Main Page/archive90

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


High school footbal player penalized for "pointing to the heavens"

The atheists are really pushing it too far this time.... their agenda has apparently moved from banning prayer in the classrooms to penalizing anything remotely referencing religion on school property. A high school player was penalized for "unsportsmanlike conduct" merely for pointing at the heavens after a successful play. Read the full story here --TeacherEd 19:39, 1 December 2010 (EST)

As much as I disagree with the penalty personally, the referees were not in the wrong for calling it. In high school football ANY celebratory display in the end zone is met with a 15-yard penalty. It's listed in the rules under unsportsmanlike conduct, which makes it sound much worse than it is, but the rules are pretty strict and quite clear. He wasn't penalized for the prayer and if the refs had allowed that they would have to allow all celebratory gestures and that's just not something that happens in high school football. JaneX 23:48, 1 December 2010 (EST)
I don't think that giving thanks to God qualifies as a "celebratory display," and the public school hostility towards reverence to God seems to be part of the problem here. If the refs misunderstood what the player was doing, then there's a reason for that misunderstanding.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 1 December 2010 (EST)
As I said, I disagree with the penalty personally, but I don't think that the intent was to specifically target the Christian young man for being a Christian. My father-in-law is a referee and we were actually discussing this story today and though we both agreed that we didn't like the penalty, he said that he would've done the same thing because rules are rules. It doesn't help that nothing more has been said about the game as a whole because we don't know if another player had broken the same rule and was penalized for it. Refs have to be impartial and to penalize one team for something and then allow another team to do the same thing, essentially, is not right. JaneX 00:12, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Rules may be rules, as you say, but the rule is against celebratory displays. Kneeling down and giving thanks to God is not a celebratory display like spiking the ball or jumping up and down. Perhaps the referee didn't understand, or perhaps he understood and didn't like it. Either way, I think the referee in this game displayed the kind of subtle hostility to faith that permeates the public schools. If a private school wants to be hostile to faith, so be it, but such hostility should not exist for something the public is paying for.--Andy Schlafly 00:32, 2 December 2010 (EST)
I think this rule was put in place to prevent a slippery slope sort of thing from happening. If one form of religious expression is allowed, then where does it end? How long would it be allowed to go on for before the referee would have to call a delay of game penalty? Rules preferably have only one interpretation, and cannot be interpreted by different people in many different ways. To say "for a reasonable duration of time" would put the referee into a subjective personal decision, as opposed to just viewing a play and seeing if a player is out-of-bounds. The referees are not supposed to be the deciders of rules, but rather the implementors, and to allow personal prayer "for a reasonable duration of time" would improperly conflict these roles..--James Cartwright 16:00, 4 December 2010 (EST)
I agree with JamesCartwright. The rule was implemented for that reason, and the penalty in question was not given merely for the celebration, but for what the celebration caused: The player did not give the ball back to the referee. When a player scores a touchdown, they're supposed to give the ball back immediately so that play can resume. The player in question kept the ball with him while he made the religious motion. That's why the penalty was called - it had little or nothing to do with the subject of the celebration. Alphanumeric1 18:26, 4 December 2010 (EST)
I think you have missed the crucial aspect of this Alphanumeric1: that a public school employee in a position of authority abused that authority in order to penalize a Christian student for showing his thanks to God. PhilipM 18:36, 4 December 2010 (EST)
I agree with JamesCartwright and Alphanumeric1. The ref would've done the same thing had he dropped to his knees to praise Allah or done a dance or any kind of display. Proper procedure is, as said above, to immediately return the ball and get back to playing. It may have seemed excessive, but if a ref ignores one possible penalty, he'd have to ignore them all. And, just as an aside, I'm not sure how it works in other places, but the referees for high school football around here aren't employed by the school or school system itself, but that doesn't change anything in my opinion. JaneX 00:22, 5 December 2010 (EST)
PhilipM, I'm not sure whether it is I or you who has missed the point here. You have no way of knowing if the referee was targetting the student because he is Christian. The rules of high school football - as well as college and professional football, for that matter - clearly state that a player who scores a touchdown is to immediately give the ball back to the referee so play can resume. Had the player done that, and then begun to celebrate, this wouldn't have been a problem. Unfortunately, the student chose to give his thanks before he had fulfilled his duty as a player to do that. Had the player chosen to give thanks to Allah, as suggested above, or had the player chosen to do something utterly secular - a dance move or a leap into the crowd, whatever - before giving the ball back, it would have and should have been a penalty. This wasn't related to his faith; it was related quite simply to the fact that the player forget a small - and in my opinion trivial, but whatever - rule. We cannot be hasty in presuming the worst of a referee - who, as stated earlier, is not an employee of the public school system - simply because that referee made a call that he/she is obligated to make, and that ruling happened to be against a person showing Christian faith. I highly doubt anybody on Conservapedia would be offended if this were a Muslim, or if the player were merely dancing or something of that sort. But it all comes down to the same thing: Rules are rules. The referee can't make an exception and though it's lamentable, the player deserved the penalty according to the rules of the game. If you'd rather see the rule changed, that's a different discussion, but not one that can take place after the fact. Alphanumeric1 21:31, 5 December 2010 (EST)

This thread is somewhat old, but I'd like to throw in some clarification. The penalty is for excessive celebration, and if I'm not mistaken a player falling to his knees for a prayer is exempt from the penalty. Practically every time a team scores a touchdown, there is always some sort of celebration — teammates hugging, high-fiving, etc. I'm not saying that this particular student was discriminated against for his beliefs (although it is very possible that he was), and I haven't seen a video of the celebration. However, if it was merely a player pointing to the sky to thank God, then that certainly is no penalty. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:53, 29 December 2010 (EST)

As has already been discussed, JLauttamus, pointing to the sky to thank any deity is not a penalty, but doing so before giving the ball back to the referee, thereby stopping play, is. Jumping to the conclusion that this is a case of discrimination does a disservice to the actual cases of religious discrimination that our nation faces every day. Alphanumeric1 20:44, 31 December 2010 (EST)

More Liberal Censorship - of Patriotism!

