to buy a gun (better check with the gun control laws first!), but take a different attitude about far greater threats to safety.--Andy Schlafly 15:57, 21 February 2010 (EST)
I don't know if it sounds like a liberal sentence, but it most certainly is grammatically incorrect. It needs a semicolon or a period in between the two phrases. DanieleGiusto 19:52, 21 February 2010 (EST)
It's also incorrect because there is no plural antecedent for "their." The only prior subjects are "the nanny state" (singular) and "your life" (singular). Since I think the "their" refers to "liberals," the term needs to be included. --Rubashov 12:14, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Jim Rogers and Central Banks

I am from Australia and have some local visibility of this issue, so I thought that I could comment (on the Australian side of things anyway).. Credit where credit is due of course, and Australian bankers are quite competent. However it must be noted that, in Australia at least, the central banks are highly regulated. In Australia we have the Reserve Bank (the RBA) and the "Big Four" banks. By law these Big Four are required to keep a large amount of cash in reserve (they are therefore well-capitalized). This was a big part of the reason that Australia was one of (the only?) developed Western nation not to fall into recession during the so-called Global Financial Crisis. And there are a lot of other regulatory constraints placed on our banks (in an attempt to 'level the playing field' as it were).

This presented our own Reserve Bank chief with at least the possibility of weathering the financial storm, and he did so. As I said, credit where credit is due.

It is also interesting to note that Australia is financially heavily regulated, has expansive socialized medicine, comparatively high personal taxes (the highest nominal tax rate in the world, or close to it, I believe), and very strict gun controls. It all sounds a bit social to me, and yet our last government (Howard) was strongly conservative, and we invested heavily in Reagan-esque supply side infrastructure in the past couple of decades. This has helped us service the Chinese market considerably. And we are economically prosperous and free.

