Talk:Main Page/archive89

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

November, 2010 Archive


Spectacular heading!

That's a spectacular heading for the Main Page!--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

Democrats could lose New York...

...well, the New York legislature, at any rate--and high time, too.


--Benp 15:58, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

Dow sets new bull market high..

Just two days after Republicans regained control of the house, the Dow has hit a new bull market high--its highest point in over two years! Now, I wonder: what happened two years ago that could have caused the Dow to drop? Oh, right: Democrats took over. Could the correlation be any clearer? --Benp 16:56, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Nope. The stock market is responding to Federal Reserve Board policy (quantitative easing). The Fed is reving the printing presses up overtime. The Dow is reacting in anticipation of a flood of greenbacks dumped on an economy that has not grown perceptibly in 10 years. Rob Smith 17:44, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
I'm sure that's part of it, Rob, but c' you really think the market's NOT going to react positively to news that there will FINALLY be a check on Obama's agenda? The performance of the market is never influenced by just one factor. --Benp 19:12, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Right. The 1.8 trillion corporate cash ('negative business investment' in Federal Reserve parlance) can come into play very very quickly and set off a consumer spending & employment boom. But the fundementals of being a growth oriented economy just aren't there. In the end, it's a zero sum, no growth game. A lot of activity, but no gain. Rob Smith 19:28, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Harry Reid's unexplained results

More than 8 points better than the polling data, and yet still no explanation. What's the reason?--Andy Schlafly 18:11, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

The question has hardly been ignored by the media, Andy. Nate Silver has a very interesting theory, that the Latino turnout was underestimated by likely voter models. He compared states and districts across the nation with large Latino populations, and discovered that in almost every case, the polls underestimated the Democrat's performance by an average of 4-5 points. JDWpianist 18:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Your link is to a blog. That's not the mainstream media. Not a word in any major newspaper, television or other mainstream outlet. That omission is bias in itself.
Nate Silver's blogging is interesting, but has two flaws it must overcome. First, Hispanics were only 15% of the vote in Nevada on Tuesday, up from only 10% in a prior election. [2] Moreover, that vote was not 100% or even 90% for Harry Reid. So it's hard to turn that into a surprise 8% swing in outcome.
Second, the average delta from polls to outcomes was only 2% in states having large Hispanic populations. How's that jump to 8% for Harry Reid???
I don't claim to know the answers, but it is objectionable how the mainstream media does not ask the question about their own side.--Andy Schlafly 19:14, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Hopefully the new leadership in the House will have the integrity to order an investigation of this (and other) suspicious discrepancies. --Benp 19:23, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
That's more a state issue, isn't it? Repubs generally, as a matter of principal, refrain from getting the federal government involved in states responsibilities, particularly where it is only grandstanding for media attention & inflaming public passions, which is more a Democratic party phenomenon. Recall, there were questions surrounding the last Democratic Majority leader stuffing ballot boxes in South Dakota [3] but the feds couldn't do much about it.
On the other hand, to make matters more simple, Joe Sestak lost in Pennsylvania. It will be a whole lot easier now to call Sestak up before a House Committee, put him under oath, and have him name names who in the White House promised him a federal job (Jobsgate}. If Sestak had won (like Daschle & Reid) he could claim Congressional Immunity from being forced to testify before another Congressional body. But now he's an ordinary citizen. And he already told public media someone in the White House promised him a job in exchange for a favor. That someone now is running for Mayor of Chicago (IOW, he got out when he saw the writting on the wall weeks ago). Rob Smith 19:40, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Normally I'd agree with you, Rob. I do agree with you in principle. On the other hand, Harry Reid has a lot of power in his state, and I think he can effectively squelch any state investigation. Given that this isn't the first time a Democrat has taken a Congressional seat under questionable circumstances, I think the question needs to be asked: at what point does it become a pattern, and thus bigger than any one state? --Benp 19:46, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Nevada is somewhat like New Mexico. Here in New Mexico ACORN is now operating under the name Ole. 50,000 undocumented aliens have driver licenses. With a DL you can register to vote. But unlike Nevada, we just elected the first wise Latina in the nation as Governor. Harry Reid proved his ignorance when he said "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK." This wise Latina is proving to be an inspiration to young women of Hispanic heritage who've been kept down on the Democratic farm too long. The GOP is indeed the party of opportunity, especially for minorities. Rob Smith 19:53, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Is there an article somewhere to the effect of liberal voter fraud? I couldn't find one, but it would be a good place to discuss these recent cases as well as older examples. --LanceS 19:55, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Rob, I'd say the integrity of federal elections is both a federal and a state issue. Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican did more than 8 points better than polling on election day???--Andy Schlafly 20:11, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
And 8 points is nothing compared to what happened in Hawaii! The only poll there in the last couple weeks showed Inouye with a surmountable 53-40 lead, but he went on to win 72-21???? No poll ever showed him over 60! Sounds like whoever was stuffing those ballot boxes did his math wrong. --LanceS 20:29, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Well, it's been a couple days and the media remains silent on this issue. I propose to create Statistical Evidence of Liberal Election Fraud in the 2010 Midterms including the following points: * Reid's 8-point overperformance compared with polling. * Inouye's 38-point jump compared to polling (in my opinion, the most egregious example of fraud). Several house races also saw surprising jumps compared with polling. Also, the number of high-profile close elections which were decided in liberals' favor was surprising high (e.g. OR-Gov, WA-Sen, IL-Gov, CT-Sen, CT-Gov). The chance of all five of these close races going to one party is 1/32, smaller than the 5% cutoff required by science. --LanceS 18:34, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your superb suggestion, but let's use an objective entry title to keep an open mind. I've started Mystery:Nevada Election 2010 and welcome additions to it.--Andy Schlafly 20:15, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Another Trifecta!