I'm unsure if perhaps this story has been shared on this website already, but have you seen this? [1] A boy was told he cannot fly his own country's flag due to worries about 'racial tensions'. I'm confused; is America a race, now? Alphanumeric1 18:32, 4 December 2010 (EST)

And you don't see a conflict between your comments in the section above and here? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:47, 5 December 2010 (EST)
I see no problem with a high school referee enforcing the rules (even if they are rather unnecessary rules) of a game. I don't see the justification for telling a child not to express patriotism for their country on a vehicle that is owned by the student. Could the school have told a teacher, for example, to remove a bumper sticker on the teacher's car? I don't know that they have that legal authority, quite frankly. Alphanumeric1 21:33, 5 December 2010 (EST)

"Julian Assange, a wanted fugitive rapist"

This irks me. It hasn't been proven. The word alleged should be in there. Thanks TerryB 10:58, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Indeed. Even the Interpol arrest warrant notes that he should be presumed innocent until found guilty. DanieleGiusto 15:25, 5 December 2010 (EST)
Technically, that is correct, and clicking through to the provided links make that amply clear. I wish either of you were as outraged and irked over his threatened blackmail, and his already proved action of publishing stolen documents, and putting countless hundreds in harms way though. That "concern" is decidedly very ACLU short-sighted in my opinion. I have added in the benefit-of-the-doubt preface "alleged". --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:00, 6 December 2010 (EST)
Of course that outrages me. I was just interested in keeping this wiki libel free. I appreciate your edit TK. TerryB 00:22, 6 December 2010 (EST)
I am here to help. I am not here to debate pointless topics, cause problems, or start trouble with sysops/other users.
I will correct typos or add information when I read articles. If there's a problem, I didn't mean to cause it.
Thanks for reading! [2]
Your "concern" is heartwarming, but since the news items are not original, merely linking to original news stories, libel doesn't enter into the picture, TerryB. But I am one of thousands who would love for the little coward and purveyor of stolen goods to enter the United States just to sue me. Hopefully you won't turn into a concern troll.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:54, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Strange how there's no concern from you for the thousands of troops this man has put in danger with his reckless deceitful actions.......? PhilipM 12:07, 6 December 2010 (EST)

TK, Libel is libel whether you copy it from somewhere else or you make it up yourself, but if you're not concerned with that, then fine. I will keep that in mind and not make anymore comments about what you write. You're the boss.

Philip M, keep your non-sequitors to yourself. TerryB 17:20, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Innocent until proven guilty? While I normally would stand by this, how can anyone possibly prove him guilty when he is on the run and in hiding? Sol1221 18:56, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Do any of you guys even know what the exact charges and what those charges pertain to?- its seems pretty fishy if you ask me. Also I get you guys are pretty ticked that he leaked information, but why is nobody angry at the head military personal who o.k.'d the methods that put our soldiers in danger - (ie; and

Julian Assange on the main page

I was surprised to see Assange's call for Obama's resignation on the main page. While obviously we'd all be much happier if Obama resigned, Assange's views are worthless. If Bush was still in office when he'd received his leaks, he would have called for his resignation. He doubtless follows Chomsky's view that being an American president automatically makes you a war criminal, and I don't understand why we'd repeat his words on anything here. JacobBShout out! 15:34, 6 December 2010 (EST)

As a demonstration as to how worthless Assange is, the Swiss just cut off a major part of his funding [3], even while he further revealed sites critical to our security [4]. His little online blackmail attempt is turning into a major mistake for him. Karajou 15:46, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia and abortion - a 120 day project

In the next 120 days, I am going to be initiating a small campaign to help Conservapedia have a greater role in combating pro-abortion propaganda on the internet. I am asking some people to contribute articles to Conservapedia on abortion. I just created an article about 200 words long as part of this campaign entitled Abortion and atheism. Please indicate below if you want to contribute articles to the Conservapedia Pro-life Project and please indicate how many articles you intend to contribute in the next 120 days. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.conservative 19:39, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Sign me up for, at the very least, Religious views on abortion. I would love to be able to go summarize the views of many major religions (mostly religions still alive today, but some historical ones as well if I can find the info) in regards to abortion. I think this is a great effort for Conservapedia to get involved in too. I am only signing up for this one article at the moment as I don't know what my schedule will be, but I might be able to do more too! Sol1221 19:46, 6 December 2010 (EST)
Thanks. Your efforts are much appreciated. conservative 19:53, 6 December 2010 (EST)

I would be glad to contribute. My Intelligent Design research has led me to hear some rather harrowing views on abortion from evolutionists, so maybe I could start with Abortion and evolutionism? PhilipM 19:57, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Sounds great. conservative

Pro-life license plates in New Jersey

After a legal battle, liberals lose again and the state of New Jersey approved "Choose Life" license plates [5]. --TeacherEd 17:49, 11 December 2010 (EST)

Chinese archaeologists unearth 2,400-year-old soup!!!

