Main page/archive92

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Veto threat

Maybe it's worth putting up that H. Obama has threatened to veto progress on funding the government with the GOP house's new stopgap bill? (And vetoing 12 billion in sorely needed budget cuts, to boot?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WallyRyan (talk)

Worth noting but, this is a developing story and we need more information first, like Obama saying he refuses to fund military pay during the shutdown.--Jpatt 21:38, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

The six best Republicans in the House

The six best Republicans in the House: Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Ron Paul, Louie Gohmert, Walter Jones and Justin Amash. [6] They voted against the Continuing Resolution today because it does not cut spending enough.

Needs wiki link fix: from Walter Jones to Walter B. Jones. DerekE 00:45, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Great catch! I'll fix it now ....--Andy Schlafly 00:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)
I don't understand how the USA sets its budgets so can someone explain to me how a freeze on government spending will affect the military in Afghanistan (and elsewhere?) Presumably a budget freeze wouldn't affect only domestic programs? HFlashman 10:45, 6 March 2011 (EST)
The simple answer is that a "government shutdown" affects non-essential government programs, so ongoing military operations are unaffected because those are not considered non-essential services. A government shutdown may, however, temporarily affect the ability of military personnel to receive some benefits in a timely manner. If I'm not mistaken, a government shutdown is about as close as we will ever get to the limited government our founding fathers envisioned, but it's not desired today because our government has intruded into so many areas of our daily lives that they have forced some people to rely on them to provide some non-essential services.
If a government shutdown occurs, most Americans wouldn't even notice it. But the liberal media would surely over-emphasize the causes of a government shutdown and make it appear as though the world is ending. The liberal media will observably lie, as usual, and sadly there will be those who believe in their lies and make a big stink about nothing. Ultimately, I believe a government shutdown would force liberals in the Senate to finally make the budget cuts that the House of Representatives would like to make. Until then, we're watching Republicans in the House flail as they chip away at a meager 6 billion in debt for every three weeks or so that the government continues to be funded. The Republicans are caving, in my opinion, and the Democrats are delaying the inevitable.
Republicans in the House need to stand firm, otherwise we're just wasting trillions of dollars and driving up our debt in the most irresponsible way possible. At some point, the responsible adults in Congress need to stand up to the liberals and learn to say, "No." Remember: liberals don't act on logic or with an understanding of how the economy works, they act on emotion and prey on those who are emotionally weak or incapable of providing for themselves. Their goal is to create a reliance on government. The fact that ObamaCare is still being implemented, and the fact that America's debt is still so large it is impossible to ever pay it back, suggests a government shutdown is not only inevitable but necessary as it is the only remaining option we have left to save the Dollar and force liberals to do the right thing. DerekE 15:08, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Publicity stunt

I was just trying to figure out was meant by the headline referring to the democratic lawmaker in Wisconsin. The article cited makes clear that it was members of the public who were restricted from entering, but the individual in question works in the building and had every right to be there. It would appear to be little more than a mistake on the part of the police. Brit1909 14:54, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Typical whiny liberals. One day they'll win something, but that day will be a dark one indeed. God be with you. TerenceR 15:05, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Main page syntax error

The first <big> tag on the main page wasn't closed, so the entire page is now enlarged. A <center> tag needs to be closed as well--IDuan 16:27, 11 March 2011 (EST)

Wikipdedia Fails to Retain Editors

Wikipedia just admitted that its retention rate for editors has dropped from 40% to 12%. See: . What they won't admit is that they have allowed politicized cabals to systematically drive off any editors that don't agree with their ultra-liberal world view! Fongman 12:14, 12 March 2011 (EST)

Has anyone here worked out statistics like this for Conservapedia? What is our editor retention rate? --DanN 15:25, 12 March 2011 (EST)
Don't have a numeric answer, but based on experience our retention rate of quality editors is quite high. For example, there were three quality editors who registered at Conservapedia at the very beginning of the massive publicity in February 2007. Two of those three (none of whom I have ever met personally) are still frequent editors today.--Andy Schlafly 17:11, 12 March 2011 (EST)
Wow, I suspect that CP's 67% rate is higher that Wikipedia had even in its heyday! --DanN 18:17, 12 March 2011 (EST)

Tragedy in Japan

Mr. Aschlafly, as a longtime conservative and a technology enthusiast as well, I have followed your blog for sometime. With the recent tragedy in Japan and the generous number of users on this website, is there anyway we can rally together and raise funds for a donation to those who would need it in Japan? With an event of this size, I am sure that any amount that we give will suffice as severe as the damage has been. Do you have any recommendations or ideas for any groups who would use donations in an effective and efficient manner? ReggieM 14:03, 12 March 2011 (EST)

Chernobyl over-hyped?

