Talk:Main Page/archive21

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Democratic Representative Charged with Assault and battery

Here is the article if you are interested: SPierce 18:20, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Is Today in History over?

Has the Today in History section on this page been deleted once and for all? -Additioner 19:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I have no idea...still waiting to hear from Jallen or one of the others. Is this a feature you enjoyed? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:56, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Australians should love NYC

The article in the Australian Newspaper on why we should love America, is a homage to NYC and its people, and of course to the improvements that set in under Giuliani. It tells the reader to see also the side of America that reads Proust. Quote: The influx of ethnic minorities, artists, gays and bohemians has clearly played a role in rescuing New York from its dark side. And it is apologetic towards American that are blamed for actions of the current administration. Quote: It is always a mistake to judge a country by its political leadership, but I think too many of us have done just that with America. Can anybody tell me why this is featured on the front page? Or was the article quoted because of its headline, but without actually reading it. Order 22:01, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Russia and the proposed Czech radar

Moscow has labeled the US proposal to put missile defense radar units in the Czech republic a "threat" to Russian security, but without specifying their reasoning. How can detection of in-coming missiles be a threat? Why did Russia's General Igor Khvorov threaten to destroy these radar units, if deployed? [2]

I don't see the radar as an aggressive move at all. The only ones being aggressive here are Russia and (possibly also) Iran. Recall that the first tactic of totalitarianism is always to disarm the innocent; the second step is then to make them victims.

Putin made the same threat. [1]

Should we add any of this to "breaking news"? --Ed Poor Talk 09:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Without wanting to pass comment of any sort on what I think of either the US proposal or the Russian response, I thought I might explain what passes for "logic" in this instance. The reason that these sorts of shields have been considered dangerous in the past is because they throw into turmoil the Cold War strategy of deterrence through threat of mutual annihilation. Basically, if you have two superpowers and each knows that a first nuclear strike by them will result in their own annihilation, then neither will press the button (in theory). If one side has a shield, the threat of annihilation is reduced for that side and so the possibility of a nuclear war increases. It's a Cold War policy, and maybe isn't relevant today - but that is Putin's argument and he's sticking to it. Ferret 22:31, 21 August 2007 (EDT)


  1. Mr. Putin had ratcheted up the rhetoric, saying Mr. Bush had started a new Cold War and threatening to aim Russia's missiles at European targets to redistribute what the Kremlin leader called a dramatic shift in the balance of power. [1]


Is it possible to move pages?--Iduan 21:28, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I think only the sysops can move pages. If there is something you need moved, just ask me. Bohdan
Wow - that was a quick response - thank you. I was thinking that Danes should be moved to Danes (disambiguation). Thoughts?--Iduan 21:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Do you think the disambiguation template is good enough? Bohdan
I suppose so - but I do think that some attempt to differentiate in article titles should be made. For example - whenever a template is created, the title is preceded by Template: - and to some extent I think having disambiguation pages end with (disambiguation) is in the same way preferable. (sorry for the wait in response)--Iduan 21:49, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I was looking at the articles in the Disambiguation page category, and I noticed that some are as you describe. I will move it based on your recommendation. Thanks. Bohdan 21:51, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
You're the one moving it - thank you.--Iduan 21:52, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Jacksonville Jaguars & Planned Parenthood

Where's the source for the Jacksonville Jaguars being the largest donor to Planned Parenthood of NE Florida?--Tash 09:10, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It sez large, not largest. Anyway, source: --PeteVan 09:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Student free speech

First of all, I applaud Brian for standing up for his right of free speech. I myself was involved in a free speech issue in high school. What's really interesting to me about this whole thing is that Brian did his homework on the ACLU website and he was citing a case, Turner vs. Des Moines, that dealt with student rights to wear black armbands protesting the war in Vietnam. So a conservative student enlists the aid of that nasty, lefty, probably communist ACLU and a rotten case involving un-American activities to defend his own freedom of speech. Is this an endorsement of the ACLU on onservapedia!? I guess conservapedia editors might want to be a bit kinder to the ACLU. Let’s face it, one day it may be the right of people you don’t like and one day it may be yours that the ACLU is defending, even if it is just a by-product of their activities. Wismike 12:58, 24 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out
Thought I would add this famous little piece. Go ACLU!!Wismike 14:03, 24 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
  • Of course you completely twist the meaning, a deceit common among Liberals, Wismike. His "research" and findings were a by-product of the work (decision) of the SCOTUS. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:22, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Hey, that was pretty hostile. This is a quote from Brians website "Being well-prepared for the meeting, I presented to her a dossier I had compiled the night before from the ACLU website: documents detailing Tinker vs. Des Moines, and several other cases dealing with students' rights to self expression." Also, if you look up the case, Tinker vs Des Moines, the plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU. It is the work of the ACLU and that even gives people like Tinker the chance to get to the Supreme Court. What do you mean I twisted the meaning anyway? The quote above. The meaning is clear and I didn't offer any commentary. Wismike 17:36, 24 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
  • More twisting, eh? I was only talking about your own comments above, Wismike. And if you consider someone disagreeing with what you say (and how you say it) as "hostile" you are most likely unprepared for life, let alone the Internet. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:38, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't consider someone disagreeing with me to be hostile, I consider someone calling me deceitful and now immature to be hostile. I have shown my sources but you have yet to really point out exactly how I have lied or twisted the truth. In your world, deceitful is like a codeword for Satanic (the great liar) so in effect that it what you are calling me. As for maturity; I am 49 years old, have been happily married for 27 years, raised two great children to adulthood, am the CFO for an international construction company and live a healthy life. What's your life story? You owe me an apology. Wismike 09:13, 27 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
By the way, here is a another quote from Brian "The ACLU while a traditionally liberal organization is also a great reference. Their website has a wealth of material available free of charge on the issues of student rights to self expression and free speech." Wismike 14:50, 27 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

Howard Long MD MPH family doctor, epidemiologist 363 St Mary St. Pleasanton CA 94566 925-846-4411 fax4562 cell 787-0253 hflong@

To: Todd Browning, Principal 8/24/07 Princeton Senior High School 1321 Stafford Drive Princeton, WV 24740


Re: Student free speech, Bryan Henderson

Dear Principal Browning, I compliment you on stimulating your students for future employment and citizenship with interplay of opinions described by your student, Bryan Henderson on When you scan it (as your curiosity should dictate), you should be pleased with what he has added to the growth of your school and students.

I recently rose after presentation to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness by Gregory M Davis to question his denigration of all Islam as Conquistadores, when the vast majority of Muslims I know to be like conservative Christians in their family values and peacefulness. However, I also appreciate President Bush’s prevention of more suicidal attacks on the USA by the relatively few, insane, Islamofascists.

Howard Long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HowardLong (talk)

Well done, Dr. Long, and thank you! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Church pro-life advocacy

The article cited didn't give the IRS any chance to explain why they were conducting the audit. The law forbids churches from endorsing or opposing candidates, and using church resources for political purposes. Churches are given tax-exempt status because they are expected to do charitable work, not engage in partisan politicking. Most churches abide by these rules. Here is a good explanation of what this is all about. [3] Wismike 16:33, 24 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

  • It is a thorny issue, Wismike. Where does a church's advocacy of Biblical injunctions end, and political speech begin? Usually that has been when a Church moves from issues to specific candidate endorsements. Since the Founding Fathers didn't intend to banish religion, merely preclude the establishment of a National Religion, I have always had my doubts about the wisdom of any controls over what a church might advocate. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:18, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
You said it yourself, Churches are prohibited from moving from issues to specific endorsements. Churches can advocate any position they want but because of there special status that they enjoy already, automatic tax exemption, they are prohibited from specific endorsements. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of debate but it is the current law. Like I said before, this article that is cited doesn't give the IRS any opportunity to say why this particular church is being audited or what evidence they might have. My company was audited by the IRS, does that mean they have some conspiracy againts me? No. They suspected that we didn't follow the rules and hey guess what, we hadn't. We made a mistake. We paid up and didn't cry conspiracy to anyone. The rules are the rules. Wismike 17:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
This is from an article in the Wichita Eagle "The IRS contacted Spirit One in May and questioned Holick about his involvement in distributing voter guides and messages on the church's marquee critical of some candidates and their stances on abortion." Wismike 15:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

New York Times

This vandalism to Wikipedia's entry on Tom Delay, "prominent member" was changed to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party" [4] was made from he offices of the New York Times. [5] This needs to be page one news, and somebody at the New York Times needs to be fired.

And we also have room in CP as another example of liberal bias and hate speech. I'm busy at the moment, anybody wish to take of all this, please? Rob Smith 18:23, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Front Page Material

I don't know if anyone cares or not - but we might want to consider putting this [6] on the front page. In short: what is now a prominent WP editor (SlimVirgin) has just been caught for performing sockpuppetry two years ago. Again, maybe it's not that big a deal given the timespan (SlimVirgin did this when (s)he was just a new user) - but perhaps it should be noted how Wikipedia didn't catch it.--Iduan 21:02, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Update: this is slightly bigger than I thought - it looks like it's possible that an user with oversight capabilities (which for those of you who don't know is above admin abilities) erased the edit in a possible cover up.--Iduan 22:53, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Chinese sculptor

First, let me say that I *do* see the irony in a Chinese sculptor carving MLK's statue. It's also ironic that we would choose a foreign national to build a sculpture for our nation's capital. However, Washington D.C is a place full of irony. George Washington was a modest man, and at 555ft, 5 1/8 inches, the Washington Monument is the tallest structure for miles around (and indeed, the tallest free-standing masonary structure in the world). Thomas Jefferson would have abhored the spending of public money on his monument. Probably the largest (literally) example of capital ironal irony is the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Named after a stout small government and fiscal conservate, RRBITC is the world's second largest federal building (second only to the Pentagon), and at its time of creation was the most expensive federal building ever built. (Can you tell I recently went on vacation to D.C.?) Jazzman831 11:38, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Jazzman, what you describe is irony, but the selection of the sculptor for Communist China (who is wearing the standard communist garb in the photo) is more than "ironic". It's a slap in the face. It would be like hiring one of Fidel Castro's henchmen to design a statute for Ronald Reagan. That wouldn't be ironic, it would be offensive and insulting. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Suprisingly not all Chinese people support communism, even tho the sculptor is from china, he might not be an communist. Just like getting an American sculptor isn't a quarantee that you will get an good old conservative, it might just as well be some liberal hippie, you know how the artists are like... HeikkiL 13:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
It might also be worth noting that, despite calling themselves communists, China is no more communist than the United States. In fact, there has never been a truly communist state. But China is not even "communist" in the way that the Soviet Union was a "communist" state.--BillOhannity 13:43, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not so much that they're communist it's that they're oppressive - and that's what the front page says. However, I do agree with HekkiL in that it's not exactly fair to assume this guy is communist - I mean thousands of people flee communist cuba each year - meaning non-communist are in cuba. The same could probably be said of China. And the guy obviously supports democracy, otherwise he wouldn't say, "Martin Luther King hoped that everyone would be brothers and sisters no matter the color of their skin or their social status, that they would all enjoy the same opportunities and rights. ... I want my sculpture to show that Martin Luther King fought for democracy." --Iduan 19:36, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