And guess what? The soup was still hot!!! Hot soup dated to be 2,400 years old? More evidence for a young earth? Willminator 17:28, 14 December 2010 (EST)

Hahaha! Obviously the World News bit is parody (I hope you know that) but the legit news links are indeed fascinating! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:00, 14 December 2010 (EST)
Um... Weekly World News isn't a real news source... TerryB 18:34, 14 December 2010 (EST)
The news was featured on the Trending Now section of yahoo news. When I clicked it, I saw that the weekly world news site was one of the first links. I didn't know the site was comedy. However, the other 2 links (BBC and The Epoch Times) are legit as you know. So now since the hotness part of the 2400 year old soup is untrue, someone has to explain why the soup didn't dry up and why the meat didn't decay if it's that old. Willminator 18:46, 14 December 2010 (EST)
The story makes clear, one of them at least, that it was totally decayed and corroded from the Bronze container. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:10, 14 December 2010 (EST)

For someone who is well versed in theoretical physics

The starlight problem article could use an update now that Dr. Lisle has published this. I'm not qualified to interpret it, but for someone wh is, this could be a nice addition to that article: RMBchillin 16:41, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Of course...

[6] How long before he just disappears again? I know very little about British law, but here we can deny people bail if we deem them a flight risk. How is Assange not a flight risk? Tyler Zoran Talk 10:18, 16 December 2010 (EST)

Assange could have escaped when the second Swedish warrant was issued but didn't. He made the Metropolitan Police in London aware of where he was staying and came in of his own accord. He is now under house arrest in Norfolk so they also know where he is. Given the trouble his supporters had scraping together his bail money, I can't see them organizing a clandestine escape for him. That, and the Swedish charge is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a few hundred bucks fine.

On a wider note, should we conservatives be so quick to attack him? What he did is wrong but what is revealing proves us right. Among other things, his website has provided proof that Chavez was working with ETA terrorists and of China's machinations in the developing world. Significantly, it has revealed absolutely nothing about Bush and Blair's preparations for war in Iraq. By the libs' own reasoning, if no proof means no WMDs, no proof must mean Bush and Blair didn't lie.

What do people think? Rafael 07:22, 17 December 2010 (EST)

For one thing, we "attack" him because not only is he a rapist, but he leaked how many thousands of classified documents to the world? Although you may not realize it, many countries are willing to make compromises and listen to the US in private, but because of their official views (many Muslim countries are like this) they are not willing to discuss such matters publicly. By leaking these cables, he did damage to our efforts to stop terrorism. Period. For that, he should be tried. Tyler Zoran Talk 18:30, 17 December 2010 (EST)

I can understand the second point, although it does not address the question I've put, so let me rephras it. Now that the genie is out of the bottle and the material is out in the open, should we as conservatives reject it all out of hand?

As a conservative, however, I'm uncomfortable with stating baldly that Assange is a "rapist" because he has not been charged, let alone tried, and the Swedes want him for having unprotected sex, according to the sordid, confused reports in the press yesterday. Distorting the facts we know and a hatred of due process are liberal traits, not conservative ones.Rafael 16:26, 19 December 2010 (EST)

As you mention yourself, the reports in most of the press are "sordid, confused." Why give them any credence whatsoever if they're so confused and distorted? I've been known to be overzealous, however, and based on what I've been reading, you may be correct, so my apologies on my hastiness. From what I can tell, he and the women he was with simply interpreted each other incorrectly on their desire for unprotected vs. protected sex. However, I still take exception to his loose lifestyle, which if you wish to discuss conservative vs liberal traits, surely you can't agree that having relations with a multitude of women is a conservative trait? As a Christian, I take exception to that, and I presume you do as well.
Also, while I don't believe that we can reject the information out of hand since "the secret's out," even though much of the information confirms our position(s) on numerous issues, as I stated before, it still damages our efforts to fight terrorism and help people." The cables may confirm what we've been saying all along, but in my opinion, it's not worth the lives it will cost since our positions are already clearly defined and supported. Tyler Zoran Talk 21:23, 20 December 2010 (EST)

US and Cuban health care

Leftists have been saying for decades that Cuba's health care system is "better", on dubious grounds. Generally they follow up such a statement with an argument for socialized medicine. Of course, the first question is how good Cuba's health care system really is; a related question is how we can measure it.

Do we take as a standard, the best care received at the best hospital in the country? If so, is it relevant whether medical care there is reserved for top government officials? --Ed Poor Talk 21:47, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Another thing, if Cuban health care is so good, why do top Cuban officials keep consulting foreign doctors?

  • Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido is a doctor from Spain who was brought to Cuba in 2006 to examine Fidel Castro after a bungled intestinal operation.

Critics of Cuban socialized medicine cite this an example of top Cuban officials needing to rely on foreign doctors, because Cuban health care is substandard.

