Talk:Main Page/archive83

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Advice Please

First of all, I'm a new user to Conservapedia so please forgive me if I'm breaking any rules.

That said, I've noticed that some articles on Conservapedia use terms like "Arab-American" or "African-American." I feel that these terms are unpatriotic and that "hyphenated American" terms don't belong on a conservative encylopedia. Would it be acceptable to begin changing these articles, or at least mentioning in them that many people feel that we should be Americans first, not second? WillS

Obviously the only real Americans are white, christian, and conservative. I agree, the terms used in the headlines exclude people from participating in America, the greatest country in the world, and further degenerate minorities who do work hard to live the "American Dream". I hope i don't get censored for this. --Mpeters989 19:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

What exactly is your problem with America? And what headlines are you talking about? Finally, why are you playing racial politics and pretending I somehow claimed non-whites aren't real Americans? I firmly believe that all Americans are equal, regardless of race, which is why terms like "Arab-American" or "Mexican-American" are so wrong; they add other identities before American, and divide us along racial lines.

If all you can do is play racial politics and question American exceptionalism, then I doubt you really are a conservative. God Bless. WillS 22:55, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Economy Creates 290,000 Jobs, Unemployment Rises

While 224,000 jobs were created in April, excluding temporary Census Workers, unemployment still increased from 9.7 to 9.9 percent.

Why wasn't this news posted on the homepage? i feel that it is of importance. --Mpeters989 21:38, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Oklahoma Veto Overrides

As a pro-life Catholic, I have mixed feelings about these overrides. I'm normally for legislation that takes this country in the direction that respects life, but there are lines that can be crossed and I find myself agreeing with the governor over his vetoes. (It's also worth noting that he signed three other pro-life bills into law despite vetoing these two).

One of vetoed laws called for mandatory ultrasounds, but there was a disturbing clause not mentioned in the news story link. The terms of the law call for doctors to use vaginal-probe ultrasounds in cases where a clearer picture is needed than an external ultrasound, i.e. early-term pregnancies. The governor's objection was not over this clause, but that there was no exception for this clause for rape & incest victims. So what this new law now requires is that if a woman is raped and seeks an abortion soon afterward, the government now forces doctors to penetrate her body in a way she may not want. I know we're trying to save unborn lives, but that is an inhumane way to treat a rape victim. There's no reason the law couldn't have been reworked to allow external-only ultrasounds for rape victims, and it's sad that the legislature considered it more important to override and pass a cruel law instead of making it a good one that still supported life.

The second law was vetoed because it takes fundamental rights away, by prohibiting pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy. The law was intended to discourage women from seeking abortions if they knew of potential birth defects. However this law is so broad that it sanctions any form of misinformation or even malpractice on the part of the doctor, and inserts the government in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship. Imagine a doctor discovering that a high-risk pregnancy will lead to the mother's death, but withholds that information because he believes her life or death is up to God, not her and her husband, and he knows he'll be shielded by this law. The government has no right, even in concern for the unborn, to remove citizens' rights to expect full and accurate information from their doctors. Even when a woman is not seeking an abortion, this law destroys the trust they would have that they are getting full and accurate information about their pregnancies.

The will of the people of Oklahoma has been done through these overrides, but I'll be praying for compassionate members of their legislature to realize that these two laws went too far, and pass modifications to fix what's wrong in them. --ChrisY 22:29, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Chris, you focus on situations that extremely rare, and for which the law may not even be applied as you suggest. Your objection is like opposing a law against jaywalking because some people are blind and cannot see the crosswalk.
Allowing women to see what they are about to abort, and requiring the abortion clinic to pay for it, ensures a fully informed patient. The fact that 80% change their mind if they see their unborn children proves how important this information is, and how people should see it before they make their decision, rather than afterward.--Andy Schlafly 23:25, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Neither the governor nor I were objecting to the use of ultrasounds to help women make their decisions; instead the objection was that there was no consideration for the emotional or mental condition of rape victims in the ultrasound bill that was vetoed. Would it have been an anti-life position to simply modify the bill so rape victims could choose external over internal ultrasounds if the latter was too traumatic for them? I'm pro-life, but in cases of rape the woman is already a victim, so we need to make every effort to be compassionate over what she went through as we try to help them choose not to make her baby a victim too.
As for the other bill, giving doctors the legal right to withhold or give incorrect information to patients, many who may not even be considering abortion, is misguided, goes against the Hippocratic oath, and will likely cause more harm than good over time. If working on the New Testament has underscored anything for me, it's that pro-life efforts should be based on honesty, trust, and morality, not by legalizing deceit.
I've said my peace on this, and will move on now. Thanks. --ChrisY 09:49, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
Chris, you're welcome to discuss this as much as you like, but you didn't respond to my point about how exceptions are not carved out of other good laws in the way you want exceptions for abortionists. A law that requires someone to pay for gas before driving away from the gas station (enforceable by criminal penalties) does not include an exception for someone forced to fill the tank at gunpoint. A law against trespass does not include an exception for someone who trespasses on an emergency basis. Examples are endless, and I doubt you would insist on vetoing any of these laws because they do not include exceptions for every hypothetical example that can be thought of.
Why the double standard in opposing a common-sense pro-life bill? Hypothetical exceptions may or may not ever occur, the pregnant woman may or may not want the benefit of the law in your hypotheticals, and the abortionist may or may not be subject to enforcement under the law in those rare cases. The point and application of these pro-life laws are clear and indisputable, and unusual hypotheticals are not valid grounds for opposing the laws.--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
I'll answer since you asked, Andy. I'm not looking for an exception for abortionists at all, and I never stated that above. I'm didn't even say I was against rape victims having to see an ultrasound of their unborn child, even though I admit the experience is bound to be disturbing for the woman, who is only in the situation of being pregnant because her rights and body were horribly violated by a depraved criminal.
My objection was that the law as voted in by override explicitly requires the provider to us a vaginal transducer on the woman if it would provide a clearer image than an abdominal (external) one. This is in Section 6.B.1 of the bill for anyone who wants to check. If this is an early-term pregnancy, then a vaginal probe is the only way to get a clear image, so this law, as it stands, has the government forcing medical providers under threat of criminal violation to physically probe the internal genitals of a rape victims' body even if they do not wish this. I can't be more clear than this while keeping it family friendly - this law empowers the government to force the physical intrusion of a rape victim's reproductive anatomy, even against their wishes. This is not a hypothetical as you suggest above.
I want to save the unborn, but there are times when the end doesn't justify the means. The physical intrusiveness of this internal probing, and the fact that a rape victim has no choice if an external picture isn't as good, means that she has to subject herself to an experience that has enough parallels to the rape she already suffered to make this a traumatic experience.
Laws involving abortion restrictions have traditionally carved out specific clauses and exceptions for victims of rape and incest, so this is not about creating a niche loophole for providers - it's about keeping the state from making women who have been raped feel like victims twice over. I want to protect the unborn, but I also want to keep the government out of my body, and certainly out of the bodies of rape victims. I don't see that as a double standard, but if you do we'll agree to disagree on that point.
As for the other bill, my belief is that it should be rejected on principle for two reasons. First, this law essentially sanctions deceit by medical providers in their relationship with pregnant patients. Healthcare is about getting accurate information to make informed decisions, and this law allows doctors to withhold or misrepresent information for reasons that have nothing to do with the immediate treatment of their patient. In fact, it would be a double-standard for conservatives to call for ultrasound laws so pregnant women can make informed decisions about abortion, and then support a law that hides relevant medical data from patients out of a concern that it might lead to them choosing an abortion.
Second, the decision to suppress or mislead is itself based on hypotheticals, since the concern driving this law is over what a woman might do if she learned of consequences that she might consider bad if the child is born instead of being aborted. No one seeking medical care should be denied the truth because of what the caregiver thinks might or might not happen based on information being shared. --ChrisY 15:43, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
Chris, the first bill doesn't even mention "rape", and rape victims typically undergo intrusive medical exams anyway. Rapes are less than 1% of abortions, and you could still support the bill but later support a revision in the unlikely event this ever became a problem. The second bill is nothing more than the Oath of Hippocrates with respect to abortion, and does have an exception for the objection you raised at the outset.
I think Charlie Crist claims to be pro-life. Now he's doing everything he can to defeat a pro-lifer, after losing to him fair and square. Maybe Crist would find excuses for not signing these bills too if there were presented to him.--Andy Schlafly 17:27, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