And perhaps your view is that the sculptor is wearing a communist uniform in the picture for ... comfort??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
First, how do you see that is a uniform? Just by it's color? If that would be true, every kid in the US wearing a German parka would be a staunch supporter of the German armed forces. I doubt it. Second, your remark shows little understanding of life in an unfree society. In communist countries people wear uniforms for different reasons. Third, it seems that you are judging this guy for his nationality and for his looks. You should judge him by his deeds, so rather than discussing his wardrobe, you should discuss his credentials when it come to human rights. I don't know this guy so I can't say. Peace be upon you. Order 20:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
And perhaps your view is that the sculptor is wearing a communist uniform in the picture for ... comfort??? Almost certainly he is wearing a cotton jacket because it is hard-wearing and comfortable, yes. Quite what you mean by 'communist uniform' is another matter entirely. During the 1960s and 70s the great majority of the Chinese people wore the green or blue 'Zhongshan suit' (Sun Yat-sen suit, called in the west a 'Mao suit') as outer wear, and to have done otherwise would have been seen as questionable at best. That has not been the case for very many years now. If people wear a Zhongshan suit, they may do so for ideological reasons, or because it is cheap and practical (especially for dirty manual work like making a large sculpture). If they don't want to wear it, they wear other clothes - whatever they like, in fact. Pachyderm 07:08, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Castro dead?

Here's a picture from a Spanish language site [7] and another report [8] Rob Smith 14:12, 26 August 2007 (EDT)


I sure hope he's dead. --Lensboy 14:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Maybe - although then again that picture is rather suspect - I mean that could be a photo-shopped night-vision shot of him sleeping. There have been so many rumors of his death before that I don't think we should jump to any conclusions.--Iduan 18:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Given that this is still a rumor, is this gossip? Is this something that Conservapedia has criticized Wikipedia about? Or is this something that is true and verifiable more than what the article linked presents: "Miami Police Chief: "something there" in rumors about Castro"? --Rutm 19:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

It's only rumored to be gossip. We're reporting on the alleged rumor. Rob Smith 22:13, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Why's he dressed in a prayer shawl? Samwell 22:15, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Folks, whether a dictator is alive or dead is not "gossip". Second, the picture may be fake but the rumor may be true. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:21, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
And in Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia, points 5 and 6 are about gossip and reporting journalists as truth. Are you spreading a rumor and gossip or reporting on actual facts? --22:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
First, sign your comments and second, this is plainly not gossip or a mere opinion of a journalist. The Miami Police Chief is quoted and this is not being presented as fact, but as a rumor. However, I expect you to insist on having the last word as liberals always do. See point 5 in examples of liberal style.--Aschlafly 22:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)--Aschlafly 22:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly - in all fairness I think the above user is using gossip and rumor interchangeably - no need to accuse him of being a liberal.--Iduan 23:55, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Aside from all this dispute between fact and opinion, let's just all hope that if or when Castro is dead, that the news can be made public to the people of Cuba in a way that will foster some regime change. -MikeZoeller 00:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


I'm no Liberal by a longshot, but I am a devout Christian and I hate to see people - any people - being ridiculed to the extent as they do here. Why can't we learn to love rather than hate? This is not what Christ taught us! He taught us to love our enemies! The Democrats are not my enemies - they are people who are well intentioned and believe their worldview will breed a healthier world. They are friends with different political opinions, not enemies of our faith. I think that the constant slurs of 'Liberal deceit' etc. is not nice. Johnjoe 09:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

You know little of the Democratic Party mindset. That party's leaders insist on raising taxes, even though the increase in total revenues that comes when tax rates are cut is demonstrable, reliable, and considerable. No, they don't want to help those who they say they want to help. They just want to make a bunch of people dependent on them--dependent enough so that they'll vote, and vote, and vote, and always for them.--TerryHTalk 09:43, 27 August 2007 (EDt)
Well said Johnjoe. As a Liberal, I think the same can be said for conservatives. Wismike 09:45, 27 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
Opinions like the one Terry gives above are a prime reason why liberals and democrats should read this site. There are people who profess faith who hate us and they think their hate is part of God's plan. This is very instructive. Dkips 09:50, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

TerryH - You seem to have a lot of built up anger inside of you! Most people will surely agree that Democrats and Liberals are well intentioned - their intentions at fighting poverty for instance, is something that should be lauded. personally I disagree with their vehicles to reach these goals, I prefer greatly individual charitable responsibility. I do believe that military spending in the US should be cut by at least 80-85% though, with that money gone into education and healthcare of the people. I've come to the conclusion that among the social sphere, Education and healthcare needs to be at the very least subsidised by the state. I don;t believe God intends us to have such large and uncompromising armies - the word of Jesus Christ is a message of peace and Love. Maybe its just me, but I'm getting tired at fundamentalists spouting the Old Testament so often. I'm a fundamentalist of a different kind; MY fundamentals in life are peace, love, charity, forgiveness, non-violence... I believe that neither party in my country reflects these values, so I tend to vote independantly. What is un-necessary though, is constantly attacking Democrats on your front page. You give the rest of us Christians a bad name. Johnjoe 10:12, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are often hypocrites and immoral, self-identifying atheists. Maybe not all of them are, but many are. It is likely that most are. And the entire leadership are either atheists or hypocrites. Attacking Democrats when they demonstrate this is a good thing. SkipJohnson 11:04, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Attacking democrats when they demonstrate? Can you elaborate? Order 11:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Demonstrating hypocrisy and immoral atheism. SkipJohnson 11:28, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, it is late here. I didn't read your statement correctly in the first place. Order 11:30, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

The word 'attack' should not even be in your vocabulary. Besides, only 6% or so of Americans are atheist/agnostic, and the Democratic membership base is 44% or so? So you need to do your maths (Or is that an atheist invention?) Who cares if they are atheist or not - many a man who shouts his religion from the rooftop is hypocrytical too, so thats irrelevant. Johnjoe 11:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

The Democrats who claim to be religious are hypocrites. Those who are not are atheists. Take your pick. There may be a few exceptions but they are few. SkipJohnson 11:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I think I've really got my eye's opened to what 'American Christians' are like today. I only pray you are in the minority over there, but do none of you actually love your fellow man like you are told to do my GOD??? Personally I don't consider you to be a Christian 'Skip Johnson', but someone who uses that cloak to display his own prejudices. But I will pray for you. Johnjoe 11:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Why do you all ridicule people so much and so often? Why is there so much hate? And what is anti-Christian about Christian Democrats? They don;t believe there faith should be legislated... Can you not bring yourself to respect their point of view without regarding them to be hyporites or atheists? Johnjoe 11:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
There is a difference between loving your fellow man and politically endorsing him. Have you considered it possible to criticize your fellow mans actions and love him still? How is there "so much hate"? Has anyone said they hated democrats? Who are you to judge the faith of "SkipJohnson"? Bohdan 11:57, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Calling someone 'deceitful' (constantly) is not constructively criticising their political beliefs. Calling someone a 'hypocryte' (constantly) is not constructively criticising their political beliefs. Using emotionally charged sentances is not a legitimate way of debating with another persons beliefs. Its just not nice, gentlemanly or Christian. And in relation to the hate, take a look at the front page and look at all the nasty things you all say about the Democrats. The Democrats are not the Nazi party. No-one here is criticising the Democrats - they are effectively bullying them. Johnjoe 12:04, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I just looked at the main page. What exactly are the nasty things? Bohdan 12:06, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

'With so much liberal deceit, it would not surprise anyone if Cuba is lying about even his death. ' (I don't even know what thats supposed to mean)

'How many other liberal smears' (Unintelligent, emotionally charged wording)

'Liberal Views, Black Victims' (Thats just plain wrong)

There are usually this amount every day... Johnjoe 12:13, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit that I am not seeing much hate in those comments. Whats hateful would be calling Tom DeLay the "Grand Dragon " of the Republican party. Thats hate. Bohdan 12:22, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Johnjoe, here in the United States, unlike the secular, politically correct society the United Kingdom and most all of the EU has become, we value directness over double speak, we do not seek to "debate" with Liberals full of deceit. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
If I had to guess (who said you had to?) (Point taken) I'd say that the constant association of "liberal" and "deceit" is the kind of thing that Johnjoe is talking about. Liberals are often asked why they are reluctant to identify themselves as such on this site; I suspect that you'd get more openness on the subject if they didn't know that they've been pre-branded as liars. Aziraphale 12:30, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-chatty Kathy this morning...
Double speak? Directness? You mean you over simplify things here, generalize all liberals to fit the same mold which you have build from your prejudices, and fail to admit any wrong doings or mistakes by conservatives? It certainly isn't directnes what is shown here, it's just stupidity. MikeS 13:57, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • MikeS, only an idiot or mentally challenged person, if you prefer the term, would take the association as to mean 100% of Liberals. That sort of comment is a red herring, a ploy. It is a logical fallacy. Liberals do not have to self-identify, their POV is present in every post. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:13, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, you are saying that it's in fact a deceit from your part when you label liberals to be deceitfull hypocrits, when you actually don't mean it, you just write stuff like that to "encyclopedias" news section to what... to piss people thinking themselves as liberals off? yes... i can see how smart that is from you, and how i have missinterped you and all the other liberal loving people here. Im sorry. MikeS 14:25, 27 August 2007 (EDT) Oh, allmost forgot, I just hate the deceitfull, lying no good black people, and dont be idiot enough or mentally challenged to interpret that like i would actually be a racist and mean all black people even tho i say so. MikeS 14:30, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I felt bad for you for a sec there, but keeping it up (and yes, I'll admit it, deleting my last post) just makes me want to pop some popcorn and watch the show. Keep talking, you're just making the reasonable people's job harder. Aziraphale 14:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-from zero to annoyed in approx. 500 characters...
Im sorry, but i think you are looking for reasonable people from the wrong place. MikeS 14:47, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree, but note who I'm talking to at the moment. Aziraphale 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-not usually like this, don't know what got into me...
I actually am one of those looney liberals, so i can't be concidered really a reasonable... But thanks for thinking that i could have been MikeS 15:56, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Well I'm glad that your life is so absolutely worthless that you can waste your time talking about how you're liberal on a conservative encyclopedia. (so this is what happens to liberals that don't have girlfriends!) --Iduan 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Things are even worse, im actually married. And yes, it has been an honor to waste some time from my worthles life here, thanks for having me MikeS 16:16, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Bravo Johnjoe you deserve an award --MrRandom 17:31, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I think a user got what I was getting at earlier; Its simply mean to constantly use Liberal and deceit in the same sentance. Besides its simply hypocrytical on your part; How many of those conservative 'Christians' end up on sex charges such as that Foley gentleman? While conservatives shout out about sex, many of their own members display impropriety. While Liberals shout about racism, many of their own members are in fact racist with their paternalistic support of Affirmative Action. Independants like me are sick and tired of both sides shouting at each other like silly little children - We are all children of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us haven't realised that yet; Thats okay, maybe they will, maybe they won't, and in our private time we can help them realise it - but we cannot force our own morals and values on them. That is a personal choice they and they alone can make. Christ himself was the greatest individualist the world has ever seen - he would bleed if he saw some of his posterboys in America behave the way they do. He would literally cry. Johnjoe 17:58, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Johnjoe, you know little of the Jesus Christ you claim to follow, and even less of His Word, the Bible.