We should settle this question once and for all: which system is better, ours or Cuba's? --Ed Poor Talk 22:03, 19 December 2010 (EST)

At the present (before the new health care "reform" is slated to begin in 2014) I would argue that our system is clearly far superior. Not only does the United States system provide a higher standard of care than its Cuban counterpart (note the various outbreaks of disease that occur in Cuba at certain times and make it nothing much more than a third world nation, albeit one with supposedly high aspirations) but our medical research far surpasses that of every other nation, especially a poor country like Cuba. For example, most medical breakthroughs in the last century have come from American scientists or American funding. None, as far as I know, have come from Cuba. That in and of itself makes a strong case, in my opinion. Tyler Zoran Talk 14:52, 20 December 2010 (EST)
Doctor:patient ratio, infant mortality rate, number of people who aren't covered and the amount of money spent per person are the few that I know off the top of my head. If you have money America has the best health care, legal and educational system in the world hands down, but as for the average person, when it comes to health care only, you're better off in Cuba. The Cuban government is pretty proud of it's health care so it receives a lot more attention than it's American counter part. Using health care though to say Cuba is superior to America is pretty absurd as it's comparing one of the few good aspects of Cuba against one of the worst aspects of America. Plus leftists tend to cherry pick which rankings they use to compare. Some have Cuba significantly higher and some have America a few spaces on top of Cuba. It's hard to say definitively AdamV 16:50, 20 December 2010 (EST)
Your comment is vague, doesn't make a case, and gives us nothing with which to start or improve any article here. Typical problems:
  1. If USA has the best health care system in the world, how can you be "better off" in Cuba when it comes to health care?
  2. Being proud of something is unrelated to its quality, especially in a regime that can fake such feelings.
  3. Where does Cuba ever get attention for its health care (other than in arguments about socialism)?
  4. It's not absurd to compare a good aspect of something to the worst aspect of something else - but you haven't backed up your premise.
  5. Using rankings means nothing. This is an encyclopedia, we rely on reports not rankings.
  6. It's easy to say: there's no evidence that Cuba has a good health care system. How many Cubans in Miami wish they could go back and see their doctor in Havana? --Ed Poor Talk 17:09, 20 December 2010 (EST)
Even if we were to use rankings that supposedly put Cuba above the United States in the quality and availability of health care, have you actually seen any of these rankings? It's one thing to simply state that these rankings exist, but I've never seen any evidence that supports that. Tyler Zoran Talk 19:23, 20 December 2010 (EST)
If there's a hospital in New York that turns away people who don't have enough pesos to pay, I'd like to know its name. One reason we get so many illegal immigrants in this country, is that we actually have free health care for those who have no insurance.
The argument about the 30 to 35 million uninsured people has nothing to do with whether or not the uninsured can find a doctor to treat them. Gosh, just tell the doctor you'll pay by cash ... and then fumble for your wallet on the way out, and mumble something about paying $20 a month. You think he'll try to repossess the treatment he gave you?
And this is nothing new or "liberal". Try watching the Donna Reed Show, episode 18, set in a small Midwest town. [7]
Free health care for those with no insurance? You should see my credit report! :) CBG 17:46, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Public schools at work

[8] Can you believe this? 1/4 can't pass the ASVAB? As the article states and many of that are serving (or have served) know, the entrance test isn't difficult... Having not attended public school since my early childhood, I guess my question is what exactly are they teaching our youth? Tyler Zoran Talk 14:09, 21 December 2010 (EST)

I have seen many stories about what they are teaching these days. However, I am not able to enlighten you about it here because this is a family friendly forum.--Mjadam00 20:01, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Merry Christmas!

I will likely not be online tomorrow (spending time with family), so I want to take the opportunity now to wish all the hardworking Conservapedia editors (as well as all our readers!) a Merry Christmas! I hope you have a wonderful time with your families celebrating the joyous birth of our Savior. --TeacherEd 13:05, 24 December 2010 (EST)

May everyone at Conservapedia have a Very Merry CHRISTmas and a Happy New Year, and of course, never forget the reason for the season! DMorris 13:19, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas to one and all! Thanks be to God for this wonderful time of goodwill. ChelseaR 13:22, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas to all y feliz navidad! --Joaquín Martínez 13:43, 24 December 2010 (EST)
¡Y feliz navidad también, mi amigo! ¡No conozco que habla español! Tyler Zoran Talk 09:16, 25 December 2010 (EST)
I am in Campeche, Mexico. --Joaquín Martínez 10:02, 25 December 2010 (EST)


Great headline. I love how the new governor cares, “Let’s put this particular canard to rest.” Funny how just one piece of paper, one document, the long form certificate, could put the story to rest but Obama chose to spend $2 million on legal bills to prevent its release. A member of the military who refuses to deploy will end up in jail because of Obama's Alinsky antics and the governor is concerned with an insult to Obama's Marxist parents who are long gone from this world. --Jpatt 16:18, 26 December 2010 (EST)

New Year's resolutions

Do any fellow Conservapedians have any New Year's resolutions for 2011? I am making my list and will share them before the end of the week. --TeacherEd 17:24, 27 December 2010 (EST)