Anyway, I went a bit further with this than I intended, but I present you with an example of a nation whose system may provoke some thought and discussion. Tuffskin 20:41, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Your insights are welcome, but my understanding is that Australia was quite conservative until about ten years ago, when media hysteria swept gun control into law, and now virtually all elected officials are liberal. You may have weathered the banking crisis because of conservative past, rather than due to any regulations. The economic harms caused by socialism grow more severe over time, as in the case of the Soviet Union.--Andy Schlafly 20:06, 21 February 2010 (EST)
(Apologies that I forgot to sign my last comment - fixed now). With respect to Australia I will let you draw your own conclusions, of course. However, the last conservative government (the Howard government) was in office from 1996-2007 ([[11]]). It was this government that was responsible for implementation of supply-side infrastructure investment (and in fact, have put aside $20B AUD for future governments to use for this purpose), as well as many of the regulatory aspects of our banking system.
In addition, it was Howard's government that implemented the current gun control laws. Specifically, it was in reaction to this event: [[12]]. It was very soon after Howard's first election victory, and established him (in Australia's eyes) as a decisive leader.
I don't honestly know whether it was previous conservative government policies or regulatory laws that helped see Australia through the GFC - I'd say a little bit of both. It is also true that we have a left-leaning government in power now, but it it not true to say that most government officials are left-leaning (in my view as a local).
And lastly, the sideways assertion that Australia's policies may one day lead to a Soviet Union style system... well, no-one has a crystal ball so maybe. I personally think it extremely unlikely, and current evidence would suggest that our policies are only making us stronger and more economically prosperous. Tuffskin 21:09, 21 February 2010 (EST)
I'm thoroughly familiar with how liberals passed gun control in Australia, and its effect: for the first time in its history, virtually every major governmental unit in Australia is controlled by liberals. The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens. Howard caved. Inevitably, the effect is for voters to rely more on government, and Howard eventually lost his job too.
I don't know why you credit regulation rather than the free market for Australia's resilience during the downturn.--Andy Schlafly 21:35, 21 February 2010 (EST)
This is a very interesting discussion, and you ask a very good question Andy: why do I credit regulation rather than free market principles for Australia's resilience? That's a very fair question, and I'd like to answer it. And my answer is this: that these two principles are not opposing forces, in my view. Regulation exists for good reason in a lot of markets - airlines is a good example, where safety is regulated to a certain minimum standard. And yet free market principles exist in the airline industry and I, as a consumer, do not find it difficult (or expensive) to get anywhere in the world these days.
I believe that the same can be said for banks. Regulation removes the temptation of one set of individuals to overstep the line, because they know that legally-speaking the 'other guy' can't do it either. In abstract philosophical terms I see regulation as leveling the playing field, nothing more and nothing less. Sure, regulation is not a silver bullet, and it's not always good - but on balance I believe that it serves a good purpose. I can't say any more than that, so I will leave it to you to agree / disagree.
With respect to Howard and the gun control issue. Firstly, 35 people dying in one day may be statistically insignificant to the United States, but it certainly is not in Australia. It was by far the worst massacre in Australia in living memory, perhaps ever. And there has not been one since (and we thank the Good Lord for that) - whether that is related to gun control laws or not I'll leave up to your interpretation. Additionally, Howard's own government was heavily involved in drawing up and implementing the now-existent gun laws. At the time, Howard said this (and I apologise in advance to my US brethren):
"I hate guns," [Howard] said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."
And lastly, Howard 'lost his job' some 11 years later after the gun-control laws came into effect, so a tenuous link at best there. Tuffskin 22:00, 21 February 2010 (EST)
You're welcome to your opinion that regulation is the reason for Australia faring better, but I'm just suggesting that your view is based less on the evidence than on your own political perspective. Australia is historically very free market, so it's odd that attribute its success to regulation rather than the free market. But you're welcome to your opinion.
It's a standard liberal ploy to take a single criminal tragedy and overplay its significance and meaning in order to change the laws nationwide for law-abiding citizens. Liberals tried the same stunt in America with respect to the Columbine massacre, but we didn't fall for it. There's no logic to the argument and Democrats haven't pulled the same stunt again. One criminal tragedy, which can be prevented by better self-defense, does not justify limiting the rights of everyone.
If Howard is genuinely anti-gun, then he's not conservative. Regardless, Australia moved dramatically to the Left, as it predictably does in all nations that impose gun control (it creates greater dependency on government). Howard's inevitable election loss was part of the liberal takeover of the country.--Andy Schlafly 23:32, 21 February 2010 (EST)
Tuffskin does make one relevant point about regulation and the underlying causes of the recession in the U.S.A. Much of the problem with the U.S. financial system came from a lack of regulation in the derivatives markets, particularly with credit swaps and hedging. Many (allegedly) sophisticated financial firms used these instruments as a form of insurance against their financial positions going bad, but unlike the insurance industry, which is regulated to ensure adequate reserves to pay claims, there is no such regulation in the derivatives markets. So when companies triggered their claims on them, they found that the counterparties that issued them couldn't settle without becoming insolvent. In a fair market that should trigger bankruptcy, but so many major players were tied up in these that two different administrations chose to have the taxpayers bail out the industry rather than face a system-wide collapse. As a result, we basically got caught up bailing out companies who mutually participated in a Ponzi-like system that made the Madoff scandal look small-time by comparison.
The lesson I took from this is that while excessive regulation can stifle innovation and competitiveness, a certain amount is needed to provide transparency, accountability, and a guard against fraud. Holding firms to a common standard of open bookkeeping and being able to cover their obligations is not being excessive, it's ensuring trustworthy behavior when greed motivates people to do otherwise. --ChrisY 09:38, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Thank you ChrisY. And just to clarify my original point, because judging from your response Andy I may not have been entirely clear. I do not credit regulation with Australia's historical prosperity. I credit the free market principles that exist here. I do, however, credit regulation in the specific instance of weathering the GFC better than most other nations. I leave you with the last word. Tuffskin 19:16, 22 February 2010 (EST)
As in your gun control example, you seem simply to assume what you're trying to prove: that more regulation is better. Once that is assumed, there is no need even to cite any evidence or make any arguments. If self-defense and accountability are eliminated by assumption, and harmful effects of gun control assumed not to exist, then gun control is promoted by assumption rather than by logic.
But if logic is the approach, then there are two alternatives to any problem: more freedom and more accountability or less freedom and less accountability. In the case of failing banks, had the executives expected to land in personal poverty from their risky behavior, rather than be bailed out at taxpayer expense, then you can bet they would not have taken such risks in the first place.--Andy Schlafly 19:23, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Australian bankers are wiser than Bernanke and that does not say much as Bernanke is a bumbler. He holds the toxic combination of willingness to bailout unwise bankers and corporations, while giving them plenty of rope to hang themselves with little regulation. If Bernanke would let some banks (and the supposed "too bigs to fail'), go bankrupt that would be a warning to other bankers to wise up. Heavy regulation is not needed if people know there are going to be consequences. Plus as the depression of 1920 shows, even if people do act foolishlessly without a safety net, capitalism (not an economy where the government is heavily intervening) is vibrant enough to bounce back quickly. conservative 01:15, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Dick Cheney in hospital