Andy, please explain what was over-hyped. This is the first time I've heard that. I'm not anti-nuclear, but I think Chernobyl is a lesson about the potential danger of it and why we need to be careful. TerryB 19:58, 12 March 2011 (EST)

Even as someone that supports nuclear energy, I'm all for closing down old power plants. They simply aren't up to the same safety standards that newer ones are. I don't think this issue should be taken as a nail in the coffin for nuclear energy, but I do think it would be wise to rexamine how safe these older plants are and take a serious look at either replacing the plant with a newer nuclear plant or switching to another form of energy. I can tell that if this was a power plant built post 1979, we wouldn't be having this discusion right now.--Tgvyhn1 20:28 12 March 2011 (EST)
The safety risks of nuclear energy are way over-hyped by liberal politicians who fundamentally oppose energy, as the cited article illustrates. It's the same crowd that hypes up the non-existent global warming in order to ration and limit energy.
Chernobyl was nowhere near the high safety standards of the western world and, even there, far more casualties resulted from the hysteria than from the accident. Less than 100 people died from Chernobyl, which is less than the number who tragically die in car accidents in the U.S. every day.
The reason we have old nuclear power plants is because liberals won't allow the building of any new ones! Still, the old ones are very safe and their accident record is far better than other forms of energy production.--Andy Schlafly 21:10, 12 March 2011 (EST)
I'm a bit confused by the statement "liberal politicians who fundamentally oppose energy" which is taking it to the extreme I think; they may oppose certain types of energy (e.g. nuclear), but not 'energy' itself; indeed, many of them, whether one agrees with them or not, support renewables. The debate is over the type, not energy itself.
And, while the deaths in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl may have 'only' been less than 100, even the lowest estimates estimate deaths from cancer related to the accident as numbering in the thousands over the subsequent years. Brit1909 12:51, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
There's no way of actually measuring the amount of people killed or affected by Chernobyl, just like there is no way of ever measuring the amount of people affected by Three Mile Island. There has never been an extensive study conducted on the long term effects of radiation exposure to humans, and the amount of radiation released can never be said as anything more then a gross estimate. But just to look at the costs associated with relocating people, the enviornmental and site cleanup, its staggering.--Tgvyhn1 13:212 14 March 2011 (EST)
The Chernobyl accident was a valuable lesson in what can happen if we're careless about our reactors. The entire city of Pripyat had to be evacuated because the Soviets were reckless and moronic at the Chernobyl reactor. What Andy is saying is that the power plants are having accidents because environmentalists won't let new ones be built. . The plants in Japan are not only obsolete, but now it's coming out that TEPCO, the company that runs the plants, falsified inspection reports.
Nuclear power is a safe, clean alternative to coal and other fossil fuels when it's done right. TerryB 17:12, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Sex Ethics: Gay Lobby Tightens Grip on the U.K'

LONDON - You can say a lot of things in Britain. You can mock the Bible and make fun of Christians. But as British Christian counselor Lesley Pilkington discovered, you better not suggest that homosexuals can change -- or you could lose your job. "I was approached by a man who said his name was Matthew Stines," she recalled. "He said he was very unhappy and he was depressed. And he wanted to leave the lifestyle and would I be able to help him?" But his real name was not Matthews Stines. It was Patrick Strudwick, and he was lying about why he had come to her. [1] Daniel1212 23:41, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

this is the kind of perversion we must fight. also, how do I leave my name and date like everybody else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moshe (talk)
In order to leave a signature type: --~~~~ --IDuan 20:25, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
One difference between the UK and the US is that we have a First Amendment. Otherwise, activist judges would presumably impose the same thing here. DavidE 09:21, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

Japanese earthquake

The latest story on the main page regarding this event is inaccurate, indeed it contradicts the article it cites. The earthquake did take place along a fault line, the subduction zone between two plates:

"The epicenter is 80 miles off the coast of Sendai province on Honshu, Japan's largest island. It is beneath the sea floor near a major boundary between two plates of the Earth's crust. At the boundary is a subduction zone, a place where one plate dives beneath the other, forming a deep trench. Although subduction zones, including this one, are known to cause earthquakes - and there was a significant temblor of magnitude 7.9 just two days ago near today's event - there is no record of such a "mega-quake" along this portion of the fault."[2]

The point of the article is not that the earthquake defied scientific explanation or that it did not take place along a fault (although scientists have long known that earthquakes can occur far from fault-lines; they are called 'intraplate earthquakes'). The article simply highlights that a quake of this magnitude was not expected in this area, and that they had been focusing on another area. Brit1909 13:51, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

The Christchurch, NZ earthquake (which devastated the city I used to live in - but that's another story) also occurred in an area where scientists were not expecting an earthquake. Most eyes were on Wellington and Christchurch isn't known for powerful or continuous tremors. MaxFletcher 15:58, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
Right, MaxFletcher. Brit1909, two articles were cited, and read together they demonstrate that the dogma of earthquakes occurring at faults is simply not true. But don't expect liberals to admit that, because plate tectonics is used to pull students away from accepting the Flood.--Andy Schlafly 17:51, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
Andy, neither article contradicts the fact that earthquakes DO occur at faults. All that they say, and as I mentioned before, and as scientists have known for a long time, is that this does not mean that ALL earthquakes occur along faults. As I said, these are known as intraplate earthquakes.
But, that is beside the point for more importantly the main page story is still incorrect: the Japanese earthquake DID occur along a fault, more specifically a plate boundary. This is mentioned explicitly in one of the articles you cite, indeed, I have quoted the relevant section above. That is not disputed by anyone. I urge you for the sake of this website's reputation to delete the highly inaccurate main page story. By all means the information that not all earthquakes are associated with faults is true and deserves a place in the relevant article, but that has absolutely no relevance to the tragedy in Japan.
You have thanked MaxFletcher yet the example he cites only supports what I was saying. The Christchurch earthquake was also associated with a fault, albeit one that had not been detected, hence the reason the original quake there was unexpected. I cannot stress it enough - you are correct, there are earthquakes that occur away from fault-lines, but NEITHER the Japanese or Christchurch earthquakes are such examples. They were both associated with faults. Brit1909
What I was trying to say doesn't actually support you (but I am not trying to argue either), I merely pointed out that no one expected there to be a big shake in that part of NZ, it was quite far from the nearest fault and the Geo-scientists were extremely surprised that not just one happened...but 2 which were unassociated with each other! MaxFletcher 19:04, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