To not get burned out from school! I started both grad school and a new job this past fall (August/September of '10) and it's certainly been more work than I ever imagined! After 3.5 years of higher education I still have 2.5 years left, and I just need to push through and make sure I don't exhaust myself before I even graduate. What about you? Tyler Zoran Talk 09:44, 28 December 2010 (EST)
My resolutions include contributing more to the Conservapedia Bible Project (specifically, completing the translations of Ezekiel). I also want to work on more satirical anti-atheist and anti-evolutionist articles (as per my comments in the discussion going on Mr. Schlafly's talk page). I am in fact starting on this even before the New Year, with this essay. I am still thinking of some more non-Conservapedia related resolutions. --TeacherEd 17:57, 29 December 2010 (EST)

Snow storm in New York

I helped two different motorists get their cars unstuck. I had to remind them I was from Boston so they would accept my strange suggestion: "I'll dig out the snow from your tires, so you can have traction." They seemed to think rocking back and forth was enough. But if you dig a deep enough hole with the tire, it can immobilize you. Fortunately for them, I studied science before political correctness came into vogue, so I still remember concepts like friction. --Ed Poor Talk 16:37, 28 December 2010 (EST)

True, but contrary to the "bail out" mentality, where carelessness has no cost to you. But rocking back and forth can work - if you have a standard. Years ago the 12 ton truck i was used to drive for a dairy, without snow tires, became stuck in a snow storm as i was trying to turn around after seeking to find a way around a clogged road. Tires just spun in a hole. I prayed and put it in 4th or 5th gear and played the clutch, giving it just enough power to rock it but not spin the tires ( (just above stall, which with a diesel meant it easily would), and i finally got enough momentum to get out. Thank God - the one of the Bible! Daniel1212 23:11, 29 December 2010 (EST)

R. Lee Ermey - Famous Marine DI

I met R. Lee Ermey in Kuwait in 2003, after toppling Saddam’s regime during the invasion of Iraq with the United States Marine Corps. He signed my booney cap, which, awesomely, is currently sitting right here next to me on my desk. He's also HUGE in person, you can definitely tell he's a Marine. :-)

...Point being, to me, this is awesome news: Actor R. Lee Ermey Hammers Obama Administration: ‘They’re destroying this country’

Go Ermey and the USMC! Looks like B.O. is losing his status even amongst the disgustingly liberal Hollywood. LeeroyR 21:26, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Michigan Words' Story?

Can someone please explain what the university means with all this? Why are we supposed to take them seriously? I just saw the news headline about "the American people" taken a place on their list, but how is that even a word? If they can't distinguish between a word and a phrase, not to mention ignoring their blatant disrespect, how are we supposed to take them seriously? (I don't know anything about the academics or reputation of the university, if someone could enlighten me on that). Thank you! Tyler Zoran Talk 10:37, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Here's a link to something from LSSU. Apparently, they've been publishing an annual list of what they see as overused/meaningless/annoying terms popular in the media since the 1970s. Martyp 10:50, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Sorry, I don't see your link... Tyler Zoran Talk 11:03, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Sorry Tyler: here it is. The rationales for singling out "the American people" include: "Beyond overuse, these people imply that 'the American people' want/expect/demand all the same things. They don't." and :"Aren't all Americans people? Every political speech refers to the 'American' people as if simply saying 'Americans' (or 'people') is not enough. Martyp 12:05, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Thanks for the link; that seems a bit ignorant to me, though, because in many cases, the American people do want the same things. We all want to care for our families, work hard, earn money, etc. I guess I can see where they're coming from though. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:23, 31 December 2010 (EST)

The list seems to go after Sarah Palin pretty hard. It includes Mama Grizzlies (another phrase) and "refudiate". Does everything have to be political.RMBchillin 14:50, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Yes, it is in "political correctness." There's something seriously wrong about the administration of a facility of higher learning when the words "American people" get banned from use. Pretending themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans, 1:22. Karajou 13:14, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Happy New Year's!

Happy New Year's everyone - may 2011 bring you lots of joy, and lets pray for more conservative election victories as well. --TeacherEd 13:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Don't put up news from S.E. Cupp

I honestly don't understand why one of the editors here has an obsession with this atheist woman. She doesn't deserve headline news in my opinion. She's a faux-conservative. Whoever is doing it just stop.RMBchillin 16:05, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Atheistic, obese Canada doesn't get it.....

Maybe if they spent more time reading the Bible (...and Conservapedia for insight), and less time eating maple syrup and drinking beer, they wouldn't have such a problem....Martyp 18:42, 3 January 2011 (EST)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the connection between atheism and obesity. Canada (and the US, for that matter) are both very Christian (along the lines of 75%), and have high level of obesity. I think it would be more prudent to think about the effect the increasingly socializing of each country's health care system is having. EricAlstrom 21:13, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Eric, perhaps you should read Conservative's excellent article on the subject. It certainly opened my mind. Martyp 21:17, 3 January 2011 (EST)
(edit conflict) Atheism has been growing in Canada, and a recent study did show a correlation between atheism and unhealthy lifestyles that lead to obesity, such as less exercise and poor diets.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 3 January 2011 (EST)

this article really does not make sense and just because they don't believe in god does not mean they automatically get fat this is very dumb get a real article this is pretty sad.

Whoever posted the above is still clearly trapped in the paradigms of an old-school liberal society. Open-minded, objective, rational thinking is a good thing sometimes. That's what this reference is for.--AnthonyDW 19:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Great Achievements by Teenagers?