RINO Crist

Another blunder by the natl GOP. We can't have Republicans in office for the sake of them not being a Democrat. We need people with principles. Crist is a self-serving jerk, it's all about him. The natl GOP needs to focus on candidates that will serve the people, not themselves. How much money did the natl GOP spend on Crist? This is an absolute disgrace and may hurt Rubio's chances. --Jpatt 13:38, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Noah's Ark Found!

It seems to be all over the news. [1], [2], [3]

--Benp 17:33, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

I'll wait to see it on Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly, or perhaps Geraldo broadcasting live from it, before pronouncing judgment. If it is so, it is obviously God's will. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:00, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
Okay, fair enough. I might be a little over-excited...but you have to admit, if even ABC is reporting on it, there has to be something pretty spectacular there. --Benp 18:38, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
This story from the Christian Science Monitor seems to point to where this is heading. Apparently a group of locals carted old wood from the Baltic Sea area and planted it up in the mountain and in caves there, according to a professor from Liberty University who has experience with the team publishing the story, and with the fraud locals there commit to make money off of unsuspecting Biblical researchers. --ChrisY 10:34, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
Believers don't need "evidence" of God or his miracles. I don't need a piece of sacred wood to know Jesus was crucified or that Noah did as God commanded him to do. If this story eventually is verified, it will indeed, Benp, be a joyous day, but not as joyous as the return of the Son of God! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 11:16, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Fascinating Reading

This article from MIT Technology Review discusses 10 emerging technologies in 2010, and is a testament to the creativity that keeps this country a leader in innovation. One that stands out is the work in adult stem cells by one of the teams that first isolated embryonic stem cells - instead of stopping there, they pressed on for another 10 of painstaking research years until they succeeded in finding a way to use adult stem cells just as effectively instead. --ChrisY 10:25, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Typo in Latest Crist story

The phrase "before he decide" should be changed to say "before he decided". --ChrisY 09:46, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Done. Hat-tip ChrisY--Jpatt 09:56, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Arizona haters boycott AriZona Beverages, which is based on New York

How stupid can you get?

AriZona Iced Tea: Don't Boycott Us! We're Not From Arizona!

Jinx McHue 10:56, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Latest British Election Story

Your comments on the news page demonstrates how little you've been paying attention to the UK general election, I have to say User:Brituser

However, it is fair to say that a Conservative majority is now seen by the betting market (usually a better judge than the media) as the most likely outcome. But only just - a small majority looms I suspect. (I was going to link to the relevant page showing the odds, but probably not appropriate to link to a gambling site.) I would reiterate my previous comments about the Tories though - they would mostly be classed as RINOs in the US. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:46, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
I agree, Ferret. However in the grand scheme of things, given what the EU has, a RINO would be a vast improvement there! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:21, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
The papers over here in the UK are generally predicting either a Conservative majority, or a hung parliament. These are by far the most common predictions and so I don't think it's fair to say that the media is generally 'obscuring' this. In fact, The Sun, the best selling daily newspaper, along with several others, are heavily pro-Conservative for this election. Jimmy22 19:12, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
I had a quick look through the leading articles of some of the daily and Sunday newspapers. The opinions seemed to be as follows:
Daily and Sunday Telegraph Conservatives
The Times Conservatives
The Independent on Sunday Vote for candidate best placed to beat the Conservatives (in order to achieve a hung parliament)
The Indepentdent No recommendation
Daily Mail Conservatives
The Observer Liberal Democrats
The Guardian Liberal Democrats
The Sun Conservatives
The Mirror Liberal Democrats or Labour
-- Ferret Nice old chat 19:30, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
"...or that the conservatives will win but not obtain a majority (they don't say that whenever liberals win)."
I simply don't understand this phrase. The last time the largest party failed to achieve a majority was in 1974. In that instance it was indeed the Labour Party who managed that feat and the papers -- largely Conservative-leaning incidentally -- reported that, well, the party with the largest number of seats had failed to achieve an overall majority. What else would they say and why would they anything else? I genuinely don't understand this entry. Jdixon 07:28, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
It's huge news -- and highly significant -- that conservatives will win in a nation as liberal as Britain. The incessant efforts to downplay this historic moment by the liberal press remains astounding.--Andy Schlafly 13:29, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Speaking as a UK citizen I don't think it is that significant. The Labour party and the Conservative party have been passing power back and forth for most of the last century. It's therefore not particularly surprising for anyone that the Conservatives look set to regain power; yes the UK is more liberal than the USA but the Conservatives here are no exception to this, they would be much closer to the Democrats than Republicans. No one is really downplaying the likelihood of a Conservative win, they're simply going by what the polls suggest, which is a small margin of victory. Jimmy22 14:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Your comments look like liberal denial to me, and only prove my point. The conservatives are going to beat the Labour Party in a landslide, in one of the most stunning repudiation of incumbents in a generation. Denying it isn't going to change that truth.--Andy Schlafly 14:16, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