Romans 13:1-7 clearly sets forth the real ministry of human government, which is to restrain evil by force. The evil I speak of in this context is murder, theft, and fraud. Tell me this: ought any of these things to be legal? If not--then why do you propose such foolish police and military stand-downs as would be required by an eighty-five-percent reduction in expenditures?

You speak of charity. Can you cite any charitable activities of prominent liberal politicians? Such men (and women, too, but that's another topic) have quite a knack for being charitable--with other people's money.

You say that I am angry, this after all I said was that the Democratic Party wants to restore taxation to previous levels that were injurious to the economy, even in the face of a vast increase in revenues when tax rates were cut. Now first of all, do you deny the revenue increases that many economists have observed? But more to the point: where did I display anger in pointing out two salient facts:

  1. Revenues have increased as tax rates have been cut.
  2. Democratic Party leaders fly in the face of that and want tax rates re-raised.

Or was it when I concluded that they are interested in power, and denied the good intentions that you are so willing, without warrant, to impute to them? Sir, I called it as I saw it. I call a spade, a spade. (And likewise I call a hypocrite, a hypocrite, and I call a liar, a liar.)

You speak of "conservatives" getting run in for sexual chicane. Well, how many liberals have gotten run in, or run out of office, for their racist pasts--or their racist present policies, which even you admit you find wrongheaded? The difference is that we voters don't tolerate sexual chicane in anyone who presumes to lead or speak for us. But liberals tolerate such things all the time, because:

  1. They find nothing wrong with it.
  2. They want the power.

We have willing dames enough. There cannot be/That vulture in you to devour so many/As would to greatness dedicate themselves,/Finding it so inclin'd.

MacBeth IV.iii.74-77.

Would Jesus really have us tolerate such men in office? Sir, He would overturn their desks and chase them out of their offices, with the same vehemence wherewith He drove the moneychangers out of the Temple of Jerusalem.--TerryHTalk 21:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

"But liberals tolerate such things all the time, because:
1. They find nothing wrong with it.
2. They want the power. "
oooohhh yooooouuuuu... you almost had me there for a minute. Aziraphale 00:57, 28 August 2007 (EDT) <-the nick of time...


You have a ungentlemanly tendancy to call people stupid, in one way or another. Cutting taxes constantly does not necessarily increase revenues. What you are probably trying to think of is the Laffer Curve, in which taxes reach an equilibrium where the optimum level of taxation can be charged to increase revenues. People who want to cut taxes on ideological grounds tend to overlook reasonable debate on this and people who wish to raise them on ideological grounds overlook debate on this also.

Sometimes, when the tax rate is cripplingly high, actually cutting taxes increases revenues. However, this is not the case in the United States as your budget surpluses have turned into huge deficits due to Bush's inability to handle an economy, never mind a country.

As for my supposed lack of knowledge for the faith in which I am a preacher for, I can only laugh at that. I am sick to the stomach of people using Christianity to advance their own prejudices. I am a believer in the New Testament - I do not read the Bible literally. The Parts of the New Testament which do not relate to the life of Jesus Christ is irrelevant to me. St. Paul is irrelevant to me. They are nothing more than moral parables, useful for an individual to search for personal solace and inspiration, but not the be all and end all of Christian faith. Christian faith begins and ends with Jesus Christ, and if you don't understand that perhaps you should spend more time reading your King James. Johnjoe 07:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Also I think you need to calm down Terry. You seem to see conspiracies and plots everywhere. Johnjoe 07:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Ooooh, that would be almost everyone around here, actually. JazzMan 09:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Not that I have any say in the matter, but if any of you are actually getting something out of the political side of this debate/conversation, may I recommend that you stop trying to decide who is and isn't following their faith correctly. I suppose it's technically possible to do that in a reasonable tone of voice, so to speak, but it ain't likely. Aziraphale 10:36, 28 August 2007 (EDT) <- it's not a vote...

Liberal scientists refuse to respect sanctity of life. Again.

[9] would be a good news item for the main page. SkipJohnson 11:52, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

You're right, but I don't often edit the main page. One of the editors who does will see this and probably put it on. Bohdan 11:58, 27 August 2007 (EDT)


"Alberto Gonzales resigns, as is customary for top officials (e.g., Karl Rove) who seek private sector jobs before the end of their Administration."

That's some kind of headline you got there. Aziraphale 12:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-impressed in spite of himself...

What would you suggest? Bohdan 12:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I'll keep my suggestions to ones that I think CP might actually use. Either a)don't report on it at all (it's not like every news story gets covered here) or b)say he resigned after months of political attacks by Democrats, so that the Department of Justice can get back to doing the will of the people. Or somesuch.
There's been no mention, on or off the record, of a private sector job waiting for him. He had to talk the President into accepting his resignation yesterday in Crawford. And really, there's no doubt that he's resigning to blunt the attacks in Congress. If you want to stand up for him, question the political motives of the attacks. But the blithe "he's leaving for a better gig" line... well, it strains credulity, to be polite. Aziraphale 12:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-that's me, polite!
Wow, your just chatty Kathy this morning! I forgot how much I like main page discussion. I am sure whoever put that there will see your comments, and make a decision. Bohdan 12:36, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Meh, change it or don't. I felt so moved as to comment, but not so moved as to advocate for change. ;) Aziraphale 12:47, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-Distinctions'R'Us!
  • There. Is that better, Azirphale? Of course I am now on the run from Andy, but you being happy is our aim! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:48, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree, we need to keep Aziraphale happy. If he left, who would do all of his category work? Bohdan 12:50, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
LearnTogether is the "welcomer" and BrianCo is the template guy. Bohdan 12:53, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not thrilled, but yeah, the headline at least nods its head at reality now. :) And I'm with TK, I'm certainly not the only person who touches them. I go on hot streaks from time to time, that's all. Aziraphale 12:55, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <-dreams of a world where users categorized their own articles accurately, removing the need for the proverbial guy with a broom & bucket following the elephant...
  • Comrade Bohdan, Iduan has taken over BrianCo's "job" as he takes time off for vacations, and our demands here preclude such silliness! Perhaps you are in need of "re-education" summer camp? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:58, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
The comment about Liberals doesn;t fly with Alberto..... There were Republicans demanding he step down as well.... Or does saying anything against the administration make you liberal automatically? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackGuy (talk)
Personally, I saw little conservative about Gonzales and his disregard for checks and balances. I am with the other Republicans who asked for change. I think that Chertoff is a good conservative and look forward to seeing what he does. I am, of course, speaking only on behalf of myself here and not for the site. DanH 15:30, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • The "Republicans" who were in favor of his stepping down were Liberal Republicans. Don't confuse parties for idealogy, BlackGuy. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:13, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
A "liberal republican" is at best, slightly right of center, if they were liberals, they wouldn;t be republicans Blackguy 16:42, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, that simply isn't true or realistic. Gonzales is a noble man, brought down by a mobocracy mentality, using a surrogate to attack the President, to strike at him where other means could not be conjured up. All of those nattering nabobs know that legally, the President can fire any United States Attorney, for any reason, including not liking their haircut. That is a fact. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, TK.... that is both true and realistic... I know Liberal is a euphemism for "people who say things I don't like" to you... But Liberals aren't republicans.... You can't support a party that doesn't hold any of your views. This whole attorney thing wasn't about why they were fired... It was about a government coverup that included the president and AG telling Congress to go screw themselves. We know the president can fire attorneys for any reason, but don't lie to us about it. If you fire a guy because you don't like his haircut, tell us that he was fired because you didn't like his haricut and let the people complain about it. However, don't pee on my boots and tell me it's raining. The American people aren't that stupid. Blackguy 17:39, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Does that mean DanH is a liberal (per his comments above)? DrJames
  • Per his comments above, wanting someone even more Conservative in the job? Doctor, heal thyself, and troll elsewhere. Godspeed to you! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:14, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

  • It was simply was not the business of Congress to even get involved, unless Congress wants to invite a Justice inquiry everytime one of their staffers screws up. I wonder if they would like that? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't consider it shameful to say that Gonzales stepped down after the months of liberal Democratic witch hunts, because there's no lying in saying that they were just that, witch hunts. I do think that the part about getting private sector jobs is worth noting, though, because it helps to explain the timing of his announcement and departure from the administration. -MikeZoeller 23:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Racist crimes in European countries

I am new here so I hope I am doing this correctly. I have been hearing this all over the news lately, and I wonder if it's good enough for the front page: racist crimes in Europe have increased, despite their lax attitudes and liberal lifestyles.[10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErstBlenchPoet (talk)

I have a problem when they lump a "surge in xenophobic and homophobic intolerance" in with the article on racist crimes. Those are liberal terms for people. who believe homosexuality is wrong --Crocoite 00:47, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually xenophobia has nothing to do with homosexuals. It is the fear of foreigners.--Conservateur 01:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Its actually a fear of change. Johnjoe 09:58, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

No, that's kainotophobia.--Conservateur 11:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I stand corrected :-) Johnjoe 11:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Poor standard class anouncement

The notice about the course American government has been on the front page for a while, including a remark ridiculing kids that in a goth outfit. While it is perfectly fine to think by yourself that this outfit is ridiculous, but in your role as teacher you should refrain from ridiculing students in front of or in communication with your students. Order 08:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Above was another liberal sermon. User:Order, I will continue to criticize the Goth culture, which leads students down the road of depression and worse. You should speak out against such things also.--Aschlafly 09:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing wrong about criticizing goth culture. As a teacher it is actually your responsibility to notice if student engage in activities and cults that are harmful to themselves, like indulgence in goth culture, and take appropriate action. However, mocking them in your role as teacher in a teaching announcement isn't appropriate action. But, that might be just my view on how teachers should behave. Peace be upon you.Order 21:57, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Should a criticism of goth culture take place in a cultured encyclopedia though? Johnjoe 09:57, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Amnesty International

You've got to be kidding me. First there's a quotation that AI is "accused" of duping singers, then in the caption under the picture the words "Duped by pro-abortion Amnesty International" - as if it's been proven as fact already. That's not what the article says. Then you lay down the smear and use the suggestive phrase "More liberal deceit?"