Apart from the interesting idea that a 10 year-old is a teenager, is a source like CNN, owned by leftist mogul Ted Turner, with its liberal bias and support for the liberal agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates creation. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to this source the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of liberal deceit and professor values where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a narcissistic frenzy of publicity seeking liberal arrogance. AmandaBunting 17:21, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Reports of dead birds, fish, and now crabs all over the world now!!!

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Could this be a sign of something to come? Some bad omen for this year? This seems to defy all explanations. Willminator 15:53, 6 January 2011 (EST)

[14] This link seems to suggest a possible explanation. There are others floating about, as well, but nobody has enough information to draw more than speculative conclusions. There is also the very real possibility that, in wake of the Arkansas reports, more attention was given to mass animal death, and cases that normally would go unreported became reported, resulting in the appearance of an increase in animal death. The more you look for something, the easier it is to find. I would be very interested in seeing an autopsy study done on the animals, though, because this is quite strange. Jpope1487 18:00, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Contradictory reports about Pope Benedict's comment on God's role in the creation of the universe

Apparently the Pope recently said a controversial comment about God and the big bang that has been getting contradictory reports. For example, this article claims that the Pope said that God was behind the big bang [15]. On the other hand, this other article claims that the Pope said that the big bang theory trivializes God's creation. [16]. Personally, I don't know why the Pope's comment is so news worthy. So the pope said that God created the universe. So what? He has revealed nothing new. Willminator 22:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)

I think the Catholic Church's official position on the creation of the universe is that God created the universe between 6000 and 8000 years ago. If the Pope is trying to credit the Big Bang to God, that would be a change on the position of the age of the universe. Quite significant, actually, but I doubt the legitimacy of liberal contributors and translators that are quoting the Pope. Given Benedict's record, I highly doubt that he would switch on this issue. Jpope1487 23:29, 6 January 2011 (EST)

I have to disagree. Both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Vatican Observatory work with the Big Bang concept with the proviso that it is a manifestation of God's Will and must be interpreted as such. They take a similar position with evolution, taking a position with some common ground with Intelligent Design. The Academy's website is at and the Observatory's at

Willminator's question reminds us of the problem with using secondary or tertiary sources. Both the links he provides infer that the Pope was talking about the Big Bang; in fact, he didn't mention it at all. He was criticising the idea of blind chance that Dawkins et al advocate and both wriers put their own spin on it.Rafael

re: Article of the month status for atheism and obesity article

In terms of showcasing the atheism and obesity article, given the success of the atheism and obesity article perhaps Conservapedia should make it the article of the month for February 2011 as well. Alternatively, Conservapedia could make it a featured article and keep it up on the main page for the entire year of 2011. Here is a picture of PZ Myers with two of his supporters: PZ Myers with two of his fans. conservative 14:20, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Laughner's supposed facebook.

It's irresponsible to put this crap on the main page when you don't know if its true or not. It looks like it was just created at that. Somebody is trolling and our sysop is falling for it. Wait at least till we have some confirmation. ameda 16:34, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Chill out already. --Jpatt 16:40, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Learn to research first. BTW, research means alot more than doing a search on Facebook. ameda 16:41, 8 January 2011 (EST)
I may not have worded it as Ameda did, but I do agree. It's inappropriate and many reports are spelling the last name as Loughner, not Laughner. JaneX 16:42, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Thanks for the advice wise contributor Ameda. --Jpatt 16:47, 8 January 2011 (EST)
BTW, I saved a screenshot because if him- then Facebook will remove.--Jpatt 16:51, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Good idea, all I wanted was confirmation before we start putting this type of stuff on the main page. I'm sorry but it looked so obviously fake and written today that I would bet that it isn't his actual Facebook regardless of whether hes a lib or not. ameda 16:54, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Page removed from Facebook.--Jpatt 17:17, 8 January 2011 (EST)


"President Obama is also confirming that Judge John Roll was fatally shot today in Tuscon." is incorrect, it should instead be "President Obama has also confirmed that Judge John Roll was fatally shot today in Tuscon." --FreddyK 18:10, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Labeling the murderer

Simply because one girl who knew this young man said that he HAD been quite liberal doesn't make it so. And the fact that he may be liberal has absolutely nothing to do with this. People have died. A child has been murdered. A Federal Judge has been murdered. To make a politically charged posting so soon after this tragedy is appalling. JaneX 19:53, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Having a kid post pro-commie rants; spout off on how much he hates God; make politically-charged statements; announce he hates the government; then he shoots a Congresswoman? That's not political? Karajou 20:08, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Now is not the time to dissect the intent. This is being used as a device to blame the liberal mindset or the communist mindset or whatever mindset you may believe he was in, which may not actually be the truth. A parent has lost their child, a wife has lost her husband, families are suffering and all we can do is delight in the fact that he may be a liberal? This is exploitation of a horrible situation. Your response to my comment was inappropriate because you're taking on the mindset of this young man. Because he may have attempted to make a political statement with his actions you feel that we should do the same? You are not suffering this day because of the actions of this man, but others are. Please have respect for those who have died or have lost loved ones. JaneX 20:16, 8 January 2011 (EST)
It's properly sourced to a mainstream new organization, MSNBC. Why don't you complain to them? Rob Smith 20:24, 8 January 2011 (EST)
There is a difference between reporting and revelry. They may have taken a tentative account from a person and reported on it, but that doesn't make it true. You're pillorying the murderer based on his potential political affiliation, not for his heinous crimes. After all, the man committed the crime, his potential political ideology did not. This is a very troubled individual and that has nothing to do with his politics. Now is not the time to politicize. We are Christians and we should be praying for those who are suffering. JaneX 20:35, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Jane, see point #4 in liberal style.
Our prayers are certainly with the victims. And honest reporting of the truth can only help.--Andy Schlafly 20:38, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Anything coming out right now, the day that this tragedy occurred, is purely speculation and last I checked this is not a gossip website. If this young man were an avowed conservative, I doubt that this website would address it at all. There is no "honest reporting" going on here. This is nothing but quote mining to fit the ideology of Conservapedia and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. JaneX 20:48, 8 January 2011 (EST)
The established fact here, Jane, is that the shooter is left wing, and the liberal establishment wants that fact watered down and forgotten, just like you're doing now. That's how much respect - or lack thereof - they have for the victims. Karajou 20:51, 8 January 2011 (EST)
I've seen no evidence of it being watered down. If MSNBC wanted to water it down, then why would they have posted it? And why would you use it as a source if you believe it to be watered down? The established fact is that a 9-year-old child is dead, along with several other people. As I said, anything beyond that is pure speculation. You don't know for a fact that he is left wing. You know nothing about this man beyond what a single source has said. JaneX 21:06, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Then you need to listen to the words out of his own mouth, via YouTube. Maybe you'll learn something from it besides assumption. Karajou 21:28, 8 January 2011 (EST)