Another Trifecta!conservative 22:02, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

An error on In the News section about Keith's Olbermann's suspension

On Conservapedia's In the News section about Keith Olbermann's suspension, it said that Keith Olbermann is the one whose leg "tingles" when hearing Obama speaking, but isn't Chris Matthews the one whose legs "tingles" whenever he hears Obama speaking? Willminator 21:38, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Yes, you are correct, Will, and I am going to fix that. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:10, 6 November 2010 (EDT)

MSNBC, a socialist news organization after all???

This scary admission live on air from Lawerence O'Donnell MUST definitely go in to Conservapedia's In The News section 1. He actually admitted yesterday that he's a socialist!!! I'm wondering. Since MSNBC apparently hired a socialist and still has him there. Does that mean that MSNBC may more than liberal news organization, but a socialist news organization? Shame on Phil Griffin (MSNBC president) and Steve Capus (NBC News president) for hiring a socialist. Shame on NBC in general. Nothing that comes out of MSNBC suprises me in general, but this??? Wow!!! Willminator 16:51, 6 November 2010 (EDT)

One can safely assume if anyone claims to be a modern-day liberal in the United States, they are by default socialist-inclined. This has been true for well over 20 years now. That NBC regularly presents the socialist point of view, and is more sympathetic to it than middle-of-the-road American political views, and antagonistic to conservative views has been well documented by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:09, 6 November 2010 (EDT)

Main Page

Today's Main Page, politically effective, is not any more encyclopedic. --Joaquín Martínez 09:16, 7 November 2010 (EST)

Joaquin, do you have an objection to a particular headline on the main page, or its style in general?--Andy Schlafly 09:34, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I see where Joaquín is coming from here -- when I load the front page, everything on both the left and the right is political. It is almost every single item: the exceptions seem to be an announcement about DST and a comment that the Giants won the World Series (and the other WS post makes it political!). This creates a certain impression that Conservapedia is now just a conservative blog rather than a general-purpose encyclopedia. I remember back before I registered there used to be an "Article of the Day" that didn't have anything to do with liberals or atheists. Any chance of bringing something like that back? Occasional news items not about liberal screwups might also create an encyclopedic veneer. --LanceS 12:38, 7 November 2010 (EST)
It's just after a historic U.S. election. It is really not all that surprising that politics has dominated the main page leading up to the election and afterwords. I do think the front page should have more general items and Rob's economic data is helpful since joblessness/economics is particularly important to many in the world now. If the US economy suffers another big decline or if the same happens to Europe, it could cause a world wide depression. conservative 12:55, 7 November 2010 (EST)
In addition, for the past 3 months, I have used the main page to criticize and parody atheism quite a bit. I will be doing less of this in the upcoming months. However, I may add some more content to the Conservapedia atheism article that I found both relevant and interesting and that I think others would find relevant and interesting as well. If Joaquin wants to return the masterpieces of the week to the main page, I would be all for that and I suspect others would be for that as well. conservative 13:08, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I would also like to add that it appears as though I may win quite a number of "awards" from an atheist website due to my recent criticisms and parodies of atheism which cited a number of facts which I am sure they would like to ignore or pretend do not exist. Of course, the more "awards" I win, the more telling it will be. After all, it is often the cat that gets hit by the shoe that yelps the loudest. :) conservative 13:47, 7 November 2010 (EST)
By the way, I suspect the economy is going to get worse and that will be a defining factor as far as Obama losing the 2012 election. I suppose someone in his own party might be able to successfully run against Obama, but I think the politics of that happening argue against this. Has a sitting president who was elected ever had someone successfully run against him in his own party? Also, what is the closest someone has ever gotten to winning the nomination against a duly elected president in his own party in terms of votes or percentage of votes? Given the hostility of conservatives against the leftist policies of Obama, I suspect that once Obama is no longer president, the main page will have less political content. On the other hand, if a financial meltdown happens, since economics is closely tied to politics, perhaps the main page will be even more political. But after all is said and done, I do think we should make the front page less political. conservative 16:15, 7 November 2010 (EST)
You make interesting points, Conservative. But I don't think that if there is a financial crisis the main page will get more political -- it's already 100% political, almost literally, so that would be impossible. Personally I'd shoot for 30% and nudge up to maybe 50% around elections. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --LanceS 21:19, 7 November 2010 (EST)
Well, numbers are numbers, and it's hard to have an ideological perspective on a number. There is a need, however, to help educate people in Budget terminology and other basic macroeconomic concepts (which really are not all that complicated). These debates, I suspect, will dominate in the coming Congress, while gay marriage, abortion rights, medical marijuana and other single social issues may take a backseat for awhile. Rob Smith 15:58, 9 November 2010 (EST)
I do not have an objection to a particular headline on the main page; but it is not any more the face of an encyclopedia. --Joaquín Martínez 18:27, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I agree with conservative here. I'm not American, but it still doesn't bother me that American politics are widely covered on the front page. It's important to think about who the target audience is. Christian, Conservative Americans - likely associated with or interest in the Tea Party - are the target audience. And having useful links to thinks which other news sites might not point out is very important. StephenParker 19:40, 7 November 2010 (EST)