First of all, AI supports abortion in very confined circumstances - only when the health and life of the mother is at risk, or when the child is the result of rape or incest. This is, of course, a very unfortunate and difficult situation that AI is trying to address - and there's no "conservative" or "liberal" solution to it. One can't simply state that the promotion of ANY abortion is "liberal" - there must be conservatives out there who believe abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region, where the child born as a result of rape would not be accepted in a camp, and where women who were victims of rape were ostracized and rejected. It would simply be inhumane to force a pregnancy to terms in circumstances such as this. Another example listed by AI is incest - a girl in Mexico was raped by her father repeatedly, and as a result she became pregnant. The father forced her to carry the baby to term, while she herself says she cannot love the child, because it is her father's child. No solution to this could be fairly classified as "liberal" or "conservative" (if abortion in this case is "liberal", then is lifelong torture of the girl and her child a "conservative" stance?). We should find a "human" solution.

In regards to the rockers in question - they were making a CD raising awareness in Darfur, before AI took the new stance on abortion! They were not aware that AI was going to take this stance, that is true - but neither did AI! They did not say "Let's grab all these pro-lifers and dupe them into donating time and effort into our future pro-choice plans", as if that was part of their evil plan. Instead of creating dissent and trying to smear an organization (with copious applications of the words "liberal deceit", as per custom of CP) for taking a controversial stance, shouldn't we concentrate on enforcing the sanctity of human rights to those less fortunate? ATang 11:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

And what about the human rights of a child? It doesn't matter how a child was conceived, it has the right not to have its life ended just because it might be an inconvenience to the mother.--Conservateur 11:40, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Hey, like I stated, this is a hotbed of debate, and there's no clear-cut answers. You believe that life is created during conception, while others have other views (i.e. it's not a child/human until <insert time here>). By your logic, does the child deserve a life of torture? Or a life of genetic defects because the child is a product of incest? It's not a mere "inconvenience", like "I got to buy baby formula when I go to the supermarket now." This is emotionally and physically draining to the mother and, when the child is born, the child as well.
I'm not trying to argue one point or another, because there's no perfect solution to a situation such as this. I'm just trying to urge everyone to stop focusing on a negative, and instead try to focus on the work AI is trying to do. The atrocities in Darfur is truly tragic, and it deserves attention, regardless of AI's other viewpoints. ATang 11:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
What about when the rape occurs by United Nations pedophile Peacekeepers? Does the UN just recruit pedophiles from other parts of the globe to replace these "Peackeepers"? Does the UN (that is to say, the American taxpayer) pay to raise the child or fund an abortion? Rob Smith 12:00, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
So, you're equating AI with the UN? Please stay OT. Thanks. Samwell 12:08, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
A references was made to two camps in Darfur; seems there are actually three camps committing atrocities, one involving American funded imperialist pedophiles. The American taxpayer deserves some accounting for rapes committed by pedophiles to further American Imperialism in the United Nations name. And if you do not believe me, see the current discussion at Talk:Liberal#Another definition of liberal page: "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power. They believe that there is a complex interdependence between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization."
Under this definition, the American taxpayer is funding liberal pedophiles on the Ivory Coast; this issue needs to be addressed. Rob Smith 12:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
This is an interesting question about a situation of which I was previously unaware. However, (using your equation between UN and American taxpayers) it is the American taxpayers who paid for the UN, and the UN is responsible for its troops. The responsibility lies on UN to deal with the repercussions of such acts; ergo, the responsibility percolates back to the US government, and the taxpayers. If taxpayers are dissatisfied with the American support of the UN (or the inability of the UN to control the troops), then they can vote for a candidate whose platform includes withdrawal of US support.
But at least this is a situation more within the control of the UN. Stopping rape and incest requires prophylactic action at the source of the problem, thereby circumventing the inherent moral and ethical difficulties regarding abortion. ATang 12:16, 28 August 2007 (EDT) (P.S. Yeah, Samwell, I don't quite get the mention of UN)
Under this definition, the American taxpayer is funding liberal pedophiles on the Ivory Coast; this issue needs to be addressed. Isn't that a stretch? It's not UN policy for any sort of abuse, pedophilic or not, so it's unfair to American taxpayers are funding that.
I still don't see what you're point is. How does it relate to the issue of how CP is portraying AI? ATang 12:33, 28 August 2007 (EDT)


There's a quite lengthy discussion on the Talk:Liberal page about "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization." I'm almost persuaded of this logic, in view of the evidence of pedophiles representing the organization. Only I think its unfair to American taxpayers who will only be attacked by liberals for bankrolling this liberal organizations pedophile "Peacekeepers." Rob Smith 13:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion above is debating this, but the constant association of Liberal and deceitfullness is sort of like a parody of conservatism, and in this case especially makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's actually quite tragic :-( Johnjoe 11:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I hate it when organisations like Amnesty International get slated with innane political descriptions. It is of course, neither Liberal or conservative; socialist or capitalist. It is an organisation of people throughout the world who wish to reveal and inform Westerners of abuses going on and help people who are in the roughest and darkest places in the world. Johnjoe 11:56, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Wait, persuaded by the liberalness of the UN because of the pedophilia?
You're just trying to rile people now, aren't you? Aziraphale 14:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT) <-ORLY?
(For any who aren't following the Talk:Liberal discussion, it acutally involves a different definition of the word liberal, which is different than the one Rob is using here. The international politics definition can be separated from the, let's say, "Conservapedia" definition. The IP definition has no implications of pedophilia, whereas the Conservapedia definition apparently does.) JazzMan 14:58, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
yada yada yada....more liberal tripe. Rob Smith 15:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob, please stop insulting me. It's unbecoming of a sysop. At least if you are going to insult me, use something you can back up. JazzMan 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
True or false, I told you days ago "it acutally involves a different definition of the word liberal," didn't I? Nonetheless, you continued in the Talk:Liberal. Now you deny it. Rob Smith 20:22, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- True, days ago you told me there were two types of liberal (and I didn't deny you did). True, on this page you are using a different definition of liberal. I wanted to clarify for viewers on the main page that our discussion on talk:liberalism was not about "Conservapedia liberalism" or about pedophilia. JazzMan 21:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

For the folks viewing at home, Jazzman want to include, "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization." Rob Smith has advised against it. As a liberal "solution" to to global conflicts, the liberal ogranizations alleged "Peacekeepers" have been involved in a series of rapes in recent years, the most recent of which involves "widespread" abuse with underage children. [11] Rob Smith 21:55, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
I think you (Rob Smith) are more concerned with "winning" a debate, (by attrition, no less), than in discussing things in a calm, reasonable manner. That you continue to be a sysop at this site troubles me. Samwell 22:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Tell you what, if you cannot discuss the merits of an issue, and need to trash me, you got one foot out the door, my friend. Rob Smith 22:14, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
"That thou doest, do quickly." Samwell 22:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

USA v. Antigua WTO Case

If the times is trying to win people over to their side of the political spectrum, then they're not doing a very good job. After reading the posted article about the internet gambling case, I was only more appalled by the liberalism. As for the case itself, it only reaffirms the need for the US to get out of these international governing bodies. Sovereignty violations like this and corruption make the WTO one of the worst, but others like the UN, of course, are up there too for the same reasons. -MikeZoeller 22:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Bush poverty record

The article actually points out the the current poverty level stands at 12.3%. The poverty level at the end of the Clinton administration was 11.3%. So there are about 3,000,000 more people living in poverty after almost seven years of the Bush presidency. Wismike 10:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

You are confusing two political terms: "poverty level" and "living in poverty", neither of which has anything to do with actual standards of living. The average "poor person" in America owns their own home, enjoys air conditioning, telephone, TV, microwave oven, and access to medical care.
Advocates of socialism (and other partisans) pretend that "poor" Americans are not as well off as starving people in the third world, but this is sheer nonsense. --Ed Poor Talk 12:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I am not confusing anything. Read the !@#$%$# article!!! I understand the difference in poverty between the US and other countries. Why did you guys even post the article if you didn't think it was a significant pat on the back to Bush/conservative economic policies? What's the articles merit at all? The fact is that you only post news articles if they are intended to bash liberals or praise conservatives? Was this article suppose to bash liberals? Wismike 15:13, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
Here's my favorite from the Chicago Sun-Times, "
"A 20-year-old Illinois college student won’t be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn’t get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act. ...Bush lied to us, got us into an unnecessary war and now got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on the beach." Rob Smith 13:10, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

--RogerMy 13:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Nobody is really arguing about what is poverty and what isn't. There is no doubt that poverty is a significantly different reality in the US than it is in third world countrys. Still, the figures sited are based on generally accepted criteria for what defines poverty in the US. The comparison is completely valid. You can't argue about whether one plane flyers higher than another by disputing the definition of the word "high". Wismike 13:59, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
Huh? Indonesians in sweat shops make $2 a day; Americans with less than $12,000 in income are considered in poverty. Both Americans with income less than 12k and Indonesians in sweat shops are considered impoverished. Of course, the liberal solution to this is ban Indonesian imports, let them starve to death, and raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour for a job that now pays $2 a day. Rob Smith 14:06, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly what point are you trying to make? Is it that poverty doesn't exist at all in the US? Is it that you would prefer an economy like Indonesia's where we pay people $2 a day to work in sweat shops instead of paying people good wages and benefits? Okay then, I concede your point. I just wouldn't want you managing the US economy. Wismike 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

I don't know what Rob's point is, but starvation in the U.S. is limited to a tiny fraction of the population which is (a) has rare nutritional diseases or (b) is socially isolated due to mental illness or drug abuse. No one starves here due to lack of funds. Starvation occurs overseas due to poverty and/or crazy policies of foreign governments, notably North Korea.