I suggested that your statement supported what I was saying because the example you cite, the New Zealand quake, WAS very closely associated with a fault line, as this source indicates [3]. Whether or not it was expected to occur there by scientists or anyone else does nothing to change this fact. It is tragically the case that earthquakes are highly unpredictable. It is a matter of debate over how closely related the two Christchurch earthquakes are. They are almost certainly related in some way, but opinion differs over whether the second should be considered a separate event or as an aftershock of the first. Brit1909 19:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

  1. It is not considered an aftershock
  2. While associated with a fault it wasn't along any fault boundaries
  3. Why don't you come down here and look at what the NZ scientists are saying themselves. MaxFletcher 20:20, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  1. As I said, there has been some debate over whether or not to consider it an aftershock. That some people do consider it to be an aftershock cannot be denied [4] (I have not stated it is or isn't). Whether or not you agree with the opinion that others have expressed, you cannot deny that it has been expressed.
  2. I was refuting the incorrect claims of Mr Schlafly that earthquakes are not associated with faults. Both of the quakes under discussion were (I note the main page hasn't been corrected yet). GNS Science believe that the earthquake arose from the rupture of an 8 x 8 km fault running east-northeast at a depth of 1-2 km depth beneath the southern edge of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and dipping southwards at an angle of about 65 degrees from the horizontal beneath the Port Hills [5].
  3. This wonderful invention that I am making use of right now makes it possible to transfer information around the world very rapidly, thus removing the necessity of having to visit the location myself in order to access said information. I fail to see how the information published by New Zealand scientists on the internet would be any different were I to travel there in person. Brit1909 12:56, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
This wonderful invention that I am making use of right now makes it possible to transfer information around the world very rapidly, thus removing the necessity of having to visit the location myself in order to access said information. Your sarcasm is unbecoming and unnecessary. I'll no longer engage you if your attitude is one of ridicule. MaxFletcher 15:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

If you are taking my comment as being sarcastic then it can be assumed you are aware of these facts regarding the internet, and it therefore follows that you are aware of how ridiculous your initial point was. I'm glad we've cleared that up. Brit1909 16:35, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

You're quarrel is with Andy Schlafly, not me. He made the relevant points and I merely posted some information of relevance and interest which can support his view and I suppose could support yours (note I also said I didn't want to argue). But instead of debating him you have chosen to debate me with sarcasm. Please don't address me. MaxFletcher 16:51, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

Japanese Tragedy - request to not politicize for the time being

Dear all,

I'm currently living in Japan and although God Bless that I'm in a safe part of the country, the situation for us in the North East is devastating, with more deaths than the 9/11. I know that Mr Schlafly quotes Oscar Whilde on saying that all issues are political issues, but when we're looking at the scale of devastation, number of deaths, and over 120 million worried Japanese people, would it be possible not to politicize this too much? I'm referring in particular to the past front page news articles. I doubt anyone would have done the same for the aftermath of 9/11 - so please would it be possible to tone it down here, for the sake of the thousands who have died. The death toll now stands at over 4,000 - if possible please could this receive more attention than plate tectonic theory, or spikes in the stock market and so forth. God Bless those who have died, and the many thousands more who have been evacuated from their homes. --KentaRei 12:53, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

"atheists have been unable to secularize the name of the holiday"

Not according to our article on secularized language -- the holiday's name has been secularized to "Paddy's Day." Martyp 09:55, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I've heard it as "St. Paddy's Day", but never just "Paddy's Day" by itself. SharonW 11:48, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
I've never heard "Paddy's Day" either and in my community of mostly Irish Catholics saying something like that would get you the kind of look you'd remember or even a punch in the nose. No sane person who lives near any man like me or the men I work with would dare call it Paddy's Day out loud. No outsider calls an Irishman a paddy on the South Side of Chicago. I've just never heard it once in 45 years. I'm also confused about the idea that "Saint" being removed from the names of Catholic feast days would matter to Protestants. I've seen lots of anti-Catholic references to even recognizing saints as bowing to "Popery" and "ultramontanism" and that the veneration of Saints is idolatry and necromancy. Since the Lutherans and Calvinists reject apostolic succession, which is a given for recognizing the authority of the Holy See to canonize a saint, why does Conservapedia, which seems to cater to evangelical Protestants even if there are a few Catholics here, care about Catholic saints? Feast days are not part of the Protestant liturgy. I do understand that Andy Schlafly, TK, and Joaquin Martinez are Catholic but I do also agree with Mr. Schlafly that practicing Catholics (who I think are the only people in the world who would care about such things) are a minority in the United States. Anyway, even as a Catholic man who does venerate the saints and who does celebrate certain feast days that are important to me and my family, I would suggest toning down the "Saints" business because it's not relevant to Protestants at all. They don't do saints the same way as the Catholics. In fact, I have heard that Baptists regard all of those who are born again as saints. That use of the term to identify men and women who were canonized by the Vatican, some before John Calvin and Martin Luther ever lived, is confusing. Nate 22:47, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
But isn't whole point that an atheist doesn't care what branch or faith you are they'll still try to bar religion from inquiring minds, from language schools and the public square? So whether or not "Saint" is important to a Protestant is irrelevant, its because of it's uniquely religious undertone that atheists would want to remove it. Let me know if I am reading your comment wrong. MaxFletcher 23:04, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
I don't think you're reading me wrong and that's a great point as it pertains to atheists. I'm on board with the "secularization of language" as a real general trend. I'm just talking about a specific case as it applies to the majority of people in this country who are Protestant Christians. As to St. Patrick's feast day I still wonder why Protestants care if a distinctly Catholic reference that they reject on theological grounds gets ignored. Maybe they do and I just don't understand why. The St. Valentine example is odder because (a) it's not clear even from Catholic tradition which of the several SS. Valentine the feast honors and (b) like Halloween it was a Roman holiday first. The overall point is the same though I do really appreciate the idea you brought up, Max. Thank you. Nate 23:44, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Nate, I do enjoy a good conversation...particularly over tea (which is what I am drinking at the moment)! MaxFletcher 23:47, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
Paddy's day is the way the holiday is generally referred to in Ireland. This has nothing to do with atheism, just our natural informality :-) --Boreas talk 19:16, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