Have we received any feedback from our readers and/or general editors about the front page's setup and content? DouglasA 19:51, 7 November 2010 (EST)

The Administrators have ongoing discussions about all aspects of Conservapedia. The Main Page, its layout, continuity, graphics and style are often discussed, and prompted by our friend Joaquín, it is being delved into once again. Change is sometimes good for attracts attention and adds a feeling of "freshness". Recently we have been discussing those things, and some changes will result, and I have no doubt that others will follow! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:29, 7 November 2010 (EST)

Lance, if a lot more people's 401ks go up in smoke and there is hyperinflation (in other words, severe stagflation), I believe you will probably see the main page be more political in breadth and especially in intensity. That is my prediction. For example, there is a lot more "empty space" that could be utilized on the main page. Obama is viewed by many as a liberal elitist (and for good reasons) and if things get worse economically (and I believe there a good reasons it will) his popularity will plunge further. conservative 06:12, 8 November 2010 (EST)

We all believe that Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, consequently the Main Page has to be also encyclopedic; at present it is a platform of antiliberal issues; perhaps it is politically effective but it is not what is expected from a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, math, science, politics, religion and other topics. It also contains debates, essays and educational resources. --Joaquín Martínez 22:19, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Joaquín, while CP is a encyclopedia project, it self-labels as conservative and Christian. Generally speaking the Main Page News is meant to be provocative and thought-provoking and present news and thoughts on it not necessarily always found in the U.S. MSM. I believe our readers are intelligent enough to know what it is, and what they are reading. We certainly go to great lengths to inform those who ask that the entries there are not meant to be "encyclopedic", but topical. Is that not fair enough? The left-side menu is pretty prominent, and identifies our sectional parts, Debate, Educational Index, etc.
I am wondering what specific changes you are thinking need to be made, and what it is, exactly, that you are not liking. We get so much traffic to the news section, and so many favorable comments, and the opposite, that it appears to be doing what it was intended to do. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:58, 9 November 2010 (EST)
Yes TK, I agree with you; but with a little effort the left-side could be improved incorporating calls to art, science, biographies, historical quotes, literature, etc. Specially it is needed more nice images; with that the political part will also win as the front page could look nicer. The cartoons that are a success could have a place in the right-side as they have in the better newspapers. Hope this could help. --Joaquín Martínez 17:52, 9 November 2010 (EST)
Yes, my southern (and more warmer located) friend, that does help! I will discuss this more fully and in private with Andy as soon as possible. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:06, 9 November 2010 (EST)

Where is Template:Mainpageright archived? Thanks! Keepscases 00:32, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Pursuant to the above discussion, I created a draft page Conservapedia:In the News giving background about the news column. Since I think it competes directly with (and compares favorably to) some other conservative news pages here that do have their own articles, I see no reason why it shouldn't too. I'm curious what the Adminstrators think. This could be added to the links at Template:Conservapedia if it seems helpful. --LanceS 13:48, 10 November 2010 (EST)
Keepcases, look at the bottom of the news column. The link is there. Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:28, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Get Ready Just in Time for Christmas I am thoroughly disgusted.

Conservatism Template

Just added it to see how it looked, I like it. Remove if you wish. --Jpatt 13:55, 11 November 2010 (EST)

I think it will make it easier for visitors to find some of our signature articles, Jpatt. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:27, 14 November 2010 (EST)

Palin Sounds Presidential

I thought the letter to incoming freshman was superb, nails it on the head. Liberals call her dumb but make no mistake, her appeal and leadership will be accepted warmly by a majority of conservatives, which is a majority of America. To bad we don't have a president with honest answers, a strong resolve and the America 1st philosophy.--Jpatt 23:08, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Politicians being politicians, several elected this year will be assimilated and succumb to the siren call of Washington, and so tossed out in 2012. Those who do will have only themselves to blame for not heeding Palin's clear and unmistakable warning. Equivocators like Barack Obama will suddenly find they are on the outside looking in, and that is as it should be! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:26, 14 November 2010 (EST)