It's not denial of any sort. None of the polls suggest a landslide win for ANY party, they suggest a Conservative win, but only by a small margin. That's not denial, it's statistics. Even the most Conservative leaning elements of the media are suggesting the same thing. Denial would be to suggest the Liberal Democrats are going to win by a landslide when there is no indication from the polls that this is going to be the case. Jimmy22 14:30, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Well, we only have to wait until Thursday. But this is the only organ -- liberal or conservative -- where I have encountered anyone suggesting the Tories will win by "a landslide". What do you know that the pollsters don't? As it happens, I still think the Conservatives can scrape an overall majority. After all, as the record of the 20th century shows, the Tories are the natural party of government in the United Kingdom.
And I still don't understand this phrase "they don't say that whenever liberals win". If the leading party doesn't get an overall majority then that is that. Nobody is in a position to deny it. Who denied this was the case in 1974? Jdixon 14:40, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
The media have a double standard in reporting on elections: no margin of victory is large enough to be significant when a conservative wins, while no margin of victory is too small to be insignificant when reporting a liberal win.--Andy Schlafly 14:54, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't the case. The media in the UK is quite evenly divided between liberal/conservative (as we understand the terms over here). There is therefore as much press bias for as against each party. If you read the Daily Mail you'd see nothing but pro-Tory pieces, read the Guardian and you'll get a lot of pro-liberal articles. In 1997 the Labour win was undeniably huge, but no polls suggest a Conservative win of anywhere near as big. It's not a cover-up, it's simply mathematics. Jimmy22 15:03, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
Jimmy, you've done nothing but talk, talk, talk since you got here. I'm sick of it. JacobB 15:06, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
Every story I've seen downplays the coming conservative rout of the liberals in Britain. Your own comments suggest to me liberal denial of how, in the land of atheism, conservatives are going to trounce the liberals on Thursday. Don't resist it, but do a favor to yourself and those around you by embracing it.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
"no margin of victory is large enough to be significant when a conservative wins, while no margin of victory is too small to be insignificant when reporting a liberal win."
But, hang on, your point was specifically about the possibility of the Tories winning the largest share of the votes, but not securing an overall majority of seats. If that were to happen then the "margin of victory" would not be enough to form a government (without the help of other parties). That would simply be a fact. Are you confusing not getting a majority of the popular vote with not getting a majority of the seats? Obviously, in a three party system, the former almost never happens. Jdixon 15:46, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
Hang on, again. The article from Timescolonist recommended on today's front page contains the following phrase: "A 'hung' parliament, or what we term a minority government, seems inevitable." In other words, it is inevitable that the Tories will not get an overall majority. You appear to be recommending stories that directly contradict your own argument. Odd. Jdixon 07:20, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

If only dreams came true, liberals and leftists would be happy people! The continued talk of a "hung parliament", even in the face of shifting polling numbers for the conservatives, is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of some. The tossers in the U.K. better hurry out and buy their 50" LCD TV's before their dole payments are cut! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:05, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Update - the betting market (which is as free of bias as you can hope for) is showing Conservative Majority and Hung Parliament absolutely neck and neck with no other possibility being seen as realistic. -- Ferret Nice old chat 08:28, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Please bear in mind that there could well be some rather complicated arithmatic after the election - the polls all agree that the Tories are leading, but vary as to the extent of this lead. All of the major papers in the UK are hedging their bets as to the final result - mostly because this really has been a very confusing election to cover.Darkmind1970 10:38, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
On the evening before the election, a hung parliament is now clear favourite with Conservative majority second and nothing else seemed at all likely. -- Ferret Nice old chat 16:53, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
NEWS FLASH: "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!"
The voters always have a way of confounding the pundits and pollsters, one way or another. However it goes, the people are disliking the status quo and are disquieted with the way things have been going, dislike the increasing intrusions into their personal liberties, and that is never a bad thing. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:09, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
No doubt about that, I think it's almost certain that Cameron will be the new PM - even The Guardian concedes that. Remember though, I'm not talking about newspaper headlines, I'm talking about the betting market which is usually more reliable. One outcome could be that the Conservatives don't get a majority on their own, but get enough seats to mean they only need to rely on the pro-British Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland as opposed to the Liberal Democrats. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:13, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
The press are simply trying to deny the reality of the enormous political earthquake that is about to occur. The liberal stories are akin to saying, "Berlin Wall Is Torn Down, but It Remains Unclear which Political System Will Prevail!"--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
Exactly right, Andy. I am the son of the man who lost $50 (not a inconsiderable amount in 1948 Dollars) betting on Dewey. In the end, the only poll that counts is what the voters actually do, and that is more times than not, decided in the voting booth at the last minute. To be sure the liberals will now be running scared, looking over their shoulders each and every time they propose more tax-and-spend legislation! The question remains: When will the U.K. get its own version of the Tea Party Movement? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:32, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
I wasn't talking about the newspapers, I was talking about the betting market. As it turns out, the market strongly favoured a hung parliament in the hours before the election, and the exit polls agree with that. Looks like a minority Conservative government with support of the pro-British parties from Northern Ireland, and that Labour and Liberal Democrats will not have the numbers between them to form a coalition government. But exit polls most certainly have been wrong before now. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:47, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Update from the BBC: A swing of 11.6% from Labour to the Conservatives in Washington and Sunderland West is massive, especially in a seat where you wouldn't expect the Conservatives to put any effort in, says Nick Robinson. If it's reflected nationally, our exit poll is wildly out - that's a bigger swing than Tony Blair got in 1997.
Well, the results are firmly in, even if a government is yet to be formed. We emphatically did not win a landslide, unfortunately; in fact, the majority over Labour was just ~50 seats. In fact, the number of Lib Dem and Labour seats together is actually higher than the Conservatives have, and the joint Lib Dem-Labour share of the vote is about 53-37 against the Conservatives. Fortunately, our system means that the Lib Dems have very few seats compared to their votes. The press has been largely correct; we have a hung parliament. Gordon Brown is attempting to stay on as PM, which while I obviously don't like it, it is his constitutional right to do so. This is indeed a repudiation of the Labour government that has brought the country to its knees, but I can't in good conscience call it a mandate for the Conservatives. We've made our biggest gains in decades, but it just wasn't enough. We now have to rely on the Lib Dems to form a government, a chilling proposition indeed. It seems that an overall COnservative majority was the dream, and the hung parliament a nightmare we can't wake up from.

'

Is the UK really the land of atheism?

Is it really fair to call the UK atheistic? It certainly has more atheists than the United States, but in the 2001 British census [4], 76% identified with a religion, and 72% considered themselves Christian. 27% said they went to church at least once a week. [5] There are plenty of Christians in the UK.--Whizkid 19:15, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

There are plenty of "sunshine Christians", Whizkid, same as there are patriots of the same name. And your point is? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:19, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
My point is that there are plenty of good Christians in the UK, many of whom are very serious about their faith and try to live their lives in accordance with their faith, that it is more religious than many countries in Europe, and that it isn't fair to the country or the many Christians and Muslims who are there to call it atheistic, and especially to call it "the land of atheism", when there are a lot of other countries that better deserve that title.--Whizkid 19:36, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
The phrase "land of" refers to the culture, and the culture is dominated by atheism in Britain. Faith is an increasingly endangered species there.--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
History repeats itself. The people of the U.K. are voluntarily surrendering their Faith for the dole payments of European Socialism, which systematically purges all traces of Christianity from the system there, all religious tolerance whatsoever, in the name of homogenization, and a desire to not offend Muslims. While the polling suggests one thing, actual church attendance and revenues show quite another. The government actually promotes a secular-progressive anti-religion agenda. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:53, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Study: Contraception tied to HIV/AIDS

A study shows that use of a contraceptive pill is linked to a higher chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Joan Robinson, a researcher at the Population Research Institute (PRI), reports that there is a strong scientific link between the two.