What is Obama supposed to do in Libya?

I see criticism for Obama relying on the UN, for filling a NCAA bracket, not doing enough on Libya. And when he does do something, he's a hypocrite because he is a nobel peace prize winner. Qaddafi is shooting civilians, not letting aid through, and wrecking his country. I think Obama endorsing military action is in line with the awarding of the peace prize. According to Conservapedia, what is Obama supposed to do? TerryB 11:03, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

I have to agree. It is a tragic irony that sometimes to ensure peace states must use military force. The situation in Libya is certainly not directly comparable with either Afghanistan or Iraq. Most of the criticism of the latter arose from the fact that the stated reason for going to war turned out to have been false. There is no doubt over what Gaddafi is doing in Libya. Brit1909 11:26, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
In a debate, one could argue that Obama's dithering was enough time for the 'QaDaffy' regime to kill off the opposition. Western forces on Middle East regimes is another attack on Islam. America has become the police man of the world. Obama only wants oil. Than one could argue limited targeted air strikes will free a nation from 30 years of dictator oppression. That once had WMD programs, or still does hidden. A leader that WAS the head terrorist of the 80's, before Saddam. Brit1909 is flat out wrong, nothing has been proven false or deemed misguided.
Obama damned if he doesn't, damned if he does. Big boys make it to positions of leadership by 'leading'. --Jpatt 15:12, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
TerryB and Brit1909's comments are what a reckless teenage driver says after causing an accident: "what was I supposed to do"? The answer, of course, is to pay attention to the road in the first place so that you can anticipate and avoid needless accidents and harm. Obama's negligent strategy has resulted in maximizing casualties, not minimizing them, which is hardly what one would expect from a legitimate Nobel Peace Prize winner.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
And your comments are simply ignoring the fact that an 'accident' has taken place. It's fine to criticise people's actions that led to the current crisis in Libya - rightly so, that can help to avoid such mistakes in the future. But it's happened now and it must be sorted out. My comments, and TerryB's are not a teenager driver saying "what was I supposed to do?" after an's a case of "how can I make this right."
And in response to Jpatt. It was the Bush Administration that made the claims regarding WMDs. It was for them to prove their claims, they failed to do so. Brit1909 15:36, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
Once again, it seems that Obama's decisions are motivated more by his own self-interest than anything else. Obama's inaction on Libya has become an embarrassment to Obama, so he's approving an attack that will cause more casualties. Well, that kind of decision-making is itself an embarrassment.--Andy Schlafly 15:57, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

I am genuinely interested to know your take on this. If you do not support the current no-fly zone, what would you suggest the US and the other nations involved should be doing, if anything? Brit1909 16:36, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

The attack he approved will save innocent lives, Andy. A nobel peace prize winner doesn't invade countries on a whim, either. It's a civil war, it's not our business until civilian civil rights are violated. You also haven't answered my question. Should we have invaded the second things started going bad? What about Yemen? Should we invade them too? TerryB 16:54, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
The U.S. is not the world's policeman. Obama should address severe domestic problems first, like his irresponsible budget, before attacking nations that do not threaten the U.S. I don't think that a military attack on Libya is necessarily going to help.--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
I agree. --Joaquín Martínez 18:39, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Looks like the west have joined in already: [6] RodgerW 18:28, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Well, I can definitely understand your POV Andy, but I think that something should have been done in Libya. Qaddafi has been a threat to the US in the past and it could very well become one again. Besides, any leader who murders civilians for no reason should be removed. I am going to take Obama's side on this. Te 21:23, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
TerryB, suit yourself, but Qaddafi has not been a threat to the US for decades, and he's not the only foreign dictator accused of murdering civilians.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
Firstly, I hope everyone had/is having a great weekend! Secondly I am glad someone is doing something about Qaddafi. Whether it should be Obama or not is not really my concern but the man is killing civilians indiscriminately so must be deposed. MaxFletcher 15:48, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
I saw a news report observing that 48 civilians died from the missile attacks. And already the European nations are saying they will not be removing Qaddafi.--Andy Schlafly 16:09, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
I think it's very tragic. I just hope further loss of life can be avoided. MaxFletcher 16:19, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

The only civilian casualty figures at the moment are from Libyan state TV; there has been no independent confirmation as of yet. Brit1909 16:43, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Firing deadly missiles at Libya from hundreds of miles away is going to cause civilian casualties. Let's not be in denial about that.--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Undoubtedly - even the most precise campaign has the potential to cause causalities. MaxFletcher 16:51, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Perhas this could be added?

