3,101
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
(reset indent) Strike two. Either make a positive contribution or leave. Thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
(reset indent) Strike two. Either make a positive contribution or leave. Thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
== conservapedia front page news ticker ==
Just casting my eye over the news headlines on your front page..
You've got a story about Democrat presidential candidate, Governor Richardson, requiring "the state to grow and distribute Marijuana". No mention of the fact it's '''MEDICAL''' Marijuana. That's nothing but a pathetic smear. A straight down lie of omission. Telling lies? You know, sinful? Who ever writes that is a hypocrite of the first order. Shame on you and shame on anyone who can't see this whole enterprise is nothing but a hateful retreat from reality for those with the most impoverished spirits imaginable.
And what's that about the Glasgow bombing (I'm in Glasgow btw)? And the French?? That just makes no sense what so ever! You're a loony mate.
{{unsigned|MarbleMad}}
: Stick around and you will understand better what you read in the newspaper. By the way, no one grows "medical marijuana". The plant is marijuana, plain and simple. How it is used has nothing to do with what is grown. And, I might add, "medical marijuana" is a fiction just as much as "medical cocaine" would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, cocaine does have medical purposes. It's used as a blood vessel constrictor for instance, and is used during surgery. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::That's a bit ironic, considering that cocaine was originally marketed as a medicine [http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc03.htm] and in fact is still used that way [http://www.medicinenet.com/cocaine_hydrochloride-topical/article.htm] [http://druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/medical/meduse.htm] and heroin, like other opiates, is still of course widely used in hospitals.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::Surely medicine itself is a fiction? Only faith and prayer alone can heal us. [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 07:56, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Nice try, "Brit____", but the point remains: no one grows "medical marijuana." Do you think you've ever seen a "medical marijuana" plant? How can you tell the difference between a growing "medical marijuana" plant and an ordinary one???? Godspeed to our misguided friends from across the pond. Let's hope one day conservatism catches hold in [[Britain]] again, before it's too late.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::::And the difference between a poppy grown for morphine from one grown for heroin would be.. what exactly?
::::The power of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm[prayer as a medicine]]? [[User:Tummymaster|Tummymaster]]
::::: Marijuana is not used to make morphine.
::::: The movement for "medical" marijuana didn't start until the legalize-drug crowd failed in its attempts to legalize it for everyone. So the approach now is to legalize it for everyone ... who has a note from a doctor. Not everyone is fooled by that approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Its supposedly very easy to get a doctor to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes. Some news station a few years ago did a piece about it, and one of the guys got a note for marijuana for back pains.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:57, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Right. So many people where getting marijuana through this phony loophole that even [[Jerry Brown]], one of the most [[liberal]] politicians in the country, chased the marijuana cooperatives out of [[Oakland]] when he was mayor. Even he got fed up with the racket.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::As people who believe in [[Conservative|personal responsibility]] surely we should have no objection to people using marijuana for medical purposes if they so desire. It is not used to get stoned but usually for pain relief. We have no objection to a glass of wine with a meal. Those who [[Liberal|lack personal responsibility]] abuse it to get drunk. [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 09:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Marijuana is addictive, and most usage is to get stoned and self-destruct. The "medical" part is [[deceit]] by the legalize-drug crowd. We're not fooled, thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: As was the original form of morphine. Cocaine was used as a medical anesthetic until pocaine was able to be synthesized. I would also encourage you to look at Marinol. The question then is should marijuana be considered equivalent to Marinol, which would reduce costs in treating anorexia, side effects of chemotherapy and AIDS drugs, and spasms from multiple sclerosis. Many drugs are abused - that does not mean that the drug has no benefits and should not be prescribed - especially in situations where it reduces the medical costs compared to synthetic forms. Alternatively, are you suggesting that every drug that can or has been abused should not be allowed to be used in a medical situation? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:11, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Aschlafly, where is the evidence that marijuana is addictive? The body cannot become dependent on THC. <ref>http://www.chanvre-info.ch/info/en/Hemp-is-less-toxic-than-alcohol-or.html Excerpts from the Roques report</ref> <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf British report</ref>