"Most books (other than the Bible) are liberal claptrap anyway"

"... so this is probably good news". I can only assume this post is a tad mischievous. If a liberal celebrated the unavailability of books, I can only imagine how savage the cries of "dumbing down" would be from this source. Jdixon 16:12, 13 November 2010 (GMT)

Our headlines are provocative, but truthful. Some books (such as the Bible) are great, but many are liberal claptrap, and that's what most bookstores push on the public.--Andy Schlafly 12:58, 14 November 2010 (EST)
"Many" is not "most". I think I'll choose to regard "provocative" as a synonym for "mischievous". Jdixon 15:54, 14 November 2010 (EST)
Duh! Lacking enough argument in your life, Jdixon? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:06, 14 November 2010 (EST)

Atheists pastoring churches already?!?!

How desperate can these atheists get in trying to deconvert the faithful!!! Willminator 11:21, 15 November 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps that is hyperbole? I suggest reading the story again, Will. The story has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with "deconverting" people, but everything to do with a crisis of Faith, and what those poor souls need is our prayers. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:37, 15 November 2010 (EST)
I think the story does have something to do with deconverting people. Dennett is using these alleged pastors as pawns by his reports of these alleged pastors. Of course, Dennett doesn't report on atheists who have doubts about abiogenesis or atheists doubting the validity of atheism. In addition, given Dennett's desperate rhetoric concerning whether Stalin was an atheist, one could certainly question whether in fact these particular alleged atheist pastors that are being reported even exist or are mere fiction. If someone believes I am being overly skeptical concerning Dennett's report, please read Atheism and deception. conservative 18:34, 16 November 2010 (EST)
Exactly, you never hear about Christian Muslim pastors, Judaic Christian pastors, Hindu Christian pastors, etc. Willminator 11:23, 17 November 2010 (EDT)

Who is the preferred man for RNC leadership?

I don't really know either Michael Steele or Saul Anuzis. What is the conservapedia consensus on who is better? RyanB

Personally, I think the Tea Party should select the RNC chairmanship. Steele is the GOP establishments pick. Not long after they picked Dee Dee Scozzafava for NY-23 seat, blah. Saul doesn't seem to be far from the establishments views either since he is willing to silence others, just like Democrats do. They need a competent political strategist who can bring in donations to the base, not a career politician.--Jpatt 20:02, 15 November 2010 (EST)
I personally think neither Steele nor Anuzis would be good for the RNC. We've all seen how Steele can be incompetent at times, and Anuzis wanted to get Ron Paul off the ballot, so that's a huge negative. Maybe Sarah Palin should try to get the position! (although I am sure that would interfere with her almost inevitable presidential plans). --TeacherEd 20:10, 15 November 2010 (EST)
I agree with Jpatt: it would be welcome for a Tea Partier be considered for a leadership position in the RNC. But I think Steele is a better choice than Anuzis. The RNC needs to welcome Ron Paul, not try to exclude him and his growing support.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Newest version of MediaWiki

Admins, is there any chance of upgrading to the latest version of MediaWiki? Seems to have some new features that could be of interest to the educational projects here, in addition to looking a bit nicer. ColinS 23:33, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Isn't this the latest version? Please explain what helpful new features you don't yet have access to here.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 15 November 2010 (EST)
MediaWiki 1.16 is the latest version. It brings with it RSS feeds to watch pages remotely, adds local caching for improved speed, and has a lot of backend improvements. ColinS 01:02, 16 November 2010 (EST)
My bad – turns out this is the latest version. Sorry for the confusion. ColinS 01:04, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Massachusetts Liberals Insanity

Deval Patrick wants to give ILLEGALs who DON'T pay TAXES to get INSTATE TUITION at state universities. How in the world did some one as crazy as Devalue Patrick get re-elected? oh right because it's Massachsuetts they can't do anything right, even their Republicans are crazy (Mitt Romney and Health care, RINO Scott Brown ) [4] --IScott 14:40, 16 November 2010 (EST)