"It increases all the known risk factors from upping the risk of infection, to increasing the viral replication of the HIV virus, to speeding the debilitating effects and the deadly progression of the disease," Robinson notes.

More than 50 studies document the findings, yet the correlation remains widely unknown by the public, she notes. The PRI researcher says one reason for this is because some of the people involved in the studies have a vested interest in contraceptive distribution. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=994078

With over a half a millions dead because of AIDS, and 25 million + world wide, all of which are completely preventable, God's laws are looking better all the time. See just some of the temporal costs of the war against God here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Daniel1212 10:36, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Comment regarding the designer of the Gateway Arch

It's valid to state that the monument is an example of "the best of the public" since it was the result of an open competition, as opposed to a design created by committee or a hand-picked "expert". However, Eero Saarinen was a well-known designer at the time of the monument competition, having won first prize in design competitions for classics like the tulip chair. He was definitely not an unknown figure in the design community. --ChrisY 12:23, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your comment, which is educational. But I think the design of the "tulip chair" was a joint collaboration, and would not be called architecture as the Gateway Arch is.--Andy Schlafly 13:09, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

College murder picture caption

I'm kind of wondering why the caption of the picture on the topic of the atheism, sports, and murder-related picture seems to imply that the murdered person is in jail for being murdered. Perhaps if you pointed out who the murderer is and who the victim is in the caption, it would improve clarity and allow an average visitor to more quickly understand the story. RogerJ 19:49, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Good point. How's it now?--Andy Schlafly 20:07, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Mr. Arrogance

The news story about Nick Clegg accusing David Cameron of arrogance states that Richard Dawkins "supports the accusation". The linked article does not support that assertion. It merely refers to Dawkins as a named supporter of the Liberal Democrats' campaign to bring about a fairer Britain. It says nothing about Dawkins even being aware of the assertion, let alone supporting it. Perhaps the news item should be reworded? --ClaudeEB 17:12, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

I could add in the fact that a increasing number in the liberal media now refer to Dawkins as a clown. Would that help clarify the item? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:19, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Umm... is there someone else that I can talk to? --ClaudeEB 17:37, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Well yes, I am certain if you walk into most any street in Melbourne you will find someone. But around here a closed mind isn't appreciated, I'm afraid. You should open your mind, Claude. The truth will set you free! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:38, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
I edited the entry taking into account your input. conservative 23:40, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Norweigan Murderers

Figured you guys might be interested in this: [6] In Norway, "Six out of every 10 murders in the sample were carried out while the killer was intoxicated." "[...] the killer and victim were related in about half of all cases."

Socialists have no respect for family values. CChance 18:14, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

What are you getting at? It seems like you're trying to say that murders are often intra-familial because it's a socialist government, but the article is about alcohol consumption and its links to murder. You're treading a slippery (and inconsistent) slope. You could use that same argument for murders in the U.S. right now, but what about when murders continue next time a Conservative comes to power? EMorris 13:43, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

British Elections

I was surprised to see The Sun described as a liberal newspaper. I thought they traditionally supported the Conservatives and had only backed Labour because of Blair.--Boreas talk 11:48, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I noticed that. I dare say nobody has ever referred to The Sun as liberal in its history. Remember the famous 1992 headline "If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" Jdixon 17:30, 6 May 2010 (BST)
Which news item are you talking about? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:40, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. It was "Even liberal newspapers in England declare the conservatives as "our only hope."" The link is to an article that quotes The Sun as saying the Conservatives are "our only hope". It's a number of years since I lived in the UK so it may of course be that The Sun has moved left but traditionally they've been fairly right wing. --Boreas talk 19:03, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Just so everyone knows, because of British law saying that the sitting prime minister should get the first chance of making a coalition, it's still not outside the realm of possibility that, even though it's pretty much certain that the Conservatives will have more seats in Parliament than Labour, that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will make a coalition, which would mean that Gordon Brown stays Prime Minister.--Whizkid 20:59, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

That won't happen. -- Ferret Nice old chat 22:51, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
The front page story on the rebirth of the special relationship between the UK and US is interesting. Cameron has said that his Conservative government will start the removal of British troops from Afghanistan. -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

"Losing in a landslide"

Minority governments are not usually synonymous with "landslide" victories. MartinSPK 23:44, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

If it happens, it'll be only the second hung parliament since the second world war. Last one was 36 years ago. -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:48, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
305 to 255 looks like a landslide to me. The third party probably drew support from both sides.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Given that the Liberal Democrats -- a left of centre party -- were only one percentage point off their tally in the last election, it doesn't look at all likely that they drew many votes from either side. Jdixon 11:07, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
One could hardly call the loss of 95 seats for Labour anything but a landslide for the Conservatives, especially since all the Labour losses went to them. Out of 650 seats in total, 96 seats were lost, a huge percentage by modern-day election stats. Brown reminds me of hapless Al Gore, remember his contesting the Florida vote? A year later when the liberal mainstream media finally got their recount canvas done, it showed Bush was indeed the clear winner...but they didn't trumpet that, did they? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:39, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Seems medium sized. Looking at 2001, Labour took 147 of the Conservatives' 171 losses to win 418 to 165, a much larger margin. DouglasA 00:41, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
One could hardly call 36 % of the popular vote a "landslide" either--when twice as many vote against you as for you, that's stretching the definition of the word...MartinSPK 00:52, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
You can't call a hung parliament a landslide, but definitely a Tory victory. The big question now is whether an alliance with the pro-British parties from Northern Ireland will be sufficient or whether the Liberal Democrats will be needed. -- Ferret Nice old chat 01:08, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
The last time there was a hung parliament, the incumbent government did not get the largest number of seats but still tried (and failed) to form a government. Brown would be following this precedent - and I suspect he will fail too. -- Ferret Nice old chat 01:12, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

The Queen will be the trump card, perhaps. She does have the fairly recent power to call new elections. I read something the other day about a memorandum that was signed giving her the ability, or re-stating her power to do that. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:53, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