I would say that, essentially, there is very little poverty in the U.S. as defined by such factors as (1) lack of food (American "poor people" are generally "fat" by third world standadrs) or (2) lack of housing, heat, hot water, indoor toilets, electricity, telephone service, Internet access, etc. or (3) inability to get an education or medical care.

In much of the world, you must pay for schooling of medical care, or go without. In America, all 50 states provide free public schools and no hospital will turn away an indigent patient. So I don't know what your point is, Wismike. --Ed Poor Talk 16:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

The point on starvation: libs make the arguement about Indonesians, et al, making $2 per day; out of the otherside of thier mouth they propose (a) banning imports made by workers making $2 per day, thus letting them starve to death, and (b) giving US workers a minimum wage increase of $8 to do jobs that require skills worth $2 per day. Hence the conclusion: libs call dis-employing third wolrd workers, and letting them starve to death, so that US unskilled workers can have a higher standard of living, liberals call this "compassion and fairness". Rob Smith 15:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Why do you compare your country with Indonesia or North Korea? The US is a developed country and should compare itself to OECD countries. A report published in the Australia a few days shows how these countries compare in different categories, from literacy to home ownership [12]. Order 09:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

An attempt has been made to discredit the U.S. as a source of economic benefit to the world. "They can't even feed their own people", etc. This is simply false. Starvation occurs in the Communist and third worlds, due to economic mismanagement by dictatorial governments.

People don't starve in the First World. It is false to compare developed countries to starving countries. Now please let's move this to a debate page. --Ed Poor Talk 15:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Wismike: You're also blaming President Bush for the one-percent poverty increase, and not the obvious factors like 9/11, the Iraq War and rising gas prices. If this is the price we must pay for a safer world, so be it. Don't forget all the poverty the Bush administration has helped to eradicate: many Americans have found jobs in the military, in military support, as contractors and security personnel in Iraq, and of course the Department of Homeland Security. --JonathanDrain 10:32, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Poverty Down Significantly

Did anyone read this article before they decided to include this little gem in the Breaking News section?

I quote:

"The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when it went from 11.9 percent to 11.3 percent."

"The poverty rate INCREASED every year for the next four years, peaking at 12.7 percent in 2004. It was 12.6 prcent in 2005, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant."

This article doesn't praise "compassionate conservatism and 6 years of a GOP Congress" as the news section would have us think, it condemns it. Only within the last year has the poverty rate been shown to relent, and it is still far higher than it was in 2000, when this administration took power.--RogerMy 10:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Media bias. Conservatives come to expect it. What? you think the Associated Press would cut the GOP & Bush a fair break? Not in this lifetime. Rob Smith 11:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Media bias????? The facts are the facts. Why is it not fair? Wismike 11:13, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

RobS, not only did you fail to understand the article... you've failed to understand my reading of the article. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the article's title is misleading in its support for the Bush administration and GOP Congress... while the title praises their efforts, the actual facts within point to their significant shortcomings.--RogerMy 11:18, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Media Research Center has covered it all; [13] amazing, according to MRC, ABC actually reported, "in the past four years, the country has added nearly 7 million jobs. And in those four years, the average household income has risen about $700." MRC also notes how "47 million without health insurance" fails to report 16 million of those are illegals. And we got the Heritage Foundation Report, How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America. Rob Smith 12:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Er. So why not put those articles on the front page, since they support your argument? I don't think the original poster is actually trying to argue whether you're right or not (although I suspect they'd be willing to), rather that the piece on the Main Page is mixed up.
Look at it this way - if your purpose in posting that Main Page headline is to encourage people to learn "the truth" about Bush's economic record, you are undercutting yourself by linking to an article that makes him look bad. Media bias shemdia shmias, link elsewhere already. Aziraphale 12:33, 29 August 2007 (EDT) <-shmy shmignature...
What we have here is actually real news reported by the Associated Press, real news that reports poverty is down under a Republican President. This is an historic milestone. We all know that somehow it needs to be twisted, and denied, but let’s give the AP credit for actually reporting some facts, for once. Rob Smith 12:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Okie-doke! Aziraphale 12:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Rob, adding 7 million jobs doesn't necessarily mean the poverty levels have improved. Secondly, an average household income increase of about $700, after inflation is accounted for, means they're making less than they were four years ago. Check historical rates of increase in average household income to verify this.--RogerMy 12:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, Rob Smith, if you want to concentrate on pure facts based on the AP article...
Last significant decline in poverty: Year 1999-2000, 11.9% to 11.3%.
This significant decline in poverty: Year 2005-2006, 12.6% to 12.3%.
Poverty rate peaked in 2004 at 12.7%, dropped to 12.6% in 2005.
So... Poverty got worse, from 2000, but now the upwards trend has reversed.
How is this a win for Republicans? They've managed to stop a rise in poverty that occurred during their administration (well, kudos for stopping whatever they were doing wrong, but try putting it BELOW the prior level - then it's a real win). If the poverty rating is not reliable, as you stated with a reference to the Heritage Foundation article, then this article proves nothing. The "historic milestone" is that poverty rates has stopped going up, even though it is still higher than year 2000 levels. That's the point RogerMy and Aziraphale are making, and that's what you're failing to get. ATang 13:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
kudos for stopping whatever they were doing wrong
Oh, so this is 9/11 Truthers argument, that Bush & the GOP were responsible for the economic impact after the 9/11 attack. Rob Smith 13:13, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually I was just trying to clarify what somebody else said. Aziraphale 13:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT) <-point of order...
Well... you're still making a point. Just like right now, I've rehashed RogerMy's point, but it's still "my" reinforcement.
Hm... So your point, Rob, is that 9/11 is the cause of the rise in poverty? What about the rise between 2000 and 2001 - before 9/11 occurred? Katrina was quite a disaster as well - how did the poverty level drop after Katrina?
I'm simply pointing out the fact that an absolute comparison of poverty levels between the start of the Bush administration and the current one could more easily lead to a conclusion that is unfavourable to the purposes of the main page. ATang 13:57, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

If you want to assess the US economic situation in general, and discuss the merits of the Bush administration, you should really check out the trade deficit. Because of dollar hegemony, the current President has been able to run this country into serious long-term trouble... consider that under the Bush administration, this government has borrowed more money than the past 42 presidents combined. While you're at it, do some research about reserve currency, China's lending status and the current petrodollar crisis. Maybe that will open your eyes to the economic disaster this country is facing.--RogerMy 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Wait wait're not gonna get off of this one.....
  • If you want to assess the US economic situation in general, and ....
  • under the Bush administration, this government has borrowed more money..."
What do these two facts have to do with each other? Can you explain to the rest of us what the trade deficit is? Rob Smith 13:26, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'd really rather you go read about it yourself, but since there's only a single sentence about it in its conservapedia entry, I'm afraid you'll have to go elsewhere... but in brief, this is what I mean: US imports FAR exceed US exports. Where do you think they get this money to buy goods and services from other countries? Well, they print more money, of course, and they accumulate debt. (Since 1971, the American dollar has floated freely against other currencies, rather than being pegged to gold, which has allowed the country to print money at will as long as people keep buying up the American dollar). Since the dollar is the world reserve currency, and most valuable commodities (namely oil) are sold in dollars, countries that wish to buy oil (all developed nations) must sell their goods to America for dollars so they have dollars to buy their goods. In fact, two thirds of the world's currency is printed in dollars... which is astounding, considering the number of currencies that exist. This economic advantange allows the US to accumulate a HUGE trade deficit, as long as the world reserve remains in dollars and confidence in dollar currency is strong. Basically, America is in debt... big time... and in order to maintain the economy, America must maintain the hegemony of the dollar.--RogerMy 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

US imports FAR exceed US exports.
How is this Bush administration responsible for this? How is the Bush administration responsible for choices Wal-Mart shoppers make to purchase Chinese made goods? Rob Smith 13:44, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

A large portion of the costs this country incurs involve government decisions. For example, the decision to go to war.... or the decision to spend money on the military. America spends $500 billion a year on improving the military, which is a very significant cost that the country simply can't afford without borrowing money. These decisions are made by the administration.

No. That does not address the question. The subject is the trade deficit, not the federal budget (defense spending). Please address the statement that you made regarding " discuss the merits of the Bush administration, you should really check out the trade deficit.
Now, let's please really check out the trade deficit, and how it relates to "the merits of the Bush administration. Rob Smith 13:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I can continue this conversation if you consider the trade deficit and the federal budget to be mutually exclusive.--RogerMy 14:01, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

The trade deficit is the sum total of consumer purchases over exports; it is the result of free choices made by every American man, woman, child, dog, and cat, to purchase foreign made goods. The amount of foreign produced goods purchased by the US govt., i.e. spent out of the federal budget, is negligible. The trade deficit is the result of free Americans making consumer choices.
Now please support the argument you made, "If you want to ...discuss the merits of the Bush administration, you should really check out the trade deficit," or this may all (given the credentials you claim to have) be adjudicate as little more than trolling. Rob Smith 14:13, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
You don't understand, and I'd advise you to research these matters before you form an opinion. To quote James K. Galbraith, "wars bring cheerful economic news at first, [but they] upset the trade balance. They gobble imports. And they tend to pull critical resources — scientific talent and key materials — away from exports. Our trade deficit is already staggering." Wars are solely the responsibility of governments.--RogerMy 14:29, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
This report [14] says the trade defect was $749 billion in 2006, $271 billion in Petroleum-related products (36%), $313 billion in Consumer products (42%) and $107 billion in Automate and Food (14%). That is 92% in those three categories. I have no reason to doubt these statistics or that report. The Iraq War is not responsible for the trade deficit, neither are economic policies of the Bush administration.
In fact, every GOP proposal to limit and reduce dependence upon foreign petroleum products, and reduce that category fueling the trade deficit, has always been opposed by Democrats.
You have not supported you fundamental premise. It appears little more than mindless partisanship. You outed yourself with this one. Rob Smith 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
No doubt you spent a good 20 minutes scrounging for a reference to support your naive worldview. But you continue to fail to see the link between the trade deficit and the administration's policy. It's funny that you cite that report, which makes reference to the direct connection between the Iraq war and increased oil consumption. Soldiers in Iraq consume over 40,000 barrels of oil a day. The entire American military consumes about 140-150 millionbarrels a year. Government decisions directly effect the import to export ratio.--RogerMy 15:10, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Those numbers would mean pentagon consumption is less than 10% of US overall imports (less than 8% actually), and the Iraq War uses about 10% of that figure, which would be about 1% of $271 billion petroleum trade deficit, or less than $3 billion (.004 percent) of the overall trade deficit.
I'm not even questioning your figures, I am accepting them at face value. Unless you can prove me wrong, or show an error in my math, the amount of time I spent doing these numbers is rapidly approaching trolling on your part. Rob Smith 16:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Even Fox News says that job growth under Bush has poor compared to Clinton and Reagan.,2933,242424,00.html Wismike 14:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