Perhaps we could point out that despite their being a moral case for going to war (protect the innocent) western nations haven't actually sketched out any "endgame". I mean, what are they hoping to achieve? MaxFletcher 17:23, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Good article. I'll post it now.
I mean, as much as I think getting rid of a dictator who attacks his own people is a good thing if they are not going to depose him nor create a stable democracy then I wonder what the point is. MaxFletcher 20:05, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Another good news story...

Even Michael Moore is ripping into Obama! MaxFletcher 23:10, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

I saw that one, and it is funny. But then John Boehner had a statement and that was more newsworthy. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 23:23, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough, considering John Boehners position and gravitas. MaxFletcher 23:29, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Name calling

Why does the fact that someone is fat matter to the news? --AlaskanEconomy 20:00, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

I was wondering much the same thing. Challenging someone based on their opinions is perfectly valid, but one risks undermining that validity by resorting to name-calling. Brit1909 20:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
It's not name calling, it's merely pointing out that obesity is a serious problem among the atheist movement; yet atheists are in denial about it and the liberal media refuse to highlight it. MikeOxlong 20:06, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
For one thing, the story in question has no relevance to obesity. Secondly, even if the aim were to increase awareness of the problem (and the wording suggests it is not), I can think of better ways than calling someone 'flabby' (I can't imagine many doctors warning patients about their weight in such a manner, can you?). It's just needless. Why ruin a reasonable argument by resorting to such tactics? Brit1909 20:19, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
No, it is name calling. Your defense can be used in literally 100% of all cases of name calling, there for your excuse is not valid. --AlaskanEconomy 20:21, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
I detect that this subject is a little too close to home for some of you! I politely suggest you read the atheism and obesity article, then perhaps reconsider your atheism and join a gym! MikeOxlong 20:29, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

I hardly think the best defence of your argument that you're not name calling is to suggest that I and/or AlaskanEconomy are obese. But if we're going to play 'guess the weight of the person you've never seen' then may I request that you provide a more specific estimate of my Body Mass Index so that we can assess your accuracy. (I'll be generous and give you a margin of error of 3 either side) Brit1909 20:44, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

This whole conversation is silly to be honest. The post on the mainpage was made by a sysop (as I understand) and as "newer" users we should humble ourselves to authority. MaxFletcher 21:05, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Even a sysop can make an error of judgement. If one advocates humbling ourselves before authority, are we to erase any criticism of Obama from this website? Of course not. One's status as an 'authority' should not be used to shield oneself from constructive criticism. Brit1909 21:09, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Well, I am staying out of it. Good luck. MaxFletcher 21:18, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
PZ Myers has had problems with being overweight and the lion/jaguar stories had to do with felines eating vegetables. Both are clearly food related. :) By the way, I am glad Brit1909 admitted I made a reasonable argument vis a vis my vegetarian lion and avocado eating jaguars. :) conservative 22:49, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Hi Conservative! In regards toi your 90 day break from Conservapedia, are you enjoying taking so much time off from Conservapedia? It's really odd not seeing you on Conservapedia every day now that you're on a long break from Conservapedia. Enjoy the rest of your 90-day break from Conservapedia!. Martyp 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Sorry Charlie/Martyp, that was a cameo appearance relating to an important news item. :) I am willing to overlook your mistake as you probably were educated in a public school where the pupils have poor reading comprehension. :) I will admit to starting my vacation late due to habit and belatedly attending to some other matters. However, I am editing Conservapedia far less and that certainly cannot be denied. conservative 23:15, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Hey! You're back again! Hope the break is going well!!! Martyp 16:34, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Please do not insult my intelligence 'conservative'. There is only one authority that is beyond question, and he certainly doesn't waste our time with petty insults and excuses. This is childish, men, real men, can always take responsibility for their actions. Making fun of someone who is overweight reflect poorly on everyone involved in the project, and it amazes me that no one has stepped in to remove those pock marks from the face of conservapedia. --AlaskanEconomy 19:46, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Back to the topic at hand, while it is true that there is a problem of obesity in the atheist movement, it can't be denied that there is a problem with obesity is most subsets of the American population; in fact, the states with the highest rates of obesity (above 30% of population) (SC, OK, AL, MS, WV, and TN) are all dyed-in-the-wool Christian and conservative. While that is only one example, it is still true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. DennyW66 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

AlaskanEconomy, have you not read about the cows of Bashan mentioned by the prophet Amos or the Apostle Paul's Cretans who were gluttons? AlaskanEconomy, if only PZ Myers were as active as the svelte Alaskan Sarah Palin who could certainly run circles around the portly PZ Myers. Lastly, I have never said whether I am a male/female, but please feel free to engage in your speculation. :) conservative 02:20, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
DennyW66, I think you need to look at the atheism and obesity article and look at the sample size and look at their methodology which involved generalized linear model to determine how religiousity affects health practices. By the way, have you seen the board of directors for the American Atheists.  :) conservative 02:25, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
What did I say about insulting my intelligence? Please stop doing it, you are not distracting me from the very real problem of name calling. It does not matter if atheists are fat, it does not matter if you are a woman, it does not matter if you have a picture of a fat cow. What matters is that you are name calling. --AlaskanEconomy 18:52, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
AlaskanEconomy, he did not insult your intelligence, he asked if you had read about a subject.--IDuan 00:17, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
AlaskaEconomy, you haven't shown that calling a spade a spade is immoral. I cited Amos and the Apostle Paul calling a spade a spade in terms of gluttony/obesity. John the Baptist could certainly be cited as well as far as how he gave unflattering labels to the religious authorities at the time. It seems to me as though you want Conservapedia to "pussyfoot" when we describe the atheist community or particular prominent atheists, but you haven't given a compelling reason to do so. conservative 13:43, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Iduan, pointing out that his arguments assume that I am an idiot is not playing the victim.
Conservative, perhapos you don't read the bible unless you are looking for something to support your claims, but you might want to look up the story of Elisha, in 2 Kings chapter 2 you will find out what God thinks of name calling. PZ Meyers being fat matters exactly as much as Elisha being bald. So long as we are calling a spade a spade I will mention that I think that you are trying to weasel out of responsibility for your actions, and I will note that it doesn't work on me and the bible says that it will not work when your day of judgement comes either read and repent sinner. --AlaskanEconomy 17:28, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
So he's to assume you've read everything? Again, asking if you've read about something is not akin to namecalling I think you're being excessively sensitive in this case. Also, as to whether it's immoral to call PZ Meyers overweight ... I don't think it is; that's a relatively extreme amount of political correctness you're using.--IDuan 18:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

A critique

I must admit that I am probably not in the position to critique, since I visit generally for the news updates and haven't been the most prolific editor, but I feel that you are cherry-picking bad economic reports and attributing them to liberals without much explanation. For example, in the lastest news item, liberals are blamed for low housing sales, and I think it would be beneficial to cite a policy that is hurting the housing market.
Also, I remember at the beginning of the month, conservatives were credited with lowering the unemployment rate, but now that a negative report has come out, this is a liberal recovery? It seems slightly at odds. Just my 2 cents. EricAlstrom 12:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Cherry-picking news ... as the lamestream media do? No, we wouldn't do that!
The two news items are not entirely contradictory. New hiring may have improved on hopes that the conservative House would be able to pass something, but stonewalling by the liberals has led to renewed economic problems.--Andy Schlafly 13:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I disagree with the assessment of this story (as an economist). I do not think that housing sales are a good surrogate measure for economic strength. This last chrisis was not the result of deregulation as the Democrats would have us think, nor is it entirely Obama's fault (especially evident because it started several months before he was elected) The main culprit as I see it was the liberal policies of the Bush administration, when the economy adjusted following the dotcom bubble (which was a natural event) Bush reacted with positively Keynesian tactics jamming down the interest rate and encouraging people to buy housing, all while Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac loaned out money to subprime mortgages with implied US treasury backing (the Greenspan Put) That lead to bad resource allocation (because it distorted the effect of the invisible hand) and an excess of housing, beyond what people needed, or could afford, the population needs some considerable time to grow for the housing demand to catch up with the housing supply at any given price point. Alternatively we could allow a large wave of immigration, but with our socialist policies that is perhaps a poor choice. These figures should stay down until well after our economy recovers, any attempt to prick them up would only interfere with real growth. --AlaskanEconomy 18:52, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I don't think it was so much a lack of demand, more the fact that the demand rested upon huge amounts of credit which was readily available a few years ago. The banks were extending significant amounts of credit to both the suppliers (property developers) and the buyers (i.e. sub-prime mortgages), which is quite obviously unsustainable; it was inevitable that this property bubble would burst at some point. I think significant demand still exists, the problem is it's not effective demand; there's no money to back it up, and little chance of getting a mortgage. Brit1909 18:59, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I think you are looking at demand as desire, rather than in an economic fashion as desire held up against opportunity cost. People still want more houses, but they also want food and heat and the resources we wasted by building too many houses lead to a an increased cost for other things, which means that, with out a change in productivity, a person has relatively less to spend on housing and there for a smaller demand. As capital is returned to other activities there prices will fall, but because we monkeyed with the economy we have more houses than we would at equilibrium for our population size. --AlaskanEconomy 19:12, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

News item

A homeschooler won a regional Scripps National spelling bee (repeat winner) and will participate in the national tournament. Another homeschool success! Link:

Also, should we have a small tribute to Elizabeth Taylor, who passed on today? She was one of the last links to the Golden Age of Hollywood, before it was overtaken by liberals and atheists. Also, she was married for a time to former Republican Senator John Warner of WV. She did have her personal issues, but I think those can be overlooked in light of her other accomplishments. DennyW66 13:42, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Neither of these news items are significant enough to be on the front page, in my humble opinion. If a Sysop (a position earned through merit) disagrees, he has the power to post. Thanks, however, for your suggestions.--Andy Schlafly 14:17, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough Mr. Schlafly. Carry on with your wonderful work here! DennyW66 14:24, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Entrenched political leadership

Typically if they are not voted out within their district a speaker takes the mantle of party leader after their party looses power. Ever hear of Sam Rayburn and Joseph Martin? --AlaskanEconomy 18:52, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Main page typo

On the top news item, the wording should be "political analyst Larry Sabato", not "political analysis Larry Sabato". Godspeed. DennyW66 22:22, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Great catch. Thanks. Fixed it.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Scientists identify a chemical associated with sexual preference in mice

Surely it's just one step to finding the abberation that causes homosexuality to develop? JamesQ 16:11, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

then it will be easier to identify them. no more hiding!--Moshe 18:15, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
The consensus view of scientists is that homosexuality develops because of an unknown combination of genetic factors, early childhood upbringing and the person's responses to family and society. The element of choice has by no means been discarded.
Despite efforts by partisans to exclude personal choice and "environment" (aka upbringing) and make "born that way" the sole factor, this view is popular only in the political arena (including professional organizations that are susceptible to political pressure).
I daresay this section is misnamed. The question is whether this finding can be generalized to other mammals, let alone humans.
Human beings are not animals, and we have the special responsibility of transcending biology to fulfill God's purpose for creating us. Do any animals construct and use crutches, if they lose a leg? (Or altruistically provide a crutch to another crippled animal?) Even if a person has a chemical imbalance, that does not excuse misbehavior: the assumption that alcoholism is an incurable disease has never exempted drunk drivers from culpability if they cause a fatal accident. --Ed Poor Talk 14:41, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Government threatening to deport 94-year old native American WWII veteran...

...can you believe this?


So the liberals want a fast road to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but a native-born American who has lived here for almost a hundred years, is the son of native-born Americans, and fought to defend his country? DEPORT HIM! --Benp 16:44, 24 March 2011 (EDT)


Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this-
Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. EricAlstrom 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own Atheism and obesity article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. AngusT 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States (a study which used Generalized linear model analysis with very relevant variables) and other data Conservapedia has brought forth and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like some of the modern apostles of atheism such as PZ Myers. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist "blag hag", I would remind you that most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin plus the Gallup study used generalized linear model analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth if you were an overweight atheist blogger at who had his brain impaired due to being overweight, but please do not do it here. conservative 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the style over substance fallacy to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. Atheism is madness! Evolutionism is madness as well. conservative 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Ken, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? DGibbs 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is some humor associated with atheism and obesity, the existence of various atheists ignoring medical science and exercise science and engaging in gluttony does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. Christendom has certainly provided a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's Christian apologetics article. conservative 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Your form? Come off it, Ken. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes Ken, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? DGibbs 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, I have read your article Atheism and obesity as well as the Gallup study which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.

The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at Gallup's methodology you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.

Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been more healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.

You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. WilliamB1 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I don't see any valid objections to the atheism and obesity entry in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.
As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on which brand of cigarette someone smokes!--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the fallacy of exclusion and not address the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the slothful induction fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia atheism and obesity article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians. :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" (some of whom are obese and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. conservative 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics? Run Ken! Run!

I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. WilliamB1 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! MichaelOL 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Probably because you're a parodist. Mueller 16:32, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Say what now? I am a great admirer of satire and parody (and especially satire that whilst amusing highlights very serious issues, such as obesity) but sadly I am hopeless at it so you won't find any from me on here. I'll leave the satire and parody to the experts! MichaelOL 16:59, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Yes, you are indeed rather hopeless at it, so please do leave it to the experts. You're not merely a parodist, but a rather poor one at that. --DanN 17:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
why is he a parodist?--Moshe 21:22, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
He's blocked now, so it's something of a moot point. But: he defended the silly "atheism and obesity" article, which is something only parodists and sysops do. He doesn't appear to be a sysop, so there's only one possibility. It's an easy giveaway. --DanN 21:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)


I believe that casualty was meant, not causality, for the news bit about DADT--Moshe 13:25, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Great catch, apparently someone has already fixed it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 14:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

A new word?

Why create a new word when we have a fine one already: liar. MaxFletcher 16:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Good suggestion, but something more specific and descriptive would be even better.--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Was more of a tongue in cheek suggestion. MaxFletcher 16:51, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Announcement: New word needed

The term "RINO" describes Republicans who vote liberal and against the principles the Republican Party stand for. An analogous term is needed to describe politicians and others who pretend to be pro-life while actually acting for the benefit of abortion providers, as in insisting on taxpayer funding for them.--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

PINO? (Pro Life in Name Only). Hmm maybe not.... MaxFletcher 16:52, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Pro-life phoney or Phoney pro-lifer? Closet abortionist? Pro-antilifer? It is quite difficult to sum up such deceit in a single word! MichaelOL 17:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Abortion Deceiver? MaxFletcher 17:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
How about PLIAR - "Pro-life in arranging reelection (only)."--Andy Schlafly 17:16, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
PAPPL - Private abortionists, Politically Pro-Life. MaxFletcher 17:20, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I do like PLIAR, especially if it is pronounced P-liar! MichaelOL 17:46, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I suggest "PILOCT" -- Pro-life in late October. Pronounced "pillockt", reminiscent of a an insult used by our distant cousins across the ocean. --DanN 18:15, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Reapercrat: Enabler of evil. --Jpatt 18:51, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
PLAET- "Pro-life at election time" (pronounced plate, which most liberal politicians are as flat as). DennyW66 19:34, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

How about "Quisling". Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. He established his name as a synonym for "traitor", someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country, especially by serving in a puppet government. Am I alone in finding this an appropraite designation for the gentlemen in question? Plus, Quisling also has a nice ring to it. --Davidkon 19:46, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I still like Abortion Deceiver. That'll be my suggestion. MaxFletcher 19:58, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Mid-Viper - one who refuses to take a firm stand on the pro-life issue in order to deceive, as a snake, and play middle of the road to attract casual Voters.

PLINO = Pro-Life In Name Only (although unlike RINO it doesn't rhyme with a wild animal like rhino). --Ed Poor Talk 14:52, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

FAUX-LIFE = Rhymes with Pro-Life, but it's fake.

We can use all the others in-house, but the best chance of coining a new term that will catch on with the general public looks like faux life (see above). --Ed Poor Talk 14:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

NorthWestern/Matthew Feinstein/obesity study

I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? conservative 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

If anyone wants to contact this science editor , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. conservative 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. Martyp 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia atheism and obesity article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. conservative 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

received request to unblock user ThePuppyTurtle and i did unblock. please do not reblock

I received a request to unblock user ThePuppyTurtle and I did unblock him. He is a young Christian creationist man who frequents the shockofgod chat room. Please do not block again. I am sure he is not going to cause any trouble. conservative 01:00, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Facebook item on Main Page Right

News item doesn't mention that Facebook is also offering Gibbs a job with the company (which would come with stock options); the way it's worded now it just seems like they're throwing money at him in advance of the IPO (which the news story isn't really about anyway), which of course is liberal. However, because in this case they are actually offering him a job I think the item should be updated to include that information. DennyW66 10:25, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Donald Trump

What would you guys, as US conservatives, think of Donald Trump for president? I quite like him to be honest. MaxFletcher 17:23, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

anyone would be better than the current president--Moshe 22:13, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

My Correspondence with CMI

Recently I have been in touch with Creation Ministries International (CMI) about faith and they have been courteous enough to reply. I reproduce it here for the interest of the community. Thanks! MaxFletcher 21:38, 31 March 2011 (EDT)


Hi - just a small correction on the main page. It says "Terry's day," although it should be "Terri's day." The correct name is used in the follow-on sentence. Thanks. Tracy.

Great catch! Thanks so much. I've corrected it as you suggested.--Andy Schlafly 11:56, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

Comic typos

Hi, sorry to be a nuisance, but there are two typos in the front page's comic: "outting" should be "outing" and "'aint" should be "ain't". God bless, JamesQ 18:04, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page

This page keeps getting deleted.[8] Why? Thanks! Keepscases 21:43, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Probably to remove vandalism from public view. I wouldn't worry about it; it doesn't really matter. DMorris 22:46, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
What's wrong with keeping vandalism in public view (in diffs and old versions of pages like this one)? Keepscases 23:36, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Today in History/ Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935

Odd to see such an uncritical analysis of a big-government approach to economic planning on the front page of a Conservative website. LloydR 12:38, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Good point, but we let our visitors decide. Liberal visitors who automatically reject anything they see on Conservapedia might conclude from that headline that they should no longer like the New Deal!--Andy Schlafly 13:12, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Celente's Journalism 2.0 and the New Media being seen on what gets covered.

Gerald Celente said 2011 would be the year of Journalism 2.0.[9] Back in the old days before the proliferation of online media some of which is conservative, you would have never seen the Obama birth issue or the extent of global warming dissent we are seeing now. I don't think Trump fears the liberal media and I think Journalism 2.0/New Media is one of the reasons why. conservative 00:55, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Ridiculous Liberals are at it again. Look what I found in the news...

Here is a prime example of Secularlized Language in progress. Unless these people are stopped and stopped soon even mentioning the name "Christ" will be enough to be thrown in jail! [[10]]--Davidkon 00:14, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Add that great example to the list David!--Jpatt 00:56, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

A good satire on left and right politics

The value of satire and humor is that when it hits home, it lets us laugh at our contradictions. And even when it's off the mark, we can laugh at its distortions.

I always liked MAD magazine when I was a kid, because it (correctly) skewered the adult world's addiction to liquor ("We're old enough") and the younger generation blithely ignoring the dangers of other drugs: pot, LSD, speed, etc.

Neither side, liberal or conservative, has a lock on all that is good.

  • It has been said that no one who has a heart can resist being a liberal and that no one who has a brain can avoid being a conservative. Like most aphorisms this one contains a trace of truth wrapped in a maze of misperceptions. [11]

What's wrong with faith in and support of human rational potential (a liberal idea)? What's wrong with placing a high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition (a conservative idea)? Nothing.

It's when one side demonizes the other and refuses to see any value whatsoever in the other's ideas and contrbutions, that trouble brews. I came here because the liberal encyclopedia (Wikipedia) pushes away everything that smacks of conservativeness, even refusing to describe it whenever such a description is seen as undermining the supremacy of liberal POV.

Thank God we have a chance for a balanced description of political subjects here! (And everything is political.) --Ed Poor Talk 11:43, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Red link on MPR

Hey, Same-sex intercourse is red-linking on the main page, would it be ok to create a redirect to the sex article, or is someone going to write this into a full article later down the line? TonyB 15:04, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Ah, someone took care of it. Thanks Jpatt! TonyB 16:22, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

April 12th Google

Blimey, they love Communist achievements at Google. [12] --Jpatt 16:02, 12 April 2011 (EDT)