I think it is important to label the murder because it highlights the link between crime and political ideology. Criminals are almost always liberal. This is something that the MSM and the liberal prison system is loathe to talk about. Exposing stuff that the MSM does not want to talk about is the purpose of this section

Hello - I notice on the Main Page that Loughner's name is spelled Loughran at one point. Not a big deal, but I thought I would try to do my part to help :) EricAlstrom 17:36, 10 January 2011 (EST)

It has been said that this guy was inspired by the Tea Party crowd because he supports a return to the gold standard. However, the source of this speculation appears to be one of his videos on You-Tube that states: "No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!" That is not the gold standard but the bimetallic standard. That was a populist issue in the early 1900s advanced by people who wanted to move off the gold standard and it is taught by many people today (whether or not it is true) that the Wizard of Oz is an allegory for moving off the gold standard. And--surprise--the guy lists the Wizard of Oz in his favorite books section on You-Tube.--Mjadam00 19:37, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Most of his rants were pretty incoherent as far as I can tell - maybe he was ranting under the influence of those illegal drugs. Of course, there's a difference between the bimetallic standard and the gold standard, but I'm not sure all that ranting means anything, or he even knew what he was talking about. DouglasL 19:45, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Rep. Peter King's proposed legislation

Does anyone else see this as highly problematic? It's one thing to say that it's illegal to carry a gun within a thousand feet of a school; schools don't constantly move around. It's another thing entirely to make a criminal out of anyone who carries a legally-obtained firearm the second a member of Congress comes within a thousand feet of them. I expected the gun control interests to start clamoring for new laws, but I didn't really see it coming from King. --Benp 20:33, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Peter King is a RINO and Michael Bloomberg (who joined King in this suggestion) is a huge gun control proponent. Their proposal seems designed for publicity, like much of what Bloomberg endorses.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Great point, Andy--I'm very worried by where this could lead. Have the people saying "We should have been able to spot him with a background check!" really considered what that would entail? In order to spot such cases, where the person has never actually been diagnosed with a mental illness, EVERYONE would have to get a government-mandated psychological evaluation--and then the government would be able to determine which of those evaluations disqualified someone from owning a gun. I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds like an extremely bad idea to me. --Benp 20:30, 12 January 2011 (EST)
I'd favor reforming the atheistic curriculum and culture in public schools.--Andy Schlafly 20:59, 12 January 2011 (EST)
All very ironic considering King's unequivocal support for the IRA when that organisation was blowing the heads off women and children in Belfast. Apparently, it's not okay to carry guns for one's own protection, but it is okay to blow up, say, a bus station full of innocent commuters. The man's a disgrace. --Jdixon 13:10, 14 January 2011 (EST)


About our articles of: Painting.

--Joaquín Martínez 08:40, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Obama's campaigning again, this time at the Tuscon memorial speech

Is it just me or was anybody else a little disgusted at the fact that Obama used the Tuscan tragedy as an opportunity to campaign? I haven't heard this much shouting, cheering, whistling, whooping, and clapping since Barack was campaigning in 2008 to takeover the United States government and transform America to a more socialist utopia. Ah yes, his 2008 campaign... "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun," said Barack Hussein Obama. DerekE 23:19, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Call for prayer

We should pray for the Senator who was injured, and the gunman's other victims. But let us also pray for Jared Loughner, that he would repent and be transformed into a different man by Christ himself! NHope 23:31, 12 January 2011 (EST)

I completely agree. We can hate the terrible sin that was committed, but we are still called to love the sinner. EricAlstrom 12:58, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Good point: oppose the sin. Right now I'm going to pray for an end to the scourge of atheism that misleads public school students like Jared Loughner. Thanks for your comments.--Andy Schlafly 13:27, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder

Barack Hussein Obama: "Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and rose to become Arizona's chief federal judge," Obama told the crowd at the University of Arizona. Roll's "colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say, 'Hi,' to his representative."