[13] our prayers are with him.

Of course, the liberals are praying for different results and not to any God. [14] --Jpatt 22:40, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Kind of like the Conservative Christian Minister praying for Obama's death?, JPatt? AlexWD 22:57, 22 February 2010 (EST)
That pastor sounded neither conservative nor Christian, right AlexWD?--Jpatt 23:04, 22 February 2010 (EST)
A political ally of Alan Keyes and an ordained minister? Nope, nothing conservative or Christian about that. Nothing at all. AlexWD 23:07, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Hey smarty pants, a Christian doesn't pray for someones death but their conversion. He's ordained, that makes him Christian in name only. Political ally of a conservative, does that make him a conservative? I think not. Is John Kerry sympathetic of cheating on wives because he was a political ally of John Edwards? Quit playing games, that pastor was neither and you know it.--Jpatt 23:18, 22 February 2010 (EST)

So the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest and most important Christian movements in America ordains non-Christians and names then officers of the church? Is that what you think? AlexWD 23:21, 22 February 2010 (EST)

I am saying you can have the title Christian minister of the Southern Baptist Church and not follow the will of Jesus, aka Christian in name only.--Jpatt 23:26, 22 February 2010 (EST)
I recognize that argument. AlexWD 23:37, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Let me add, I certainly don't have all the answers and I can easily throw this whole topic backwards. Me being Catholic and I were living in 1944 with a chance to take out Hitler. Would I kill him to end the suffering of innocents? I think I would. Would that make me a person against Jesus? --Jpatt 23:39, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Wow , a no True Scotsman followed by a Godwin's in short order. Well done, sir. Well done. AlexWD 23:40, 22 February 2010 (EST)

I forgot to mention the 'right JPatt?' comment. If you know what my name is then you are correct to assume that the J initial is my first name and P initial stands for my last name. However, being Jpatt is my username you must be used to seeing JPatt.--Jpatt 23:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Another question--if the ordained minister and former running-mate of a leading conservative politician is a "Christian and conservative in name only" because he prayed to the Christian god for Obama's death, why isn't the blog poster who rejoiced for Cheney's illness a "liberal in name only"? AlexWD 23:58, 22 February 2010 (EST)
I guess you finally got me there, if the liberal philosophy is that everyone has the right to live. However, a liberal is more than likely to have a prochoice view whereby someone can determine if another 'person' shall have life. Another can of worms so to speak. But the 'all' liberals would be an injustice to demonize, which I did. So you are in fact correct.--Jpatt 00:04, 23 February 2010 (EST)

God bless Dick Cheney. DMorris 22:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Submission for front-page

Lew Rockwell just linked to this article on Salon, it's about a book written by an atheist called "What Darwin Got Wrong". He equates the provable nature of evolution to creationism at times, and talks about how academic politics is preventing any scientific challenges on the topic: http://salon.com/books/evolution/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/02/22/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor -danq 00:14, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Intersting but I personally don't feel it is frontpage news nor something new. I'll let others decide. --Jpatt 00:30, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Scott Brown

I am not sure if he should be labeled a RINO just yet. His willingness to create jobs is needed. He hasn't voted on the legislation yet and if it is a bad bill, by all means label him a RINO. Personally I believe if 787 billion doesn't create jobs, I don't know how he can consider a smaller billion will do the trick this time. Then we just add to the deficit which makes him a RINO.--Jpatt 00:30, 23 February 2010 (EST)