This isn't endemic to MA, IScott. The so-called Dream Act is a piece of legislation sponsored by the despicable Harry Reid that would provide a preferential path to citizenship, jumping over tens of thousands who are trying to immigrate legally, that would make in-state tuition available to the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants, up to age 26! It would by nature of making them citizens, provide in-state tuition in all 50 states. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:06, 16 November 2010 (EST)
It's all about getting more voters to go Democrat. Honestly that's what it boils down to. That's what amnesty is all about for the liberals. If illegals were more inclined to vote republican, the D's would be the ones looking for stricter border control. RyanB
Why are sons and daughters of illegal immigrants a problem? They might be citizens. Also, IScott, why do you believe illegal immigrants do not pay taxes? That's incorrect. Many do (any who are not paid under the table will pay the same payroll taxes you and I pay, just to a federal tax ID number issued to them or to a fake social security they "borrowed") and obviously don't receive any government benefits at all for them. That doesn't say anything about whether it's Ok for them to be here or whether they should get in state tuition. It's just an observation about part of your outrage being misplaced. Nate 21:07, 16 November 2010 (EST)
Our Constitution states that a baby born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, Nate. The "Dream Act" would provide a pathway to citizenship to those born in other countries. Where it becomes problematic is in how we then treat the illegal immigrant parents and siblings. Insofar as taxes, it have been proven many times that the amount spent on illegal immigrants is far greater than the amount paid by them in taxes, so it isn't just as simple as saying they pay for what they get in taxes. They don't. Illegal's cost the American taxpayer about 2.5 times what they actually pay in sales and withholding. For every dollar illegals might not receive in Social Security benefits later, for that stolen, not "borrowed" Social Security number, they also don't pay double that amount in Income Taxes owed over the amount withheld. There isn't a need, is there, to get into the problems caused for law-abiding citizens with the IRS, when the amount of income they reported is at odds with the amount shown due to the stolen card. I suspect you are not from a border state, Nate...that will change one's outlook rather fast! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:44, 16 November 2010 (EST)
You were unclear about whether the children of illegal immigrants you were talking about could be citizens so I took issue with the overstatement. My wife and I are both the US born children of illegal immigrants. Our parents became citizens years after illegally immigrating. My folks passed away a few years ago or I'd ask if it helped that they paid taxes, owned property, had 7 kids in this country and that dad served in the air force overseas as soon as he got his visa. In regards to taxes, your own numbers reflect that some illegals do pay taxes which is the only point I was making with IScott. He said no illegals pay taxes. That's not correct. I'm not saying illegal immigration is Ok. It's probably not. I'd be milking a cow in Kerry if my grandparents didn't come over here illegally but that doesn't make it right. It just means there's a lot of opportunity here and some people who immigrate illegal make things right. Nate 14:09, 17 November 2010 (EST)

It is indeed an emotional issue, Nate, and there are few Americans left who came over on the Mayflower, certainly not half of my lineage! Personally, my objection is over the issue of fairness, speaking as one who has helped dozens immigrate, and letting some jump the line ahead of those who have been patiently waiting for several years. Also, in previous times we were not dealing with the millions of souls we are now, which makes a big social difference, especially when today many promote non-assimilation, where in the past that was considered laudatory. Today despicable liberal politicians like Reid, Obama and Pelosi are interested in keeping racial and cultural issues contentious to pander for votes. Search for "Balkinization" to read more about this important issue. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:33, 17 November 2010 (EST)

Gallery of new files

If we have a "Gallery of new files" in the left-side of this Main Page we could stimulate those who upload them and have a premium for the best ones. --Joaquín Martínez 16:45, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Perhaps a link to our Galleries, Joaquín? That way not every minor upload will be highlighted? We could make a category for the galleries, and have the main page menu link to that? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:08, 16 November 2010 (EST)
The file selected each time will be the best one uploaded in the week or so. The main benefit will be to improve the display of the Main Page. It also will be a reward to the up-loader. A win-win move. --Joaquín Martínez 21:00, 16 November 2010 (EST)
Sounds this something we need to implement? And can you do the selections? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:33, 16 November 2010 (EST)
We could have a page to receive comments and proposals or a committee. --Joaquín Martínez 14:03, 17 November 2010 (EST)
Since "files" is more a computer storage unit (and not everyone is into computers) rather than a description of what is being visually presented, I changed the name to "Gallery of photos". I think that is better, but I am certainly open to feedback. I do appreciate that Joaquín Martínez likes the photos I uploaded. :) conservative 21:23, 3 December 2010 (EST)
Excellent idea! --Joaquín Martínez 16:24, 4 December 2010 (EST)
Thanks. I am glad you liked it. conservative 11:03, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Quick Question about how to get signature to automatically appear after all posts

I always have to type in my name manually at the end of my posts but on most other people's posts, it seems like their name time and date appear automatically after they post. Can anyone help me out with this? RyanB

When in edit mode you will see a toolbar at the top (Bold/Italics/ and so on). The tenth box left to right on the toolbar is signature with timestamp. Hope this helps--Jpatt 19:59, 16 November 2010 (EST)
You type ~~~~ Nate 21:02, 16 November 2010 (EST)

What did Tom Brokaw of NBC News mean when he said this about Keith Olbermann and MSNBC’s reputation?

A few days ago Howard Kurt’s from CNN’s Reliable Sources program wrote a piece on the Daily Beast about how Keith Olbermann and NBC are at war with each other, which is kind of hard to believe, based on other things I’ve read. According to Howard Kurt’s piece on The Daily, Tom Brokaw of NBC News expressed concern to management that Keith Olbermann has badly damaged MSNBC’s reputation for independence. Just curious, if Tom Brokaw did say that, what did he mean by “MSNBC’s reputation for independence” and why is he worried about this since he doesn't work for the MSNBC network? Willminator 11:27, 17 November 2010 (EDT)

They both work for the same parent company, GE and NBC-Universal, Will. Did you mean Howard Kurtz, not Kurt? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:37, 17 November 2010 (EST)
Yeah, I meant to say Kurtz. Sorry about that. By the way, Microsoft (MSN) also owns MSNBC (18%), hence the name MSNBC. Anyway, what I want to understand is this. What is "MSNBC's reputation for independence" Tom Brokaw is speaking of? Howard Kurtz didn't go on to explain what that is or was. Also, what prompted Tom Brokaw to go to management to complain about what Keith O is doing to damage "MSNBC's reputation for independence?" Willminator 15:57, 17 November 2010 (EDT)
That statement made by Brokaw is just liberal claptrap, Will. Perhaps it is just his own wishful thinking, but Brokaw long ago gave up reality for liberal propaganda. Perhaps he felt the need to compliment NBC while taking a swipe at Olberman. Perhaps NBC/GE management put him up to it, to rein in the bombastic former sports reporter. By the way, Microsoft long ago gave up any active management of the venture, and it is all currently being sold to cable giant Comcast, which is under conservative management. Many have speculated they will make big changes at both NBC and MSNBC, to help it regain a competitive edge, but who really knows! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:26, 17 November 2010 (EST)
Yeah, thanks for making that statement clear to me. By the way, some think that Comcast may turn NBC more conservative. In fact, some liberals fear that Comcast may turn MSNBC to be as conservative as Fox News according to them. By the way, what I don't understand about NBC is this, why does MSNBC has to be the most liberal than all of NBC outlets such as CNBC, home of conservatives such as Rick Santelli and Larry Kudlow;, which wants to change its name because they don't want to associate itself with the cable outlet MSNBC; ShopNBC; Telemundo; the Weather Channel, and the cable outlet NBC, whose employees don't want to associate themselves with MSNBC? MSNBC has its Lean Forward slogan and Green is Progress slogan. Also, I've checked MSNBC's programming for the weekdays and it currently has 14 hours of explicitly liberal opinion programming each weekday starting with Cenk Uyger at 3:00 P.M; then Dylan Ratigan at 4:00 P.M; Chris Matthews at 5:00 P.M and 7:00 P.M; Ed Shultz at 6:00 P.M and 4:00 A.M; Keith Olbermann at 8:00 P.M, 11:00 P.M, and 2:00 A.M; Rachel Maddow at 9:00 PM and 12:00 AM; and finally Lawrence O'Donnell at 10:00 P.M and 1:00 A.M. The 10 hours of "news" that they have are corrupted by people like Contessa Brewer, Chris Jansing, and Mika Brezezinski. Do you see what I'm saying? It's pathetic how the liberal media only likes to single out Fox for its alleged bias. By the way, the number MSNBc's liberal program during the weekdays is one reason why I'd like for there to be at least 1 more conservative program at Fox so that it can compete more with all the liberal programs of MSNBC. Anyway, why does MSNBC seem to lean way, way more to the left than other NBC divisions? Willminator 17:18, 17 November 2010 (EDT)
There's no mystery to it, Willminator. The fact that one media conglomerate owns several different networks, each of which pushes opposite ideological viewpoints, is evidence that playing up and exaggerating the country's liberal/conservative divide is in their financial best interests. In other words, the more polarized American news consumers' beliefs become, the more loyal they'll be to the network that tells them what they want to hear, and the better ratings the networks get. JDWpianist 18:21, 17 November 2010 (EST)
Interesting analysis, JDW. You may be right about the financial incentive for the polarization. But if true, then wouldn't the most credible source be the one lacking in any financial incentive ... the Bible? I don't see the critics of the polarization suggesting it. Instead, Tom Brokaw and other dinosaurs seem to want to return to the days of undisclosed bias, which was not any better than what television provides now.--Andy Schlafly 18:32, 17 November 2010 (EST)

Also the current state of affairs was brought about by the sickening left-wing GE Chairman, who never met a dictator he didn't like (like most liberals) and was most recently selling high-technology to Iran, all the while claiming he wasn't because it was through a third-party subsidiary! I can well remember, until we ran them off, idiots editing Keith Olbermann and proclaiming him an intellect! Same for that washed-up political hack Chris Mathews. I knew Olbermann when he did the sports in L.A. He was a loud-mouthed misogynist then, and he still is. I'm all for liberals having a third-rated wanna be Fox. It keeps them in a tidy box, and away from decent Americans. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:11, 18 November 2010 (EST)


I think the tone of this news comment is a bit anti-capitalist. The re-privatisation of GM is a rare glimmer of hope for the market in these days of interventionism. The company (and it's employeees) will be best off with it back in the private sector so market forces can come into play. And once the stock is out there, anyone can buy it. The stock market allows anyone to take a stake in the economy and is far more democratic than socialist-leftist "bailouts" (i.e. state control). --BishoiH 03:48, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Really? The IPO isn't available to the general public, Bishoi, just fat-cat Obama contributors like the SEIU and AFL-CIO, and countries like China. As for socialist bailouts, Obama already did that, to the tune of about $60 Billions, and no one in a sound state of mind believes all of it will ever be repaid, as they are allowing the foreign countries and the Big Banks their share first. Market forces already spoke over a year ago, and GM should have been dissolved, rather than bailed out. Ford didn't take a bailout, and is very profitable. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:46, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Update: General Motors Co. (GM)'s main joint venture partner in China, SAIC Motor Corp., says it has bought a nearly 1 percent stake in the American automaker through its initial public offering. SAIC, which is owned by the Shanghai city government, said Thursday it paid $33 a share for about 0.97 percent of GM at a total cost of nearly $500 million. [5] & [6] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:26, 18 November 2010 (EST)
So the second remark seems to be false, given that it is trading on the NYSE, and hence anyone with money can buy it so long as they can access some sort of brokerage services. Moreover, your criticisms about big banks being involved also seems a bit unnecessary, given their involvement in every IPO as a market maker, a service for which they are rightly compensated. --Rcgallup 17:56, 19 November 2010 (EST)

US Senate panel passes Internet Censorship bill

I just read this article on Reuters. I think it should be placed on the front page. [7] --Dfrischknecht 19:17, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Dave, we have been covering this, and similar measures for a couple of years now, on the main page. However, as conservatives we do not condone piracy, taking someone's creative music composition or movie without paying the required remuneration. When that clashes with the so-called freedom of the Internet, it must take precedence. The so-called freedom of the Internet, which is a U.S. creation, don't anyone forget, has been being taken advantage of by liberals for years. Conservapedia has warned Internet Vandals and others of their ilk, that they would eventually bring about Draconian measures, support by the very liberals in Congress they have traditionally supported, because they have been taking advantage of their much-loved "Internet Freedom" to smear and defame anyone and everyone they disagree with. I can assure you this is but one, and not as far-reaching, as many other measures that will be rolled out next year. I am pretty confident that the "Internet True ID" measures will certainly cramp the style of those despicable smear merchants and vandals....making it pretty much impossible to hide their true identities. Then in the true American way, they can be called to account for their actions, unable to hide who they actually are from the public, and possibly more importantly, their parents! :D - --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:49, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Well, here's ONE book that isn't liberal propaganda!


It's pretty funny stuff--but with a serious point. Bravo to David Hedrick for explaining the issues in a way that even young children can understand! The really funny thing is that the sheer number of liberals sneering at the book are likely to drive sales up significantly. --Benp 21:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

It does look good. I'll order a copy and see. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 22:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Another MSNBC host suspended for making political donations

This time it's Republican Joe Scarborough who got suspended for making political donations, but to Republican candidates. Willminator 14:22, 19 November 2010 (EDT)

Defend Your Healthcare

Mayor Anna Little just posted this [9] to her Facebook page. It's by a person who has a Ph.D. in Constitutional History. --Dfrischknecht 18:22, 20 November 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia anniversary

Isn't today (November 21st) the 4th anniversary of Conservapedia? Is anything being done to celebrate? I only joined a few months ago, but congratulations to all the great editors that have made this site such a valuable resource over the years! --TeacherEd 17:37, 21 November 2010 (EST)

You're right! I'll post something ....--Andy Schlafly 18:05, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia is four years old today


U.S. Scientists Commit Most Research Fraud: Study As one poster [10] said, "I edit scientific papers for a living and practically every paper I edit makes ritual obeisance to the gods of global warming. This is true even when the subject matter is so completely unrelated to the subject at hand you practically have to apply the commerce clause to find a way to link them." Daniel1212

That's a hilarious quote from the blog poster! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 20:23, 22 November 2010 (EST)
All roads leads to... Global Warming. But the kind mankind should fear the one to come: Rv. 16:8,9.Daniel1212 15:27, 23 November 2010 (EST)

More bailouts!

Haven't seen this here yet, but maybe I missed it. Wikipedia is begging for cash from its users to try and stay afloat. There's a big banner on every single page. WP is even more liberal than I thought! EMorris 18:25, 23 November 2010 (EST)

Typo on main page

The UN is dysfunctional, not 'disfunctional,' just thought I should point that out. JaneX 17:13, 24 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:50, 24 November 2010 (EST)

Liberal science at work

Here's an interesting phenomenon: scientists are so desperate to publish news about some Big Bang-ish matter that they've essentially skipped the peer review process - "findings" were accepted for publication within 24 hours! EMorris 14:20, 26 November 2010 (EST)

Calling A Shamrock A Shamrock...

Greetings from Ireland. While accepting the general sentiment of the article, I don't think the Germans and their cohorts are arguing that the low corporation tax actually caused the economic meltdown. They merely want to use the opportunity of the bailout to stop Ireland from engaging in what they see as uncompetitive practices. It's a hugely cynical move and, as the article rightly implies, such a change would only make recovery more difficult. The sad fact is that, unlike Portugal or Greece, Ireland still has a reasonably functional underlying economy. If it were not for the profligacy of several major banks the country would still have its head above the water (just). --Jdixon 10:43, 27 November 2010 (EST)

Your analysis seems to be spot on. Thanks for your perspective.--Andy Schlafly 10:46, 27 November 2010 (EST)
Jdixon, you are correct, and the story is correct as well. It doesn't say the Germans, are officially saying that, but merely that liberals are spinning the "misleading narrative" that low taxes are to blame. It is a typical device liberals use...a slight-of-hand leap to non-logic to explain away their tax-and-spend ways. God bless them, liberals everywhere are like crack addicts where spending is long as they have access to the public purse, they cannot hold back from spending every penny, and borrowing more! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:55, 27 November 2010 (EST)

First Thanksgiving done in Florida before the Pilgrims did it in Massachusetts?

Not many people know this, but apparently, the first real Thanksgiving happened in Florida, and it was done by the Spanish. Should that Thanksgiving deserve to be celebrated too? [11] [12] [13] [14] All of the events that happened on the fist Thanksgiving happened on the second Thanksgiving too. Willminator 18:11, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks. But I think there was more continuity in New England. And, of course, the English colonies prevailed.--Andy Schlafly 18:36, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Hostages in Wisconsin

Apparently, it was a social studies class and they were watching a film on Greek society or Greek Mythology, depending on the reports. I don't see how the title of the movie is relevant, or how the kids were somehow "forced" into watching it, considering it sounds like it was an educational film. I know that when I was in school, and not a public school either, we watched educational films as a teaching aid. I don't believe that the title of the movie is the right thing to be focusing on with this particular news story. JaneX 19:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)

I agree with the above. Furthermore, the article linked by the main page stated that the boy 'burst into the school', or something of that sort. That would suggest to me that he wasn't sitting in the class watching the movie when he pulled out his weapons - more likely he forced his way into the room where they were watching the movie that was mentioned. I don't think the title really matters. Alphanumeric1 20:03, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Also, I would question the original main page description of this article - the one about 'atheistic public schools'...I know this topic has been broached on this website before, but I would just like to note that the public school I attended maintains a strong, well-organized Christian study/chat group that is run by a mathematics teacher. When we met, the group discussed relevant news stories, worked on homework, and indeed prayed. It was after school, but it was certainly school sponsored, so I'm not really sure about the 'atheistic public schools' claim. Maybe it's just my experience, but perhaps 'secular' or just 'not getting into religion at all' would be more appropriate? Our school also had a Christian Athletes Association, and a Diversity Club where alternative faiths (Our school has a number of Mormons and Sikhs) were discussed, too. Alphanumeric1 20:07, 30 November 2010 (EST)
(edit conflict) The authorities and media have not been forthcoming about basic details. The facts seem to be that the boy was watching a movie being shown to the entire class, and he got up to get his guns, and returned to shoot out the movie projector. So what was the movie? It seems the authorities and media are being selective in what they allow the public to know about this terrible incident.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 30 November 2010 (EST)
In response to your second statement, small after-school activities are not part of school. How about excluding liberal or atheistic beliefs from school and telling people it will only be allowed in after-school meetings? I doubt you'd see many liberals accepting that.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Sorry, I added my second comment probably while you were typing your first. But in regards to the story, do you not think if the movie did seem to provoke the student into attacking, that information regarding the movie would be released? It seems a more likely explanation to me that the movie was left out because it is irrelevant.
Also, I would note that religious discussions are held regularly in class by many of my teachers. In most cases, the discussion begins due to a recent news story with its roots in religion, but often the topic just comes up on its own. Prayer is most certainly allowed in class - a student led a prayer over our television system when a student committed suicide last year. The only policy our school has that could be construed as 'anti-religious' is that teachers are not allowed to lead prayer. Students, however, most certainly are, so long as they're not, say, interrupting the teacher while they're trying to teach. I don't see a problem with that. Alphanumeric1 20:27, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Unless the young man knew what movie was going to be played and decided to bring the guns to school for that reason, which is highly unlikely, the title of the movie is irrelevant. The movie really has nothing to do with the situation. And, again, the movie seems, by all reports, to have been an educational film, not some random movie selected as a time-waster. So, rather than focus on that detail, why not focus on whether or not the teachers or administrators ignored any warning signs that may have existed? JaneX 21:30, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Jane, you may be right. The bigger point is that authorities and the media are being selective in what the public is allowed to hear about this. The lack of disclosure of the movie is just one obvious example. Tell the public this and other facts, and let the public decide. After all, the public is paying for the school, and the public was put at risk by the incident.--Andy Schlafly 21:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Alphanumeric1, you cite one prayer in two years as proof that prayer is allowed??? I'm confident that prayer did not even mention Jesus. And what about the other hundreds of days and thousands of hours that students were in school? Lots of atheism, but no spoken prayer. And not many unspoken prayers either.--Andy Schlafly 21:37, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Personal tools