That's right. If Rummy didn't blow up the World Trade Center by remote control, and all the job loss that occurred afterward, it would have been different. Rob Smith 14:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. And if you must know, since you love to draw lines between ideological camps, I consider myself a conservative. But I have spent a good deal of time studying the history of the US economy and current US foreign policy, and I can tell you that the Republican party today is far from conservative.--RogerMy 14:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Looks like we have here a perfect example of #24 in Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias. Too funny.--Conservateur 15:18, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
And here it looks like we have a perfect example of baiting a troll - it's actually not funny - it's annoying.--Iduan 15:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I've espoused nothing but conservative fiscal policy. I'm not even an American, so how can you accuse me of partisanship?--RogerMy 15:21, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Your partisanship shows when you blame President Bush for the trade deficit when in fact it is a result of the choices American consumers make.--Conservateur 15:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
While the American consumer certainly shares in the blame, governments form policy, and governments make vital decisions about the import/export ratio of any given country. That's my point, and if you don't agree, then please explain why there has been such a significant increase in the trade deficit since the Bush administration came into power? And, perhaps most importantly, why is that because I choose to criticize the administration's economic policy, I am considered a partisan hack? It's a simple political observation.--RogerMy 15:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • While the American consumer certainly shares in the blame, governments form policy, and governments make vital decisions about the import/export ratio
Ok, now I hear advocating taking away individuals rights to make free choices and making that the responsibility of government. IOW, I hear you pitching slavery. Rob Smith 16:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Does anyone here understand that the the total growth of the United States economy for the second quarter of 2007, which was roughly 2.5%, that growth alone, was GREATER than the entire GNP of China? One cannot compare what is considered "poverty" in the United States with "poverty" somewhere else! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Poverty in other countries is probably worse than poverty here - however that does not mean that we need to gloss over reality. Poverty in America does not mean you have a house - as one user said - it often means minimum wage - going from job to job only to return to you're tiny apartment that you'll probably soon be kicked out of, and debt. TK - you're comparison to China isn't exactly fair - since in china things cost less. If I were making 2 cents an hour but food only cost one cent then I wouldn't care - and the reason that happens in China is twofold: 1) China uses the yen, which is significantly less in value than the dollar, and 2) China has no labor unions - no minimum wage etc. - due to their communist government. Poverty in America can mean living on the streets. Anyone that's ever been to a city knows that. Poverty means projects - like those in D.C., which are essentially apartments for poor people financed by the government. These projects are over-run with drug dealers, that convince the projects' inhabitants that they can make money selling drugs - and eventually the victims of these dealers turn into drug addicts themselves. I'm not saying that this is equivalent to Darfur or certain areas of third world countries - however I am saying that to assume poverty-ridden peoples merely enjoy complaining is equivalent to being an asshole.--Iduan 16:13, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I am getting close to ruling this discussion out of order. Please avoid hostile language directed either to specific contributors or to "my opponents in general". Do I need to make a list of personal remarks? --Ed Poor Talk 16:18, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
    • In all fairness - assuming you're referring to my above comment - that wasn't directed at anyone - since no one here has suggested that. No one here has said that people in poverty just complain - they've merely spoke of how other countries' poverty isn't as bad.--Iduan 16:21, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Projects cannot be overrun with drug dealers if there are no customers. If the community allows this to happen they are not "victims" but participants, willingly inducing the squalor they live in. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:36, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

All I have to say is that we should be thankful that we are having this discussion at all, because we wouldn't be if the liberal Democrats had control of the government. Rather than getting people out of poverty with social welfare programs as they deceitfully claim to do, the costs of the programs would just cripple more middle-class citizens. The declining poverty rates are a direct result of "hands-off" economic policy at its finest, as imposed by the Bush administration and the former conservative Republican Congress. -MikeZoeller 23:32, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Another example of failure in our public schools.

See [15] or the original [16]. SkipJohnson 10:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure this is a failure. She made a mistake. She stammered while answering one question (which was a pretty tricky question, to be honest) but, as the article explains, she came back later to offer "a flawless explanation of lunar eclipses." She does admit that she needs to work on her communication skills but apparently her knowledge of basic astronomy is spot-on.--Porthos 11:21, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying the hate on this one - she's a kid, she was on national TV, she babbled I've been interviewd on national TV and radio twice and I babbled too - both times, a terrible, embarrassing performance. Not everyone finds public speaking a walk in the park - certainly not me anyway... Her brain burp was completely hilarious, but I don't think it's the example of the decline of modern US education some would have you believe. For that, all you have to do is look at the voters in this country..... BenHur 15:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Interesting you claim that the original comment was hateful, then you end your comment with an insulting hateful line. Bohdan 15:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I got my wrist slapped for that comment, but for my use of an 'f' word (now edited out by me from the above comment) - I was banned for five mins for a mistaken read of what is clearly my support of the unfortunate girl. My comment pointed out clearly that I absolutely am AGAINST making any fun of her for this TV blooper.

As to the 'hateful' comment at the end, my point is more about the anger I feel towards the lackadaisical voter turnout in this country. A California election this week had an 8% turnout, which is an absolute disgrace. Deomcracy seems to be collapsing in a heap in this country, as fewer and fewer people vote. If kids aren't taught to vote, we might as well give up on democracy and just elect a King. Or Queen. BenHur 16:29, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, now I see. I agree. I thought your comment was directed at voters of a certain political party. As for that election, it is California after all. they are known for strange politics. Bohdan 16:44, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

The sad truth, Bohdan, is that low voter turnout is a massive problem all across the US. BenHur 16:54, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

If God wanted us to vote, He would have given us candidates. If the only choices we have are Tweedledumb, Tweedledumber (and Tweedledumbest running as an Independent), what's the point? --ZackT 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


There's a spelling mistake (typo) on the first story of the front page - it says "thfis" - which should be "this"--Iduan 14:21, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Nm - it was fixed.--Iduan 14:32, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

ACLU / Bibles

All due respect...The ACLU didn't ban anything--they don't have that power, though they may fantasize that they someday will. The court banned the Bible distribution, and they're the ones that deserve the raspberry. And as long as I'm being persnickety, while the Bibles were provided and physically handed out by a private group (the Gideons), the distribution was done during mandatory class time. Good idea though it may be, I can't imagine that anyone could really believe that such a thing would pass muster once someone narced to the ACLU (and someone always does...)--PeteVan 16:14, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't care that the ACLU didn't "ban" the Bibles themselves, because they certainly "got them banned". You can't blame the court for the case they were given to interpret, unless it was liberally biased, of course. Once again, the ACLU strikes at the Christianity of our nation. -MikeZoeller 00:12, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I can't seem to find more details about this case. However, if they were distributing Bibles during "mandatory class time", then I think yes, they should not be allowed to do so - the same would apply to any material that's not school material, including literature about any other religion or beliefs (now, whether that's actually the case is another matter). ATang 10:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
For those who are interested the ruling is here: [17]. --Jalapeno 23:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Hillary's Fugitive Contributor

I've created a article on Norman Hsu so you can put a link to it from the main page news section. --Tash 09:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

This is an interesting article on the topic you might consider linking to also - it seems the liberal media haven't covered a story they should have. BenHur 15:13, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia and Conservative values

Freedom, opposition to radicalism, small government - these are all conservative qualities. Why is it that this website supports the complete opposite.

I'm a journalist working for a newspaper in North Carolina, and your constant smearing and otherwise disregard for journalistic ethos in terms of neutrality, no insults and well... Sanity is clearly broken by your mainpage setting. In the Conservative corners I hang out in, even among the pro-Bush gang, you people are a complete laughing stock. Please, at least attempt some kind of reform before you continue to tarnish conservatisms good name. Paleocon 11:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I will probably be blocked from this site as well for providing a different viewpoint.. Well then, I'll just take my ban, and continue to laugh at you loons (and constantly have to defend my beliefs (Because you lot are distorting them) when in the company of Liberal friends) Paleocon 11:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I question whether you are even a journalist from North Carolina. These statements 1) "continue to laugh at you loons " and 2) "Because you lot are distorting them" don't sound like they would come from a journalist or someone from North Carolina.
Editors are not blocked for providing a different viewpoint. Your positive contributions to this site are encouraged and constant criticisms are unproductive.
Your statement "disregard for journalistic ethos in terms of neutrality" is wrong in several points. First, we have articles Media bias and Mainstream Media which demonstrate that the journalists are not neutral as you propose. There is a Liberal Bias that permeates the media. At Conservapedia, we aim to expose this liberal bias on the main page and associated articles. Second, do you realize that Conservapedia is a conservative website? You should not be surprised to see a conservative analysis here. We are not going to have a NPOV. --Crocoite 12:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
You also are wrong when you say we support the opposite of "freedom, opposition to radicalism, small government". If you were right, you would have supplied one example of each.
Many of our articles are supportive of freedom, although not in an absolute "consenting adults" sense; hence our conservative opposition to homosexuality.
I don't know what you mean by "radicalism", but if it's radical Islam, i.e., terrorism, we oppose it; if it's any kind of radical leftist Liberal kookiness, we expose and oppose it.
If you think pointing out errors or bias in the media is the same as a "smear", then you are using the word smear differently from the dictionary : "To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify: political enemies who smeared his name." However, if someone has built their reputation on publishing "all the truth that's fit to print" and yet they print false or biased stories, then (yes) revealing their own betrayal of their own motto would tend to hurt their reputation. But don't you think that newspapers who engage in selective reporting or who print blatant errors should correct themselves, instead of "standing by their story" when proven to be in the wrong? They damage their own reputations by refusing to correct themselves. --Ed Poor Talk 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Many of our articles are supportive of freedom, although not in an absolute "consenting adults" sense; hence our conservative opposition to homosexuality.
So, you support the freedom of everyone to do....what? Whatever their Overlords ALLOW them to do? That's the sort of Freedom the serfs in Soviet Russia had, and so did the residents of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. If that's your standard for Freedom, you're setting the bar AWFULLY low. --ZackT 12:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

"In the Conservative corners I hang out in, even among the pro-Bush gang, you people are a complete laughing stock."