In fact the Queen is always the one to call elections, but by convention only on the advice of the Prime Minister. At the moment the expectation would be that she would stay well away from the horse trading and wait for the parties to decide between themselves who is best placed to form a government. If neither Labour nor Conservatives can get it to work, then the PM of the day would ask for a new election. Could well happen. In terms of the horse trading itself, Brown is claiming the right to have the first try at forming a workable government. Clearly, Cameron would argue that as the party with the most seats, he should be PM. The Lib Dems have indicated they agree with Cameron, so it's likely to be the Conservatives who try first. -- Ferret Nice old chat 08:00, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Liberals give it up! The people have spoken and are done with your communist ways! Capitalism and Christians values are returning to Britain and the people are rejoicing!JamesWillinson 08:03, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
You can't seriously be sticking with this. The Tories will have the second smallest number of seats of any largest party since the war. In other words, you are saying that every single election -- bar the first 1974 poll -- in that period led to "a landslide". That's clearly ridiculous. Whatever "a landslide" means, it doesn't mean securing a minority government (something The Tories haven't even managed yet). This is, quite literally, the only news source in the world that is calling this a landslide. The Tories certainly aren't saying that. What are you talking about? Jdixon 08:26, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Deny it all you want Dixon, the people have spoken and the majority want good Christian values.JamesWillinson 10:06, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
All I am "denying" James is that the Tories won a "landslide" victory. Given that I voted for them, I have no regrets about them being the largest party, but, by no common definition, is this a landslide. There is, of course, no firm definition of that phrase, but most British psephologists would, I guess, require an overall majority of at the very, very least 40 seats. Everybody calls Mrs Thatcher's second and third victories landslides. Nobody --but nobody -- refers to John Major's 1992 victory in those terms and he got an overall majority. If Cameron had won a landslide he would not currently be on my TV making cooing noises to the Liberal Democrats. It's not a landslide. Jdixon 11:04, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
I find it hard to see how the outcome of the British election can be seen as a stunning repudiation of liberalism. The so called Conservative party supports nearly all the liberal positions illustrated in the Conservapedia article Liberal, such as support for gay marriage, having no intention of putting a stop to abortion, support of gun control, the provision of tax-payer funded universal health care, ennvironmentalism, support of disarmamnet treaties and acceptance of evolution, which isn't really surprising since the party is led by a man who claimed only the election of a Conservative government can ensure a "more liberal Britain". Going by the percentage of votes cast for Labor (29% down from 35.2% in 2005) and the Liberals (23% up from 22% in 2005) a majority suport liberalism, and since the so called Conservatve party (36.1% up from 32.4% in 2005) support much of the liberal agenda it would seem that atheisitic Britain as a whole clearly endorses liberalism. The only political party with a vaguely Conservative agenda, UKIP (3.1%), had their hopes dashed into the ground in more ways than one. AmandaBunting 13:22, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Most recent "conservative victories" really cannot be described as truly conservative. Most political victories against liberals are won by partial conservatives. In this you can really see the overall victory of liberalism, in that liberals are elected far more often than conservatives. Not that you would hear Conservapedia admitting this. This site would essentially get behind any republican who could beat a democrat. Need I mention John McCain (a liberal republican) or Scott Brown (who supports Roe v. Wade, and voted against the health care bill because his state already has the same system).

--Double Edge 15:33, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

But a hung Parliament offers different perspectives.

“In a situation of no control” — when there is no clear majority, that is to say — “these conventions may be put under some strain by the absence of a clear way forward,” the House of Commons of report in March suggested with some delicacy.

And, in fact, there is a royal power that could arguably influence the future.

Since 1950, senior civil servants have concluded that the Queen is not constitutionally bound to accept an incumbent Prime Minister’s request for a dissolution of Parliament very soon after an election providing she can see an alternative way forward.

In the convoluted calculations emerging from a hung Parliament, that could mean that Mr. Brown — currently tipped to lose — might seek a second chance to cling to power by asking for a second ballot to overcome a stalemate. And the Queen — to the probable delight of her campaigned-out subjects — could simply say: “No.” [7]

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:48, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

You are correct TK, the Queen could in theory DENY the PM a second election. She would do that if she felt there was a realistic chance that another party could form a government in the current parliament and the PM was denying them the chance and was instead trying to cling to power unreasonably. But the Queen would never call an election if the PM didn't ask her to. She would never do anything other than oil the wheels of democracy and ensure that the people's wishes are granted with the minimum fuss. What happens from here is that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats sit down to see if they can agree enough common ground to form a working majority. If they can, the Queen asks Cameron to form a government. If they can't, Labour and the Liberals start talking. Brown would give away literally anything to stay in power, and Cameron knows this. So Cameron will be doing his absolute best to make sure it doesn't come to that. Given there is a huge amount of common ground between the Conservatives and Liberals, I firmly believe they will be able to do some sort of a deal to kick Brown out of Number Ten without the need for early elections. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:28, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
Addendum. There are constitutional rules governing circumstances in which the PM is required to ask the monarch to call an election. In those circumstances I suppose HM might step in and call one anyway. But Brown is not in that situation. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:36, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
As a cheeky aside one could argue that the British system is an example of evolution, whereas the US system is a result of Intelligent Design. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:46, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
We agree on your aside, Ferret. All I meant to say with my postings on this was to bring to mind the Commons report from this year about the prerogatives, and what the Queen can legally do, is all. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:06, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
In the aftermath of the British elections it's clearly not a case of the current incumbent refusing to give up power but simply a case of following constitutional protocol. It is Gordon Brown's constitutional duty to remain in office in a hung parliament (those don't occur after landslide victories of course) until it becomes clear that he cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons. That has not yet occured. If Gordon Brown resigns before it is clear who will be forming the next government the country will be left without a government, not a very responsible thing to do in the current economic climate. The so called Conservatives are currently negotiating with the Liberals about forming a coalition government, which they needn't do if they had won by a landslide. The fact that the so called Conservatives are wooing the Liberals is hardly surprising since they have much in common, and similar liberal agendas. AmandaBunting 07:45, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Obama's Supreme Court pick also has very little published material

She's a lightweight experience-wise.[8] I really don't see how the Democrats could ever give her the green light if they were at all concerned with having anything other than a vote for their side on the bench. But then, that's the point, isn't it? The Republicans will rightfully make a big deal about her flimsy qualifications and the Democrats will predictably ignore it all. Jinx McHue 23:21, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

13-story mosque to be built at Ground Zero

"Outrage" just isn't strong enough. What in the you-know-where are these people thinking???