::Alcohol is addictive, and much usage is to get drunk (stoned) and self-destruct. According to [http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/problems.html this] "the United States [has] the highest number of alcoholics in the West, but the country also pays a dear price for their actions: alcohol is a factor in a third of all rapes, in a quarter of all assaults, and in half of all homicides". According the [http://www.islam-usa.com/im21.html this] there are 15 milllion alcoholics in the US. Should we treat alcohol the same as Marijuana? [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 09:13, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I haven't been buying into this discussion, but if you are interested in my opinion on that question, it's ''yes''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:In California, all you have to do is <s>forge</s> bring a doctors note and wince convincingly. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 12:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::So is the Conservative position that a dangerous drug like alcohol should be prohibited? In some states, all you have to do is <s>forge</s> provide age ID and act convincingly, though some alcohol pushers don't care to check ID anyway and are quite content to endulge in FREE market economics. [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 15:22, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to get the opinion of someone dying of AIDS or cancer on whether they'd like a natural, fairly cheap drug that gives a sense of good feeling and increases the appitite. Anyone? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not dying of AIDS or cancer, but if you'd like my opinion, and assuming you are referring to alcohol, I have no problem with using alcohol for (genuine) medicinal purposes if that is the most appropriate substance for the job. I believe that the American Medical Association over 50 years ago declared that alcohol was ''not'' required for medicinal purposes, but I assume that they were not talking about circumstances where other treatments might not be available for some reason (e.g. isolated locations). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
One thing we're overlooking is that desperately sick people will use whatever it takes to make them feel better. If Joe Chemo wants a couple of tokes to help keep his dinner down, would you rather he got it from the government, or paid money to some scumbag drug dealer? The whole point of medicinal marijuna is as a medicine, not a cheap high. That's why you can't buy morphine or codine on the street, even though they are legitimate medicines. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:31, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
==July 1==
*Canada Day; Happy Birthday, Canada!
*1916 - Battle of the Somme begins
*1991 - Warsaw Pact ended
*1994 - Yasser Arafat returns to Gaza after 27 year exile
*1997 - Britain returns Hong Kong to Chinese
[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 09:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
: Great stuff, Fox. Thanks and will post now. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
== This is a ''really'' dumb idea for a wiki ==
Wikipedia strives for a non biased view point. It represents all prominent views on an issue. This, however, strives to be as biased as possible, evidently. The name itself suggests this. I mean, I would go on but if this needs explaining then I think reasoning is beyond you. {{unsigned|Wow}}
:It must not be totally biased or else this comment wouldn't be permitted to be here, even if it was being allowed to remain to give an impression of tolerance to criticism. In a way this site is good because it gives 'people' a place to type this stuff, and I hate to say it for being insulting (but then there'd be no reason to post this at all since everything can be taken as an insult if you look at it right) but it keeps wikipedia a bit filtered from the endless and impossible-to-win 'battle'. {{unsigned|ImaginaryCIIR}}
:While Wikipedia supposedly strives for a non-biased viewpoint, it fails to achieve that, and allows biased viewpoints to predominate in some areas. It does ''not'' represent all prominent views on an issue ''fairly''. This site admits its (conservative) bias, but nevertheless strives to be accurate and fair. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:The above editor "Wow" (what a silly name) scores 0 on the scale for openmindedness, unfortunately. See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].