That statement is absolute proof you are not a Conservative. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Huh? I don't get it. --ZackT 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
  • My point exactly, sockpuppet. Liberals never will "get it". Just like your appearance here, with the making of additional socks, held in reserve, your every post, every action, is just your normal Liberal Deceit.
  • ZackT (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 17:03, 30 August 2007) (Earliest: 16:34, 30 August 2007) [11].
  • Weeboo (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:15, 29 August 2007) (Earliest: 16:15, 29 August 2007) [1]

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:11, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually if you knew anything about anything at all you would know that Bush is far from being a conservative. Bush is a big spending socialist conservative (IE, Liberal with other peoples money, uses the tax cuts to appeal to the conservative base as well as naturally being socially conservative)

What I am talking about are your front page headlines, which are a running joke in my circles - and please, don;t give me this crap that you are attacking a Liberal Bias - the crimes you are committing here are a great deal worse than that you accuse Wikipedia or the 'Liberal media' of. Your very own radicalism is rampant here - When I say a conservative, its etymology tends to literally mean someone who is opposed to great change; someone who is happy with the status quo. Your ignorance(s) of what conservatism actually is is absolutely appaling. You radicalism is seen by the intense hatred with which you conduct your articles - your article on Godless Liberal (I have seen the edits history) has evolved from what was a good faith attempt from some since deleted user to have evolved to use a high variety of silly smears and accusations.

I would like to contribute to this, but I have heard of people being banned simply for trying to write balanced articles, only for some ignorant kid to come along and install hatred into it.

PS- have any of you even met a Liberal? Paleocon 15:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I've known and worked with Liberals for over a decade. I've personally met with many liberal Wikipedians, for example. Try to keep your comments on point. We are trying to improve the main page here. --Ed Poor Talk 15:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Paleocon is not from North Carolina, nor is he conservative. He, or his proxy, is from Dublin, Ireland, as his IP shows. Karajou 16:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
*ZING* But then he only said he works for a paper in North Carolina. ATang 16:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually, never mind - it's ambiguous. English is great. ATang 16:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Paleocon, I have met and am friends with several liberals. That doesn't mean I agree with their politics though.
Your definition of conservative is not correct. Currently there is not limited government and public morality is declining thanks to liberals. As conservatives we are not happy with the status quo.
Your statement "crimes you are committing here" is wrong. We are committing no crimes here.
Your statement "intense hatred" is also wrong. We don't have intense hatred. That is an exaggeration of our dislike for liberal bias, etc. --Crocoite 16:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah, bonny Ireland! 'Tis a wealthy country because its capital is always doublin'. --Ed Poor Talk 16:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I have been restored by Phillip J. Raymant because Karajou assumed bad faith about me. If he had of asked me why I was posting from Dublin, he would have seen that it was actually a relatively simple reason as to why I wasn't posting from North Carolina. The fact is, that I am on a sabbatical in my fathers country - I went to University in Dublin.

Now that the whole 'assume the worst possible thing about the newcomer' thing is out of the way, let me outline my reasons for my objections:

  • When I say something is a crime in this case, I didn't mean it literally. In fact, it was a figure of speech. The Crimes I speak of is that the conservative bias in this site far outweighs the so named Liberal bias on Wikipedia (And I'm not convinved there is a Liberal Bias - The likes of English is considered one of the Liberal Arts. In fact, it is necessary to be 'Liberal' with the facts in an encyclopedia. The only way to accurately describe an event or a fact is to provide as many facts as possible; Tone does of course come into it, but I feel Wikipedia manages a neutral POV regardless of the accusations. Just because someone is a Liberal doesn't mean he cannot write in a level headed neutral way - It doesn't affect someones ability to deduct rationally whether he is a Liberal or a Conservative.

Granted, Paleoconservatism seems to be a dying trade. I don't hold a lot of respect for the emotional Religious right, or the neoconservative movement (Both are pretty prevalent here). I'm more of a libertarian conservative if anything.

Anyway, I'm still just scouting the place out, but the level of bad feeling running around this place (I would say hatred, but I do recognise many of you are good, honest decent people) is amazing. Explain to me why I was arbitrarily blocked again? Paleocon 11:09, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I assumed bad faith about you due to the fact that you gave me bad reasons for it, as outlined by your previous statements. Added to that fact is a history of people doing pretty much the same thing or worse. You just followed a similar pattern. Karajou 11:23, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
Paleocon, your name is unusual, as almost no one calls himself a "paleocon". Add to that your use of British spelling ("recognise") while claiming to be a journalist in North Carolina. Not enough? How about your claim that in "conservative corners" "you people" are a laughing stock. Funny, I've haven't heard that once and it is implausible. Your word choices give you away. You'll have better luck with your stories on Wikipedia than here.--Aschlafly 11:36, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
I might add that it's not accurate to say that I restored you "because Karajou assumed bad faith about [you]". And I would have thought that a journalist would know not to use "had of". But then I've never known journalists to be ones for factual accuracy, so getting my name wrong in two places fits, I guess! :-). Anyway, now that you've expressed your point of view, I suggest that you get down to constructive editing. Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
  • 'cough'

I did mention that I went to University in Dublin? Anyway, I am slightly dyslexic, so my spelling tends to be all over the place. Especially when I am rushed and angered like I am now. Besides that, we have someone in the office (I don;t know if you have heard of them before) called an 'editor'. Usually helps out with things like that.

And yes, I'm sure you are aware by now that you are not a conservative, at least not in the traditional sense of it. You are a member of the religious right; people who have radical social agenda's you wish to enforce on the people. I am a Paleoconservative, and hell, I feel like Ted Kennedy besides some of you! Perhaps my name is rare to you Andy, because you don't really know what a conservative is? You're kind have highjacked conservatism? No? Paleocon 13:14, 3 September 2007 (EDT) PS- I make a point of it to use Commonwealth English.

Anyway, I won't be replying on this thread again - I'll scout for the next few days and then make a decision as to whether it is worthwhile contributing here. Anyway, I hope I have explained to you why I said 'you people', as although we are both technically conservative, we have quite different views on most things. Hence 'you' people. Paleocon 13:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

"...the religious right; people who have radical social agenda's you wish to enforce on the people.". As opposed to the liberal left; people who have radical social agendas they wish to enforce on the people? Or any other politically-interested group which has agendas it wishes to enforce on the people? Your case would be better argued without derogatory comments like that. Philip J. Rayment 18:17, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the Week

Just wondering why there hasn't been a Masterpiece of the Week for a while now. I've been kind of out of the loop when it comes to Conservapedia for a while...did you decide to take it off the main page or something? Or is it just nobody's felt like doing it? Thanks, DeborahB. 12:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

DeborahB., the Masterpiece of the Week is a great feature. I think Joaquin was offline for a few weeks and that is the only reason for its absence.
Please post the next Masterpiece of the Week yourself! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick response...I will! DeborahB. 12:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Fred Thompson announces he will announce candidacy soon

Seems like news, anyway. --Conservateur 16:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

The Main Page came down pretty hard on Thompson for his former abortion work, but if you can forgive Romney, then you can forgive Fred too. I'd be happy with him as the Republican nominee, but if he doesn't end up so, at least he's another competitor up against Giuliani. Go Fred! -MikeZoeller 21:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Grammatical error on the main page?

The news entry reads "MSM media bias". Is this the same as saying "Mainstream media media bias"?(ErstBlenchPoet 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT))

Kinda like Automated Teller Machine machine. JazzMan 17:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes precisely. I wasn't completely sure if MSM stood for "mainstream media".(ErstBlenchPoet 17:31, 30 August 2007 (EDT))
It does. In this case the extra "media" is an error though. It's usually just called MSM. (BTW, found a couple more: HIV virus, AC current, CSS style sheets, and PIN number!) JazzMan 17:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

While technically this objection is correct, it is also pedantic. Removing the redundancy would be confusing to persons unfamiliar with the meaning of the abbreviation "MSM". As a former engineer, I welcome redundancy when it is useful.--Aschlafly 20:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Sydney Morning herald story

Yep, no surprise there. As the article says, "The problem is core to the argument about the unreliability of information posted on the internet generally. Just as the more extreme political parties (such as the Greens) collect more irrational activists, so Wikipedia's contributors appear to be drawn from the fringe." As others have pointed out though, that's true also for Conservapedia. There's so much vandalism and ignorance here I never can really trust anything on CP either, sadly, much as I fled Wikipdia for that very reason. And Conservapedia certainly draws its own fair share of opinions from the fringes - except in this case, they tend to be more from the right rather than the left. I think the only way to do these kind of online encyclopedias is to only allow entry to previously vetted contributors. But then you lose the point of the open wiki, I guess. It's sad, I'm just not sure the wiki experiement as a way of building reliable online information is valid any more. BenHur 19:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I am very discouraged by the open wiki experiment also. There is just too much vandalism and garbage added by morons on wikipedia to make it reliable. An example was a certain article on WP with an offensive racist lie added by a sockpuppet of a racist troll. The section added was offensive, racist, and completely untrue yet it remained in the article for one month as other (even somewhat respectable) editors defended it for no other reason than their own apparent stupidity. I don't think any open wiki will ever be completely reliable. Bohdan 19:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

BenHur, I don't buy your shifting of the blame from Wikipedia's bias to wikis in general. Wikis based on strong principles, as Conservapedia is, promote knowledge and foster helpful discussions. These wikis are the way of the future. Wikis based on gossip and bias, as Wikipedia is, are being discredited just as the National Enquirer is.--Aschlafly 20:15, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Come on now. This wiki is based on bias too. --Colest 20:23, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