Large Mosque Going Up Near Ground Zero

Also, I saw mention of this, but need someone to corroborate it. Is the name of the project and proposed mosque ("Cordoba") really named after a region in Spain where Muslims once raped and murdered Christians hundreds of years ago? Jinx McHue 10:41, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Ah, found something among the many, many glowing, whitewashed webpages about the place in question. Muslims indeed did persecute both Christians and Jews in that area. Some of it took place exactly a millennium ago. That's either irony or design. Leaning towards the latter. Jinx McHue 10:50, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Gordon Brown resigns

Gordon Brown has resigned as Labour Party leader, in a calculated moved designed to make the party look a more attractive coalition partner for the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives will now be under pressure to resolve their differences with the Liberals or face remaining in opposition. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:05, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Sadly, the front page item on Brown's resignation misses a key point: he is resigning as party leader in the hope that this will keep his party in power (with a new leader) and the Conservatives out. And it's fair to say that although a Conservative / Liberal agreement of some sort is still the most likely outcome, the likelihood of it being a Labour / Liberal agreement is now seeming somewhat less unlikely than it was a couple of days ago. -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:52, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
Update: Brown has announced his resignation as PM, and is set to recommend Conservative David Cameron to the Queen as new Prime Minister. GJ James 14:51, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Senior Prayer Ban

It sounds like this was all a misunderstanding. The State of Georgia says a policy against out loud prayer before and after meals was never in place. In an email to Senior Citizens, Inc., the Georgia Department of Human Resources Division of Aging Services says there is no policy, "which would prohibit an individual from praying either publicly or privately, before or after a meal."WTOC: State says no policy against out loud prayer, By Don Logana, May 10, 2010 [9]Hsmom 19:28, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps. The provider of the meals, not the Dept. on Aging, said what it said, Hsmom. It seems the same, tired old excuses keep cropping up whenever liberals wish to make the Constitution say what it was never intended to. Upon being exposed, they run for cover always saying that was never their intent. I don't believe in repeated coincidences, do you? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:02, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Answered prayers. “Senior Citizens, Inc. has always prided itself on the services it has been able to provide the seniors of the low country," it said in a statement. "Part of that service is an adherence to Federal and State regulations that have made funding possible so more seniors can be served.

"Over our years of service, we have been instructed, as recently as two weeks ago, by the state regulatory agency that verbal prayer was not allowed at any senior center. We are so pleased to say that we have been contacted a few minutes ago by the new Director of Aging clarifying the regulation and reversing the position of new verbal prayer.

"As an organization, we feel that spirituality is an important and necessary part of a full life and we are thankful that this interpretation of the regulation makes prayer possible in all of its forms.”

Casey Arnett, director of the senior center, said the seniors who visit the center are no strangers to standing up for what they believe. "They're not going to let people tell them their rights about religion," she said. "They feel like they need to stand for theirs."

Conservapedia in Spanish

Español: Hola compañeros, cuando van a crear es.conservapedia.com para crear cientos de articulos ¿? seria muy util. Saludos --Globalphilosophy 00:13, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Translation: "Spanish: Hello colleagues, when will you (are you going to) create es.conservapedia.com to create hundreds of articles? It would be very useful. Best regards"

My thoughts: It will be useful when (or if) Conservapedia expands to different languages, but my best guess is that it could take awhile. Besides, unfortunately, much of the rest of the world is far more liberal than the United States. In fact, even the slightly conservative foreign countries around the world are nothing more than a socialistic version of the Constitutional Republic that is the United States of America. So, while it would be useful to have a Spanish translated Conservapedia online encyclopedia, the most important question(s) is whether or not the many government powers that dictate countries around the world would even allow a conservative encyclopedia (Conservapedia.com) the freedom of speech required to reference facts without getting censored by liberal bias and socialist regimes. Freedom of speech and limitations on Internet rights are more strict in countries outside the United States, and liberal governments restrict speech by also using premeditated propaganda and lies to skew truth, which could and likely would leak into "es.conservapedia.com," and ultimately cause Conservapedia to have similar liberal problems that Wikipedia runs into: the problem of facts getting censored by liberal editors and admins. Liberal bias can be developed in school, too, with lies fed to children by governments who are infiltrating an education system(s) and feeding children propaganda so that students "learn" not what is true, but what a particular regime wants them to learn. Thus, even though the benefits of a non-english version of Conservapedia sound great, the problem would be whether or not corrupt liberal regimes will simply go to greater lengths to censor or edit to add propaganda in Conservapedia, attempting to take advantage of the fact that many admins or editors who currently use Conservapedia may not always know what is being written in foreign versions of Conservapedia. DerekE 16:52, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Mojave Cross STOLEN

Real nice, atheists. Thanks so much for your tolerance and adherence to the rule of law.

Controversial 'Mojave Cross' honoring World War I dead stolen

Authorities say a 7-foot-tall cross in the Mojave Desert that sparked a U.S. Supreme Court dispute has been stolen. The National Park Service says someone cut the bolts holding down the metal-pipe cross and made off with it late Sunday or early Monday.

The critics of the cross are pretty silent about this act. Jinx McHue 12:13, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

More:

WWI memorial cross stolen from Mojave National Preserve

The cross, which has stood in various forms for the last 76 years as a memorial to World War I soldiers, was stolen late Sunday night or early Monday morning, according to officials from the Liberty Institute, a conservative advocacy group that deals with church-state issues. In a statement Kelly Shackelford, the group’s president, called the actions “disgusting.” Vandals cut through a series of metal bolts to remove the cross — still covered by a wooden box — from its concrete foundation. The cross had been covered with plywood for 10 years as the legal fight surrounding the memorial wound through the courts. Officials from the Liberty Institute argued in favor of allowing the memorial to stand, saying that censoring the cross violated veterans’ freedom of speech and religion.

You'll note that supporters of the cross left the wooden box alone for 10 years while the fate of the cross was decided in courtrooms. It only took opponents of the cross 2 weeks to decide that the courts -- especially the highest court -- didn't matter over their will. Jinx McHue 12:19, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

That's a truly pathetic and petty act of vandalism. When the person(s) who did this get caught, I'd only hope that in addition to jail time they get community service for life on each Memorial Day, so they can reflect on the people whose sacrifices were commemorated by that cross. --ChrisY 12:37, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Typo in Inhofe news story

"Mann-made" should be "man-made". --ChrisY 12:30, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your comment, but actually it wasn't a typo. I added a link to make the point clearer, and the Michael Mann entry could be built up more to make it clearer still. (The phrase "Mann-made" global warming is becoming popular among those who follow that issue closely.)--Andy Schlafly 13:42, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Got it, and thanks for the clarification. --ChrisY 15:05, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
It would seem that the... hysteria? over global warming could be called "Mann-made", whereas global warming itself is neither "Mann-" nor "man-" made. MatthewPR 15:33, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
I thought Mann does claim that global warming itself is man-made, not just the hysteria about hit. Are you saying otherwise?--Andy Schlafly 16:43, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Not at all, sir. Mann is a kook. I'm merely saying that the phrase "Mann-made global warming" is a misnomer, as Mann did not CREATE global warming (if such a thing exists), he has only CONTRIBUTED to it through false insights. Just as evolution (as a concept) is not "Dawkins-made", only Dawkins-promoted. Do you understand what I am trying to say? This is tricky semantics stuff. MatthewPR 18:53, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
What happened to MatthewPR? Did this get him banned? If so, why? Also, for what it's worth, Mann hasn't contributed to global warming; rather, he has contributed to an understanding of the same (and a misguided one if AWGN isn't your cup of tea). Tricky semantics stuff indeed. DanieleGiusto 13:46, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
  • It is rather easy for anyone to check and see, Daniel, as I just did, and found he wasn't blocked. If he had been, it wouldn't be any of your business, that's for sure, so I wonder why you even asked. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:06, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Is this what our colleges are producing?

