Changes

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site.  But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint).  So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site.  But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint).  So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent) Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

 

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

 

:JZim was blocked for this comment.  Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment.  Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that.  You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship.  We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post.  You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip.  So yes you are calling him a liberal.  If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.   

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that.  You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship.  We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post.  You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip.  So yes you are calling him a liberal.  If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.   

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true.  "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this.  "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels).  I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you.  Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all.  It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support.  If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place.  I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated.  But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion,  it is too weak and strident.  There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true.  "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this.  "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels).  I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you.  Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all.  It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support.  If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place.  I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated.  But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion,  it is too weak and strident.  There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents.  An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."''  This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.  I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend.  Do we ever disagree?  Anyone who has been around CP knows we have!  But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)  

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents.  An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."''  This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.  I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend.  Do we ever disagree?  Anyone who has been around CP knows we have!  But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship".  So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism.  Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment.  I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate).  I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here.  I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian.  Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit?  They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them.  Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy.  Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense).  Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship".  So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism.  Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment.  I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate).  I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here.  I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian.  Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit?  They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them.  Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy.  Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense).  Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven.  Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself.  I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness.  It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth.  There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously.  This does not help the cause in the least.

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven.  Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself.  I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness.  It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth.  There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously.  This does not help the cause in the least.