A bad indication, but I agree and added a "?" to the end. He is the first Republican elected 40 years, and cannot possibly please everyone, and needs to get his footing. MA has always had more liberal-sounding representatives going back to Edward Brooke. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 07:29, 23 February 2010 (EST)
Not to mention he's only had 3 votes in the senate thus far. A bit too soon to call him a RINO, but enough to make the right a bit wary. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:19, 24 February 2010 (EST)
I don't think the quantity of votes is as significant as the quality, and it's RINO quality so far.--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Democrats will LOSE the House

Hello, I would have fixed the typo myself but the main page is protected, so I will just signal it here. It should read "Democrats will lose the House". Please feel free to remove this comment once you've edited the typo out. Maquissar 07:19, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 07:25, 23 February 2010 (EST)
... and Obama will have to loosen the reins. --SilvioB 09:29, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics

Boy Scout Centennial and the Mainstream Media

To give credit where credit is due, the ABC show Good Morning America did recognize the Boy Scout centennial. See here: [15] --Whizkid 11:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Well, that's a far cry from CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc., prime time, and the New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, etc.--Andy Schlafly 13:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)
True, but while we legitimately criticize the media for all the things they do wrong, it's also good to praise those individual media outlets on the rare occassion one of them gets something right.--Whizkid 13:47, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Spelling error in Joe Biden headline

The word "soundbyte" should be spelled "soundbite". --ChrisY 10:17, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Great catch. I fixed it as you suggested. Perhaps "soundbite" is a best new conservative word?--Andy Schlafly 10:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Seems pretty neutral to me, but I'll leave that call to others. --ChrisY 11:40, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Not worth a headline, but interesting news

An interesting story: Pieces of ancient Biblical scrolls containing The Song of the Seas were reunited after independent researchers noted similarities between the scroll fragments in the photos of them from different articles. They followed up, and after a series of scientific and literary tests concluded they were from the same actual scroll, and reunited them. It makes one wonder if there is, or could be, and international online clearing house where documentation and photos can be collected so other potential matches and restoration could be facilitated. --ChrisY 11:39, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Great story ... I think it is worth a headline! I agree that the internet should be used more to facilitate this kind of work.--Andy Schlafly 11:45, 26 February 2010 (EST)


Typos in VisionVictory news story

The story should be revised to replace "that is appears" with "that it appears", and "which has reported" with "which has been reported". --ChrisY 20:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)

In the news - King Solomon's wall

I am not religious, but I still find the news interesting from a historical and an archaeological point of view. I thought many of you would find this interesting also from a religious point of view, so... there you go :) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/

Great suggestion! I've posted it. I also urge you to check out the most logical book ever written: the Bible. It's so logical that it is difficult for many to accept.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I've already read the Bible several times, and although I do not agree with everything in it, I find it a great book. However, I must admit I'm not too fond of certain lengthy genealogy passages, and I normally just skip them :p --Maquissar 22:03, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Nothing wrong with skimming or skipping the genealogy passages. But typically claims of having "read the Bible" refer to reading as a youth in the distant past. That's very different from reading it as an adult with an open mind, and reading it regularly.
Former professional athletes who talk about being in great shape (in the past) are often in terrible physical shape after retirement.--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 26 February 2010 (EST)
The number of books that I still have to read - for pleasure, but also for duty - is enormous, and my lifetime is limited. I still re-read passages from the Bible from time to time, and I plan of re-reading it entirely - (genealogy passages excepted :P) in the near future. But at the same time, I'd also like to learn completely new lessons from books I haven't read yet. --Maquissar 22:17, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Maquissar, there's a force that pulls you and many others away from the Bible. It's the same force that pulls people into depression, anxiety, addiction and despair. Overcome the force and give it a try to read the Bible on a regular basis. Time is not a valid objection because it only takes a few minutes a day. You won't be disappointed.--Andy Schlafly 22:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Middle School Gets Into 'Matchmaking'

The story I just added to the Main Page highlights the state of public schools better than most. Not just because of the silly dating fund-raising, but the lack of judgment on the part of the liberal "professionals" running the school district. It seems really odd that there wasn't one faculty or administrative staffer that didn't realize what a problematic, really stupid idea it was! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:44, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Personal tools