[10] In case you didn't know the Freedom Center is a museum about slavery and the people who tried to stop it.

[11]

Perhaps we should start a page, "College values" :) ameda 19:25, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

I found your link to be immensely amusing but it left me speechless, unable to write it up as headline.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Ascension Thursday

It may be worth noting up in the News section that today is Ascension Thursday. --ChrisY 17:35, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate the suggestion but wonder if the date of commemoration varies across denominations. I'd like to learn more and maybe we could build an entry about this event.--Andy Schlafly 22:23, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Rep. Bachmann's campaign website hacked

Press Release: Malicious Attack On Michele Bachmann Website

Bachmann for Congress discovered an attack on its website, which resulted in users in Internet Explorer and Google Chrome to receive virus alerts and some to download viruses. After a search with web developers, the offending code was found and removed from the website.

Can anyone name the last time they heard about a Democrat's website (or email) being hacked? I certainly can't. Jinx McHue 20:46, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Big conservative win in New Jersey public school

School board says "NO!" to obscene gay-themed books.

Gay-theme books banned from high school

A local chapter the 9.12 Project, the creation of Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, has been succcessful in their bid to remove three gay-themed books from a high school library.

Some eighteen members of the conservative group attended a March 18 meeting and demanded that three books, which focused on gay and lesbian sexuality, be removed.

School board members voted to remove the books after consulting with their lawyers but wanted to make it clear that the books were banned because they were obscene, not due to a political statement.

"We felt, from an obscenity perspective, there were some things our children didn’t need to see," one school board member said.

A step in the right direction in an unlikely place. Jinx McHue 20:58, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, again Jinx! You always manage to come up with some of the most interesting and timely items. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:14, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Photo

While solid in every respect, and fitting the statement well, that is not London Bridge. That is tower bridge, the much more Victorian of the two. London Bridge, in its "awful modernity" is what the new England has crafted to replace older structures, both physically and socially. --Rcgallup 11:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

I think that's what Andy Schlafly mean, the bridge in the photo is a triumph of the pre-atheist England, in it's grace and beauty. Don't most Englanders call it 'London Bridge' anyway (as in the 'Tower of London')? So I don't think the caption is incorrect in this case, as it refers to what is the pre-atheism London Bridge. PatrickP 11:55, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Right, Patrick. Rcgallup, isn't the photo of the bridge in the children's hymn, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down ...."?--Andy Schlafly 12:33, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
That bridge is now in America, Lake Havasu City, Arizona. [12] --Jpatt 12:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
And rumor has it, Jack the Ripper's spirit is trapped in one of the stones of that bridge. (Sorry. I remember an awful made for TV movie with that plot hook.) Jinx McHue 12:45, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Aschlafy, the building in the photo is Tower Bridge, which was built in the mid-19th century, hence the garish Victorian gothic architecture. The song 'London Bridge is falling down' refers to the far less spectacular London Bridge, which is located upriver of Tower Bridge. London Bridge has existed, in one form or another, for thousands of years - indeed until recently it was the only crossing over the Thames - and as Jpatt correctly stated the old model is now located somewhere in Arizona.
Incidentally, PatrickP, the "Tower of London" refers to the Norman fortress which overlooks the north bank of the Thames. It is not related to Tower Bridge.
Hope that helped! --RGray
I'd hardly call the new bridge "awful." It was basically just designed to be practical, nothing more. Not everything new or modern is offensive.RaymondP 15:45, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Don't let HRH Prince Charles catch you saying that, Raymond! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:17, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Art Robinson and Arizona law

A couple of points: I'm wondering why the victory of Art Robinson is celebrated when he was running against a Tea Party candidate (according to linked article). I also would point out that the Arizona immigration law is 16 pages long, not 10 pages... Harland1 13:50, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

The .pdf version linked on the main page is 17 pages long, so what could be the case with it being "10 pages" is it is being rounded down for press reasons, for simplicity, or perhaps the various politicians who have it in their hands have a version in which the font was reduced to, say 10-point Arial, which would condense the printed copy to about 10 pages. Either way, we have an easy-read of not very many pages; the point being is that the Obama Administration is criticizing it on one side, and admitting they haven't read it on the other. Karajou 14:04, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
And Art Robinson? Harland1 14:41, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I don't know that much about Robinson, but as with any candidate the times have changed. He had better follow the will of the voters or he will lose in November. Karajou 16:39, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Elena Kagan

I know about this site because I saw Andy Schlafly interviewed on the Stephen Colbert show. In the interview he said what's best about Conservapedia is there is no gossip.

Today I see a news headline about Elena Kagan, and I clicked on her entry to learn more about her. The second line cites a blog that incorrectly speculates that Kagan would be the "first openly gay justice." This is incorrect gossip.

It has already been identified in the talk page of the entry, but no one has done anything about it.--AlexTrebeck 15:21, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

As repeated often here, news stories are not encyclopedic items; but merely thought-provoking, oftentimes provocative, items of interest to our users, Alex. You'll need to pick up your game for the double Jeopardy round! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:24, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
He said the ENTRY on Elena Kagan, TK. The encyclopedia entries are supposed to be encyclopedic, right? Criminy... Burnafterreading
Yes, he did indeed say ENTRY, posting here on the talk page for the Main Page, so if Alex was talking about the encyclopedia article, then he should have been posting there on its talk page, not here. So it seems you are just as confused as Mr. Trebeck. If there is gossip in the article, I will remove it, of course, and not only for gossip, but because CP doesn't identify people by sexual orientation unless they are primarily known or famous because of that one fact. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:45, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Scientist proves only intelligent design can create life

Though calling this "creating life" is pretty dubious.

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

I'll be impressed when they get life to arise spontaneously from a random mix of chemicals. As it is, this is little different from building a robot from a set of plans. Jinx McHue 23:36, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

...but it's still a significant victory for Intelligent Design and a severe blow against atheism. Up until now, the standard response to "You've never seen life emerge by random chance" has been "We've never seen intelligence produce life, either." Now, that's no longer the case. We HAVE observed that intelligence can produce life (albeit in a limited sense), but we have NOT observed that random chance can do the same. Occam's Razor, in this case, favors what can be directly observed over what cannot. --Benp 19:36, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
The main problem with saying this proves intelligent design is the question, where was the intelligent designer hundreds of thousands of years ago? Somehow i don't think he had a lab. --Mpeters989 20:18, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Mpeters 989, all of your edits here have been to talk pages, including your sarcastic comment above. Try contributing substantively with an open mind. Endless talk, and deceitful remarks about "hundreds of thousands of years ago" are disfavored here. DanielPulido 20:32, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Does it PROVE that all life is the result of intelligent design? No. However, it strengthens the case for intelligent design and cuts off the counter-argument--that we have no observed examples of life through intelligent design--at the knees. --Benp 20:44, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Godspeed to Mpeters989. I don't mind anyone talking about hundreds of thousands of years, but I do mind snark....he will get all he wants at his vandal site, so no need for him to be here. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:46, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Calderon gets standing ovation from Democrats for bashing Arizona

Here.