Loughner's alleged killing of Roll may only be a crime under federal law if Roll was on business and not merely stopping by to say hi to a friend. DerekE 01:24, 13 January 2011 (EST)

But regardless, murder is murder. He can still be sentenced for the crime, and assuming he is convicted of the other six (alleged) murders, I don't think we need to worry about Loughner receiving any less a sentence than he deserves. Jpope1487 22:17, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Very true. Justice will prevail against nihilist Jared Loughner. DerekE 13:48, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Sarah Palin: "blood libel"?

Sarah Palin said, "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Should Conservapedia really report that, though?

"The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various 'medicinal' purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions." [17]

It is an extremely offensive and loaded term, and Mrs. Palin should probably have avoided using it. NHope 22:40, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Yes, Conservapedia does report big news, and this surely qualifies. The very fact that you proceeded to discuss the headline demonstrates that it was worth posting. By the way, Palin surely did not intend any offense in her use of the term.--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 13 January 2011 (EST)
I suppose so. I doubt very much that she intended to cause offense to some people, but I found her choice of words rather offensive. Perhaps I am being too sensitive. NHope 22:59, 13 January 2011 (EST)
And the offense caused by those on the left, blaming conservatives for the killings and causing Palin's response? If "blood libel" means a false accusation pertaining to death, then Palin was correct in using it. Karajou 23:11, 13 January 2011 (EST)
I agree; I'm not sure what the problem is with the comment, "Blood libel," when used accurately, which is what Palin did. A wise man once said, "If you want to make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth. Works every time." DerekE 13:45, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Another reason why some people are offended by the term "blood libel" is because the shot Congresswoman is Jewish. However, why is using the term "blood libel" so bad if people also say the word "crusade" often? Willminator 09:19, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Nothing on Tunisia in the news?

A whole people gets rid of a dictator. Nothing in CP headlines. This is worth some words maybe?Sporean 13:47, 15 January 2011 (EST)

For what it's worth, something seems to be brewing with reports with the Weather Underground and Jared Loughner,[18] and 60s radicals being mentioned in related stories. In my opinion, however, nothing or very little in Loughner's character indicates a relation to any mainstream political party in the U.S. DerekE 16:08, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Shooting victim arrested...

While he certainly shouldn't be making threats over a reasonable request--namely, that we NOT make any rash decisions in the heat of the moment--I think compassion for Mr. Fuller is the order of the day. After all, he's been through a great deal of stress and is clearly going through some problems of his own right now. Hopefully, when he works through those, he will regret his rash words; we should pray for him as we pray for all the victims. --Benp 09:29, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Martin Luther King on the King of kings

Came across this article on Martin Luther King whose theology i knew little about, but this shows subscription to the ethos of liberal Christianity sadly transcends races. However, the site that hosts this work is part of the problem.Daniel1212 09:27, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Some people in the liberal media have crossed the line in their attacks against Sarah Palin

From what I've read, heard, and seen, it seems that some in the lamestream have gotten personal, not only in words, but in actions. Sarah Palin has been deleting negative comments from her Facebook (and she has every right to do so) about her video that contained her "blood libel" quote, so apparently some jornolists are taking advantage of that by purposely writing negative comments on her Facebook to see how fast she would erase the comments or whether she would erase them at all, like for example [19]. This makes my blood boil. I have never seen anything quite like it from the media. The liberal media has gone into a new low last week. Shame on them. They should know better that Mrs. Palin is going through a tough time. She doesn't need to be provoked by these goons in the media. I feel sorry for Sarah Palin. Willminator 12:11, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Why is the Michael Reagan thing news? and why an exclamation point?

Is anyone really surprised the "mainstream" media would only give Michael, and not Ron Jr., a label. Honestly anyone surprised by that has probably been living in a cave.RMBchillin 14:42, 18 January 2011 (EST)

I was surprised by such blatant liberal bias. Usually the lamestream media is more subtle than that, so that naive viewers don't recognize the bias.--Andy Schlafly 14:53, 18 January 2011 (EST)
I think that a relevant point has been brought up by this. President Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 1994 and the symptoms can manifest themselves years before. There was some degree of debate at the time if Reagan had perhaps been suffering from the onset of possible symptoms. A terrible thing, Alzheimers. Darkmind1970 16:59, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Fruits of the Comcast-NBC Merger

I quote the source: "Msnbc spokesman Jeremy Gaines would say only that the acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, which received regulatory approval this week, had nothing to do with the decision.". TerryB 22:22, 21 January 2011 (EST)

I see it's been changed to be more clear. Very nice! TerryB 23:17, 21 January 2011 (EST)
I hear that MSNBC is going to put a new liberal program called, "The Young Turks." Willminator 10:58, 22 January 2011 (EST)


Hello, I notice that the news item related to drilling links to Job, not jobs. While Job certainly is worth reading up on, can this link to Employment? EricAlstrom 20:32, 22 January 2011 (EST)


Would it be worth having the photos from the March for Life display as a slideshow? That way they could be bigger and more easily viewed. I have no skills that would enable me to try this myself. CharlieJ 23:12, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Good suggestion and I'm wondering if the wiki software supports that kind of feature.--Andy Schlafly 23:19, 25 January 2011 (EST)


A while back Keith Olbermann actually said that Comcast would turn MSNBC more leftist. [20] Was that wishful thinking on his part? Willminator 13:56, 27 January 2011 (EST)