:[[Wikipedia]] is 6 times more liberal than the American public. If that's what Mr. "Wow" wants in an informational resource, then so be it. But if you want information that is censored from Wikipedia, and if you want to be challenged, then Conservapedia is the place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry Andy. But whenever you use the 6 times number, you just show that you show an utmost disrespect for statistics, and you know it. And you continue to use it, although you know better as a former engineer. [[User:Order]] July 3 5:40 (AEST)
My God, are you actively trying to be obtuse and unreasonable, are you genuinely unaware, or is this some sort of brainwashed-doublethink. Either way it's pretty scary. If this site admits to being biased, then it can not attempt to be accurate or fair. The mere definitions of these words prove this... What an idiotic page(Quantifying Openmindedness). And what does that have to do with anything, anyway? Or atleast, in what way did you gather my lack of "openmindedness"? In what way does Conservapedia challenge one? How moreso than Wikipedia? From my experiences on both I have found Wikipedians to be much more intelligent then those active here. But I suppose that is a moot point as you will say it's because of our mutual liberal bias... And feel free to ban me again for pointing out how stupid you all are, I have plenty of i.p. addresses and emails {{unsigned|Orwell}}
: Well, bully for you that you have plenty of i.p. addresses and emails. Waste all your time on them if you like. But when you post here, sign your postings. And say something substantive rather than simply namecalling. By the way, what's your score on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT) +
:Why sign when it is attributed to me anyway? There is no choice for anonymity on this site. You even have to register to edit. My post was pretty substantive, I think. You're right; I shouldn't have called people names, though. What do you mean by my score? Also, someone on the talk page had the valid point that those questions are skewed. {{unsigned|Orwell}}
:We have a bias towards truth and accuracy, and towards being fair, rather than being neutral regarding truth, accuracy, and fairness. Is there a problem with that? (And neither of us are God, so we would appreciate you not addressing us that way! :-) ) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:But if one strove for truth and accuracy and fairness, there would be no need for a bias. It would simply be objective. <small>previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Orwell]] 14:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)</small>
:: *butts in shamelessly* I think y'all are devolving into a semantic dispute. "A bias towards truth and accuracy" rather than "neutral regarding truth, accuracy" etc... is another way of saying that the site strives for truth and accuracy. The problem is, "bias" has a [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pejorative pejorative] connotation to some people, but bias isn't inherently bad. (And no, before somebody says it, this isn't a back-door argument in favor of Wikipedia bias.) Does that help at all? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- biased towards cheeseburgers''
:::Thanks, Aziraphale, you are correct. In a sense, we are ''all'' biased, but it's just a matter of which is the best bias to be biased with. We acknowledge that we are biased towards truth, accuracy, and various other things, which many of us tend to lump under labels such as "conservative". Many others, rather than acknowledging bias in different directions, smugly claim to be unbiased. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
":[[Wikipedia]] is 6 times more liberal than the American public. If that's what Mr. "Wow" wants in an informational resource, then so be it." Dear Aschlafly! This statement perfectly sums up the American conservatives. Here's the thing - how liberal Wikipedia is compared to the American public has no importance. Wikipedia has a global roll as an information source, and with global I refer to the fact that there are other countries on this planet, and those countries have inhabitants that your pompous ass always seems to neglect. In the same way your country bullies the rest of the world, the conservatives bully the part of your own population that doesn't share your point of view. Your intolerance is a joke to us in Europe watching your country imploding under the weight of your inconsistency and bias. Wikipedia is not a liberal propaganda machine, and when something can't be proved to be right they make that very clear, unlike you who are so used to altering facts that you can't even tell right from wrong anymore. I respect a conservative point of view dear Aschlafly, but I do not respect these methods, and I am certain that if the conservatives didn't act like sociopaths much of the time spent with pointless bickering between liberals and conservatives could be spend dealing with actual issues instead.
America is not all that great. I pity you fools for telling yourselves that even now, when the whole world has turned or is turning it's back on you for what you do to your own people, and to the Iraqis. Shame on you. /Felicia
: A [[liberal]] "shame on you"!!! Oh please. Spare us the feigned liberal indignation. America is doing just fine, thank you, and if European liberals find that amusing then I'm glad you're easily amused. Just please don't ask America to bail Europe out from the inevitable difficulties that result from [[liberal]] policies. I wish the best for Europe, but fear the worst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::''Your intolerance is a joke to us in Europe watching your country imploding under the weight of your inconsistency and bias.''. You'd better make that only '''Western Europe'''. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)