Sickening. These people are nothing more than traitors. November can't come soon enough.

Limbaugh put this guy and the Democrats in their place here. Jinx McHue 14:01, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Jinx. What is fascinating is why Obama and his security officials and the Attorney General are lying about the Arizona law. If one reviews the state law and existing federal law, the federal laws on the matter are much more intrusive, allow federal agents to demand papers at will and whim, without the safeguards Arizona has built into their law. That being the case, the things Obama and Company have said are indeed a pack of lies, knowing their federal law allows far worse. So what's up with that? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:43, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

H1-1 and Massachusetts vs. PA-12, NY-23, and NY-20

The one common thread that I saw in H1-1 and in Massachusetts vs. PA-12, NY-23, and NY-20 is that in H1-1 and MA, a candidate, often times too liberal, was not preselected by the Republican committee without a democratic vote. Tim Burns, Dede Scozzafava, and Jim Tedisco were hand picked without a democratic vote by the Republican committees. While Tim Burns is a conservative on the issues, Bill Russell should have run in PA-12 and Doug Hoffman as the Republican in NY-23. When is the Republican establishment going to learn we want true conservatives? Soho 19:35, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Your observation is extremely astute, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Your insight itself is an example of the best of the public.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Obama in BP's back pocket

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

Not really surprising. What IS surprising is the left's failure to call him an "oil profiteer." Jinx McHue 22:42, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Time for a Fact Check: Obama took money from polluters while Sarah Palin taxed big oil companies. Rob Smith 22:56, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Census

What's ironic and maddening is that while the Census is employing convicted sex offenders who provide false documents, it is simultaneously disqualifing qualified applicants who have had old arrests dismissed. Very few private employers, if a government security clearance is not required, will disqualify a candidate based upon dismissals/acquittals or old arrests if they do not ask for them. However, the Census, even though they only ask for convictions and probation terms in the past 10 years, is doing exactly that. Many times an FBI check is incomplete or inaccurate, and individuals who have been found not guilty or had their cases dismissed are now ineligible to apply for currently the largest US employer because the Census asks for documents that do not exist (asking for court documents when there were no charges pressed for example) and even if documents are provided, the Census takes months in processing these documents, effectively disqualifying these applicants from getting these temporary jobs.

Maybe the honest applicants should have followed the sex offender's lead and provided a false name. (This statement is tounge in cheek. Don't ever lie to the federal government.)

The blame for all of this (both the disqualification of innocuous applicants as well as the hiring of dangerous employees) lies solely with the Obama administration and Gary Locke. How can we not sympathize with applicants, who in Obama's economy can't find any private sector jobs, and because of government bureaucracy are held ineligble for the largest employer currently? They don't want unemployment handouts for over 2 years. They want a job, and in Obama's economy the only jobs that currently exist by and large are Census jobs.

It is unfair to disqualify applicants who have either turned their lives around or had been found innocent, while simultaneously hiring recently convicted sex offenders who only have to provide a false name to get hired. Soho 14:09, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Sadly, the government fails to admit it is incapable of running the number of background checks needed for the Census. The FBI is simply not given the additional man-power and computing ability to run hundreds of thousands of the checks in a short time-frame. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:56, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
So should we raises taxes for the FBI?--IreneK 15:56, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

America Speaking Out

Has there been any discussion here about America Speaking Out? It's a website set up by the Republicans in congress to find new ideas. It's an interesting idea, but it is not going so well because it is being over run with trolls and liberals making dirty jokes. There are some interesting ideas, though. Just goes to show how powerful and clever conservatves can be! Has anyone else tried participating?

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before.--NateSmall 15:20, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

No it hasn't been discussed yet. It is on my todo list, you are welcome to create a page or wait for mine.--Jpatt 15:42, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Sounds interesting; I'll look into it as well, and hopefully add to what Jpatt or yourself (NateSmall) write on a page about America Speaking Out. DerekE 15:57, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Since 2004 the liberals have excelled at web-manipulation via the politics of personal destruction, Nate. Since they cannot compete in the market place of ideas, their methods always involve finding fault with individuals, attacking personally and trying to destroy the credibility of the person, via repeated slanders and insults, up to and including personal attacks on their chosen targets family and friends. This they are employing against the RNC-run site as well. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:18, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
It's not like the pro-communist workers of the world will unite and form giant mobs of union workers on privately owned lawns of the homes of people who work in the private industry, sounding claptrap alarms and pointing fingers at people who work to make a profit. Why would unions terrorize the children of people they disagree with? Would the SEIU really ever do such a thing? Or are you just spreading conspiracy theories and being racist? ;-) DerekE 17:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
This may not be SEIU, but in this video we have a school bus driver deciding to open her mouth against a Christian kid on a school bus - using some of the same thugish methods her SEIU brothers use - in order to intimidate and threaten. [13] Karajou 18:25, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

The liberals and socialists have always been bully-boys under their misleading and soothing rhetoric, since the pre-communist revolution days. The tactics were refined further by their cousins, the National Socialists and has been nearly perfected by the Soros-funded vandal sites and those who delude kids by operating them. Those who operate such sites are dangerous pied-pipers of hate, always operating behind the scenes, using psych-ops to take gullible followers in, always reinforcing the idea that the end justifies the means. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:39, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Churches vandalized by gays

Churches Vandalized, Ransacked, and Threatened with Disruption

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, a group called "Bash Back" broke into an Evangelical church and spray painted "666" and other messages on a church van and garage door, poured oil over books and other items, and stole valuable construction equipment.


In Maywood, California a Catholic parish was broken into and ransacked, "666" was written on the walls, a cross was turned upside down and burned, and a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary had a knife stuck through it.

In Chicago, a group that advocates homosexual behavior called the "Rainbow Sash Coalition" threatened to disrupt Mass on Pentecost Sunday at the Cathedral and other churches around the country.

My law once again proven to be 100% accurate. Jinx McHue 11:35, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Those should be added to the Militant gays article. --Jpatt 11:50, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Done! Jinx McHue 11:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Girl calls 911 on illegal immigrants...

  • In Oregon a 12 year old girl called the police after three hispanic men broke into her house while she was home alone. She hid underneath her covers in her bed and spoke in a whisper to the 911 operator. At one point one of the men went into her bedroom and began to rummage around. A police officer was nearby and arrived at the scene and arrested the three men at gunpoint. The girl ran out of her front door and gave the officer a hug and other officers responding gave her thumbs up signs. Those three men were later brought to the county jail where they were remanded (eventually) by the court. One of the three is suspected of being an illegal and another could possibly have immigrated illegally. The third has a history of drug use.

Source

I thought it could be a good story for the front page...--CR 23:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools