User talk:Dave3172

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sean Hannity's liberalism

Removed contraception again - "Taint of liberalism" is opinion. You can link to youtube clips all day, its still opinion.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact. When God says one thing is wrong, and a man says it is right, that is liberalism, by definition. Will this be another banned fact? --Luke-Jr 12:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Luke, YOU think its fact based on how YOU think the Bible reads. It's YOUR opinion. And as such, it doesn't belong in the article.--Dave3172 12:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
No, this is the authoritative teaching of the Church, and as such is infallible and God's judgement on the matter. This is God's "opinion", which is the very definition of objective. --Luke-Jr 12:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it your opinion that its God's judgement. Again, if you want to talk about it, cover the controversy. DON'T put your opinion into the piece. --Dave3172 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
It is not my "opinion" at all. It is a moral certainty, infallibly and authoritatively taught by the Church founded, guided, and guaranteed by Christ. --Luke-Jr 12:57, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
it's your "opinion" about all of that, Luke. Bottom line - if you want to write about the controversy surrounding what Hannity said without injecting your personal opinion, fine. Otherwise, I'll keep taking it out.--Dave3172 12:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
it is objective fact; yet another banned one --Luke-Jr 13:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
by the way, this objective fact was completely undisputed until the 1900s --Luke-Jr 13:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
And people used the Bible to justify slavery until 1865. What's your point?--Dave3172 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing inherently evil about slavery, only unjust enslavement and abuse of slaves. Neither of which were infallibly taught by the Church. Completely different matter. --Luke-Jr 13:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Glad to see your on board with slavery provided people aren't abused. Can't imagine what other opinons you have about the Bible.--Dave3172 13:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't have any opinions about the Bible. --Luke-Jr 13:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conciliar Antipopes

You can't call John Paul II an antipope.

And why not? It's factual. --Luke-Jr 11:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Because its not factual. He was elected by the College of Cardinals. He was the recognized Pope of the Catholic Church.
Besides, who was the real Pope during that time, then? --Dave3172 11:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It is factual. He was elected by non-Catholics and primarily recognized by non-Catholics. Furthermore, he is ineligeable to be elected pope because he himself is not a Catholic. Even if he were to have been elected pope, he has never been ordained as a bishop, and would need to be before being the Bishop of Rome.
The last pope of the Catholic Church was Gregory XVII (born Giuseppe Siri). It is unknown when he lost office, but it is certain that it was after the "election" of the antipope John XXIII, thus at least invalidating that election. --Luke-Jr 11:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I understand that you are one of the pre-Vatican II adherents and appear to be a Sedevacantist. But Guiseppe Siri was never elected Pope, conspiracy theories to the contrary. Siri himself has denied being elected. The fact is that Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican was approved and instituted by the Pope at the time. The vast majority of Catholics recognize Vatican 2 as ecumenical law.
If you keep insisting on calling the Pope a heretic, they will ban you here. --Dave3172 11:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
There is evidence that Siri was elected pope, and he allegedly admitted to the fact at some point in his life. Vatican II is heretical and could not have been promulgated by a Pope, nor have been a Catholic council, as such are protected by the Holy Ghost against error. Anyone recognizing Vatican II is not Catholic, as it is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
If I am banned for factual corrections, that will only prove Conservapedia to be just as liberally biased as Wikipedia. I will provide [Conservapedia:Documentation_on_the_Conciliar_sect|documentation and evidence to back my claims], if necessary. In the meantime, please note that I am not editing any more articles on the matter until the evidence is acknowleged. --Luke-Jr 12:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Is the current [Conservapedia:Documentation_on_the_Conciliar_sect] sufficient, or do you need even more proof?
With all due respect, Luke, you have provided no evidence. What you have provided is a lot of conjecture and conspiracy, citing conspiracy sites. Siri actually did say he wasn't elected Pope. Nothing you've provided is actual fact.
I would suggest, strongly, that you keep your work to this page and the page I told you about. Editing the Catholic pages to reflect this won't be allowed to stand.--Dave3172 14:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
FBI documents are "conspiracy"? Gregory XVII aside (perhaps I should split that into a seperate page?), the page does document undisputable Catholic condemnations of Vatican II.
Also, the "Sedevacantism" page you linked does not exist. Furthermore, sedevacantism is, while a fact, not Catholicism, or even the Catholic Faith. By allowing only the Conciliarists to use the word "Catholic", you prevent representation for real Catholics. To summarize, it makes Conservapedia just as liberal as Wikipedia in equating all the false beliefs and totally ignoring the one true religion, Catholicism. --Luke-Jr 14:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Luke, your "FBI" cite links to a conspiracy site, not a site that would actually retain actual FBI documents. And the truth is, your stance on this is sedevacantist, not the position of the Roman Catholic Church and its institutions. "Catholicism" as understood by the overwhelming majority of its adherents, believe the current leadership of the Church to be the current pope and Vatican law to include Vatican II. If you want to talk about your conflicting views, edit the new page I told you about. Don't edit the existing pages.--Dave3172 14:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
So find the FBI page, if you don't trust NOW's citation. It still exists. "Sedevacantist" is an inappropriate name often given to Catholics. Fact is, the Roman Catholic Church is currently sede-vacante. The majority of adherents to Catholicism recognize this fact. Catholicism is not like protest-antism where the beliefs change over time-- since Catholicism is perfect, the Faith is static and unchanging. It is the same whether you look at 34 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 1958 AD, or even today. Conciliarists are in direct opposition which is undisputably Catholicism up to 1958! If Conservapedia will be liberal and treat lies as if they are fact and reduce fact to mere opinion, then it has no purpose. --Luke-Jr 14:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


Luke, we aren't going to agree on this. So I'm just going to suggest you keep your views on this to the page I mentioned. If you make these edits on other pages, the SysOps won't accept them.
One more thing, if I find you saying the Jews killed Jesus anywhere else on this site, I will make my personal mission to have you banned for life.--Dave3172 14:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so I probably won't bother with liberal Conservapedia then.
As far as Jews go, it is historical fact that they are responsible for Christ's death. In addition, I don't recall putting this fact in any articles here at all! Perhaps you misunderstood the vandalism I reverted? --Luke-Jr 14:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Luke, don't play dumb. You edited the "Jews" page to claim they killed Jesus. Which they did not. If anyone did, it was the Romans.
Like I said, do it again and I will make sure you are banned for life.--Dave3172 14:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it's truethe Jews killed Jesus, it's pretty widely accepted. But if you vandalize again, after this warning, you will be banned, Luke-Jr. --Hojimachongtalk 14:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I did not, please stop making false accusations. I will keep in mind, however, that stating facts about Jews is forbidden on Conservapedia. --Luke-Jr 14:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Blood Guilt? I don't hold anything against the Jews, but I think they probably killed Jesus. However, this is probably the last mistake the Jews made. Christianity has a whole lot more problems within their own sects. And yeah, it was in Bible verses. But it shouldn't be filling the Jew page, 'cause it's not a big part of their history. --Hojimachongtalk 14:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Crucifixion was a Roman penalty, not a Jewish penalty. The Romans did it. --PF Fox 14:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Illegal drugs

I included a new government source that shows that minorities disproportionate use drugs. We don't censor factual information on Conservapedia because it is P.C. --NVConservative 16:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

How can you claim that the government source is inaccurate when it specifically includes survey data that shows which races are prone to illegal drug use? --NVConservative 16:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Because you aren't citing it correctly. At a minimum, a MINIMUM, if you insist on bringing race into this you'd have to acknowledge the overwhelming majority of cocaine abusers are white.--Dave3172 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Only if for some strange reason you consider cocaine "powder cocaine" and pretend crack cocaine is a different drug... At any rate, how am I citing it incorrectly? I typed in what it said, and then cited it. Have you read this new source? --NVConservative 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I have. They are refering to percentages within the racial classification, not the population as a whole. Minority misrepresentation would be if say, blacks (12%) of population made up 75% of all marijuana users. Which isn't the case. If you want to say that drug abuse is more prevalent within certain races, you'd have a case. Obviously, hard liquor is more problematic amongst Native Americans than any other race.--Dave3172 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Most importantly you're using it misleadingly. You don't say what the rates are for instance, and you don't mention that the numbers only refer to use in the last 30 days. The rates for ever having used are different. And to use the term "disproportionate" suggests that the rates are statistically different. While they may be I don't see that in the page you referred to.--Murray 16:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage

Thanks! But of course it is the work of others as well. Dpbsmith 10:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Block?

Should I block EditGenius? I can't exactly see what is on the terrorist page. --<<-David R->> 22:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Please block User:DEVELOPER

User:DEVELOPER has vandalized three pages in the last few minutes -- could you please block?

thanks,

Boethius 12:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


Done! niandra 12:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

bce

Of course just like the radical christian fundmentalist BIAS its bad--Devout evolutionist 19:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT) and why shouldent it i thought we allowed for freedom of thought.--Devout evolutionist 19:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That's not what I was saying. Just that, on this site, BCE is not an issue worth getting worked up over.--Dave3172 20:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Germany

Thanks for catching this error. If you weren't aware, Germany is the CP:AID's first collaboration, so check the page out if you're curious. Once again, thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 11:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Note

Care to confirm your liberal status?

removed you. Libertarians have biases that need to be kept in check but not my project. Thanks for your help though. I might not agree with you (for instance McCarthy and Harding were great Americans) but I can understand Libertarianism (when they aren't killing unborn babies)...thanks! Richard 23:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You're welcome? Though I might suggest to you that biases of all types should be considered and limited on this site...including conservative ones. And while I think McCarthy was a drunk psychotic who almost single-handled destroyed everything that makes this country great, I thought Harding was just punching above his weight. --Dave3172 23:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't recognize a conservative "slant" if you will as "bias" so much as a bias in favor of truth. You realize that you're rather brainwashed by the MSM right? McCarthy opposed the liberal agenda and fought the communists. When Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire the liberal media redoubled their efforts against him... Richard 23:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't recognize that. McCarthy was a drunk and a fearmonger. Reagan, on the other hand, was a fantastic President and I admire him greatly.--Dave3172 07:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

more productive work

Rather than denigrate my heros and attempt to discredit me, maybe you can help fact fine to complete my Jesse Helms article. I'm particularly interested in filling out more of his humanitarian and civil rights work (where the MSM has unfairly slighted him). I'm reading his book, perhaps I'll find some more facts there. Maybe you can help...if you can set aside your bias and MSM brainwashing! Richard 14:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

thanks

For playing along even though you recognized satire ;-) Richard 18:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Performance art of the highest degree. Nicely done. --Dave3172 20:09, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm more proud of the Tulsa race riot section. He sent a telegram saying "we support you"...major accomplishment...for his secretary. ;-) Richard 20:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dave3172"
Personal tools