But you can hardly deny that if vandalism and bias are the problem with Wikipedia (which I'm not denying), that the same isn't true of Conservapedia, surely? I mean, I don't think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is "based on gossip and bias" - there is plenty of both there, but there's also a stunning amount of good information. And the same is true of Conservepedia - while there is some good information, there's a lot that's compeletely untrustworthy. I don't see your "[basis] on strong principles" making much of a difference, really - despite your best interests, with the same wide-open-entry for new accounts, there's nothing stopping the vandalism of this site either. And your own bias is evident even in the title of the site. I see the sysops here spending so much time fixing vandalism that there's just a tremendous amount of misinformation on the site being missed. And don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your site, I'm making a comment about wikis in general. BenHur 20:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Colest: That's right. Being opposed to pornography for example, although it is legal, and its dissemination and consumption is a Constitutionally protected right, many CP editors have a Consitutionally protected right to vent a bias against it.
Ambrose Bierce defined a non-combatant as a "dead Quaker."
BenHur: that's what Citizendium is.
Bohdan: Don't be discouraged; much of the vandalism, slander, and trolling is deliberate provocations to incite a drive for regulation and censorship. It's sort of like caving into blackmail, intimidation, threats, and terrorism. The only way to maintain balance, free speech, and our rights is to have open, alternative wikis like this. Rob Smith 20:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I have no idea why you bring up pornography. It's commendable that this site doesn't have that sort of thing. But I realize you know the point I'm making, and chose to ignore it, so be it. --Colest 20:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
So what's commendable is indeed a bias; I personally have a bias for Dr. Pepper over Coke, nothing wrong with that, in fact its my right. Now if I pretended to like Coke when it really makes me sick, I'm only being deceitful to myself and everyone else. Rob Smith 21:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

One might conclude from Ancient Greece that self-rule is doomed to failure, just as one might conclude from Wikipedia that wiki-based encyclopedias are doomed to misinformation, defamation, self-destruction, gossip, etc. But such a conclusion is false. A good constitution for a nation, or a good set of principles for a wiki, does lead to success and benefits for all.--Aschlafly 21:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Larry Craig

See Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig

No, sorry. I'll stop posting on the topic now, but given how the Cold War / moral equivalency conversation was taken from the Main Page when it got hot-and-heavy, and subsequently died on the vine once out of public view, I feel compelled to remember my grandmother's words: "fool me once..."
(edited to add) Since I normally consider it rude not to respond when someone talks to you, I should point out that I'm taking the main page talk off of my watch list. I won't see any responses, find me elsewhere if you'd like. Aziraphale 15:22, 31 August 2007 (EDT) <-whatever...
I'd be interested in a link to that Cold War / moral equivalency page; I missed it and wasn't part of it, but it certainly may be something I have a specialty in. Rob Smith 16:08, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob, it started here, and was moved here. JazzMan 16:42, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

SMH again

The news report on the SMH is inaccurate, or at least ambiguous. First, it reads like SMH is a victim of Wikipedia smear. Second, it is unclear about where the quotes come from, it almost appears as if they are SMH quotes. Neither is true.

  • The "victim" of the false accusations of Wikipedia edits is the Australian Prime Ministers Department.
  • The information leading to the false accusation was not from a Wikipedia entry, but generated by Wikiscanner. If you want to blame something, blame this tool for the inaccuracies, and maybe SMH for not checking them thoroughly.
  • This article was an editorial in the Daily Telegraph, the other big morning newspaper in Sydney, and not the SMH.

It shouldn't be difficult to change the front-page such that fit the article it quotes. Order 22:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I rechecked our description. You've misinterpreted it. The news story is provided in full at the link for all who are interested. Wikipedia is criticized in that article for Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia's method of anonymous editing is also partly to blame.
You did not suggest a headline rewrite that preserves the theme of the article, but please feel free to do so.--Aschlafly 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Where did I misinterpret it? Wasn't the Prime ministers office accused by the SMH for questionable edits on wikipedia? Didn't the SMH base its accusations on data from Wikiscanner? And didn't the quoted article appear in the Daily Telegraph? I think I didn't misinterpret any of these, especially if I read the Daily Telegraph editorial. Sure, the full article is linked, but the decription on the front-page should fit the article it links to.

A better front page news would be: "Daily Telegraph reports that AU Prime Ministers Office was falsely accused for alleged Wikipedia edits. IP numbers in Wikipedia unreliable to track the sources. SMH should have checked Wikiscanner data".

Iowa Judge rules against traditional marriage

We should add this to the main page. A liberal judge from Iowa has ordered the state to start issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals wanting to marry. [18]. SSchultz 22:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Anglican and Baptist ministers ban yoga class as 'unChristian'

See attached link to the conservative Daily Mail newspaper. This might be of interest for the front page, or topic for debate. Pachyderm 07:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Are churches considered public property? If not, then they have every right to regulate what goes on inside their halls (but if the reason is unjustified then they'll just end up looking like snobs; there isn't too much anyone can do about it though). Interesting view on yoga though. ATang 11:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
That's an interesting England, the Church of England is the state religion and I believe (although I may be mistaken) that it is at least partially supported by public funds.--Porthos 11:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
It certainly has special privileges. It is, I suppose, for the ministers to say waht can and cannot go on on their property; what interests me is why (and how many) Christians see yoga as being incompatible with Christianity. Pachyderm 11:32, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Washington DC Educator Is Not Black

I do not know about the national media but we here is the DC Metro area have been pounded non stop by the liberal media on how Washington DC’s newest chief educator Michelle Rhee has horns and a tail and must be eliminated from the face of the earth. Seriously, every single day each local news station is required to run at least one diatribe against the menace of Michelle Rhee. The ‘Washington Post’ has dedicated its front page of the “Metro” section to Rhee for the last three months.

Why the liberal firestorm against Rhee? Is she liberal? Is she conservative? Is she unqualified? Are their flaws with her education plans? What are her education plans? These issues are never addressed in any of the stories. The only scandalous crime she has committed is that she is NOT black.

But certainly even the ‘Post’ would not outright say she must go simply because of her race? Oh yes they have.

The steady attack on Rhee and appointer Mayor Adrian Fenty is that Rhee, “does not represent the community.” Hence she is unqualified. Fenty is also demonized as a “race traitor” for appointing a non-black.

After decades of the diversity agenda being jammed down our throats, “The racial quotas of Affirmative Action are necessary because it is the only way to achieve the virtues of diversity and multiculturalism.” This standard is ignored. A public official must racially represent the community. If this standard was applied nation wide almost all politicians would be white because only they can represent the white majority.

The Rhee case is one of the clearest examples the diversity lie. The liberal “Civil Rights” agenda is not about racial equality, but racial supremacy. In this case black supremacy. Where KKK terms like “race traitor” are now used by blacks.

Just imagine if the media united to attack a non white public official because he did not, “represent the community.” The public lynching of Michelle Rhee deserves national attention. --Dollanganger 13:33, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

You'd have to provide links - I haven't seen anything yet that is "demonizing" Michelle Rhee. It seems to me that they're still unsure of her qualifications and the general message is "too soon to tell - she could be doing this for that reason, or this reason" - mere speculation, not the all-out racial attacks that you said (certainly not "race traitor").
Whenever you bring in someone who's not familiar with "the community", you're bound to get flak. This can be seen in any arena, whether political, business, whatever. The initial reaction is skepticism, and there's nothing wrong with that. ATang 13:42, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Some of these ideas should go in our article on Diversity. --Ed Poor Talk 13:43, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
On the other hand, this Washington Post article [19] is utterly positive. ATang and I want to know what "lynching" you are talking about. --Ed Poor Talk 13:49, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Add me to the list of people who want to know more about this "lynching". While there have been some parents who have been vocally upset that Michelle Rhee isn't Black (not a large number by any means), most local media has been quite positive about her, the Post foremost among them. I would even go so far as to say that most stories about Michelle Rhee focus on the daunting task that faces her in trying to reform the DC Public School system and are quite sympathetic and even supportive. Also, for the record, Michelle Rhee is non White, so I don't understand the 'Just imagine if the media united to attack a non white public official because he did not, “represent the community.” ' comment. --Tordenvaer 16:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

If you can read this it means the Conservapedia has not censored out another one of my comments and blocked another of my IP addresses.

Dear Tordenvaer

OK bad wording on my part. What I meant was that if a community was mostly white the media would never attack a non white because they did not “represent the community” which is white.

The local DC TV and radio have been attacking Rhee shamelessly. Yes, there are some stories writing favorably about her due to Adrian Fenty’s campaign.

The best example of the liberal bias is this ‘Post Story’: “She's Korean American in a predominantly African American school system.”

I find the “positive” comments about Rhee, in this story for example, patronizing in the same way the media always “complements” Bush. “It’s great that with the worst economy since Moses and the most costly war since the Civil War, Bush is still confident he can lead the country forward with a 10% approval rating.”

It is the same here. “Despite the fact that Rhee does not represent the community and was illegally appointed by the miserable failure Mayor Fenty, and lied on her resume, and has no experience, it is positive that she thinks she can fix the most troubled school system in the country.” --Dollanganger2 21:25, 31 August 2007 (EDT)



- - The story doesn't fit the headline. The writer is bemoaning the objectivity of MSM and exhorting them to some advocacy journalism. So, if someone says you should quit being objective, doesn't that mean that you are?

- - I have noticed this is a fairly recurrant phenomenon on right-wing websites. A headline espousing some rightist cause or other, referencing an story or article that says something completely different. I guess Pat Schroeder was right - Conservatives don't read as much as Liberals do!--TraJSmith 14:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • if someone says you should quit being objective, doesn't that mean that you are?
  • No. People are self deluded all the time. Rob Smith 14:33, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Crusading prosecutor jailed for contempt

The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse team case was slapped with a 24-hour contempt of court sentence for lying to the judge about a DNA test and withholding exculpatory evidence. The results had shown the woman in question had DNA of multiple men, none of whom were lacrosse players, on her. [1] The North Carolina State Bar Association said that district attorney Nifong had manipulated the case to boost his chances at the ballot box. [2]

This could go on the main page. --Ed Poor Talk 10:52, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Great idea, Ed. Go ahead and put it up with a cite to a news article (which I don't see in your comments above). Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:11, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
  1. The omitted data contained test results showing that DNA of multiple men, none of whom were lacrosse players, was found on the accuser.
  2. The North Carolina State Bar disciplinary committee later concluded Nifong manipulated the case to boost his chances at the ballot box, adding he continued to pursue it even when it was apparent the defendants were innocent.