Talk:Main Page/archive28

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

News on Salary Doesn't Add Up

The analysis referenced on the main page with this headline does not, well, add up.

The writer points out that there are significant amounts overlooked due to employer provided benefit plans. This is true, but he only gives an example. A real analysis would have included amount of non-salary benefits in the two years compared. Indeed, I often hear that benefit plans are decreasing rather than increasing, but I don't know.

I do agree with the writer that using Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is an odd choice to do the comparison, but he then goes on to mention the distorting effects of alimony. Alimony is reported as an increase to AGI by the recipient and a decrease by the payer. In total, then, alimony's impact on AGI is zero.

Given the weakness of this article, it should not be on the main page.--TraJSmith 09:17, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, you are talking about the difference between cash & non-cash compensation, cash, in this sense, meaning "take home pay." The writer points out that the cost to the employer to pay a worker with $50,000 AGI is $70,768, which the author points out is "38 percent of Sample’s compensation is in the form of non-cash benefits." Your assertion that alimony's impact on AGI is primiea facia untrue, because the discussion here is about salaries & compensation of workers. Alimony is not a salary paid to a worker.
The main point of this article is, "federal tax policy ends up limiting the choices available to workers and families. Because lawmakers choose not to tax benefits while taxing regular pay at high rates." This is about as key an economic cenoservative argument one can make. Federal tax policy is skewed to ripping-off the poor, oppressed, uneducated, illiterate working class, all the time pretending to be thier protectors & advocates. And it certainly was not conservative or Republican legistators who put this unfair laws in place. Rob Smith 14:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I think you missed my point. The writer of the article gives a hypothetical example of non-cash compensation for one year. A meaningful analysis would have given figures for non-cash compensation for the two years being compared.

Such compensation is also meaningful. Pension plans, health insurance, life insurance and other sorts of non-cash compensation are important. Also bear in mind that some non-cash compensation is taxed and some is tax deferred; not all of it is tax free.

I mentioned AGI as that is the base of comparison used. A component of AGI is alimony. However, if we average the total income of my ex-wife and myself, we will start with our employment income, I will deduct my alimony, but she will add it. The two, obviously add to zero.

I will not respond to your political comments on the tax system. I am a financial person and simply do not like financial analyses that have serious errors of commission or ommission like the subject article did.

By the way, you may wish to pull out your tax return and examine the components of AGI.--TraJSmith 21:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

To what extent is your required alimony reduced or offset but your ex-wife's gainful employment? Rob Smith 17:38, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Here is how it works. My AGI is my gainful income, call it X, less $50K alimony. My ex-wife's AGI is her gainful employment, call it Y, plus $50K. Our AGI is, then, X+Y+50-50. The alimony sums to zero. This would happen nationwide as well, except for alimony paid to or received from, outside the country.--TraJSmith 14:05, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, this is the problem. While the point you make about spouse AGI being a net zero as to revenue to the government is correct, the problem lies in the definition of income by type, which is what I beleive is discussed in the article. And no, alimony is not wages, salaries, tips or other type of employment compensation. And if it were, it would amount to legalized prostitution. Rob Smith 17:24, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

"Finally, after all these years, France ready to join NATO."

This is a rather peculiar statement given that France has been a member of NATO since its founding and has fulfilled all NATO treaty obligations since then. --Jalapeno 22:25, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Source?--IDuan 23:00, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

It's clearly stated in the original article. Bill 23:11, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmm? It says that France was once a member of Nato, and then France left, but Jalapeno states that France has always been a member of NATO.--IDuan 23:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Here, let me show you. Hint: there is more to NATO than its military structure. This is key.

"The French government withdrew from the NATO military structure in 1966 (although remaining a member of NATO's political-policy structure)...Soon afterward, France stated that it was withdrawing from the NATO military structure ...

Despite having withdrawn from the NATO military structure, French naval forces conducted bilateral exercises with other NATO navies, including the U.S. Navy. And, certain U.S.-French weapon agreements were undertaken, especially for upgrading American-built tanker aircraft and ship-launched missiles. The French joined other NATO forces in the Bosnia conflict as well as the 1991 assault on Iraq to free Kuwait, which Iraqi forces had taken over the previous summer. Bill 23:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

In other words, France helped out when it was easy, and didn't help when it was difficult. And that went on for 40 years.--Aschlafly 23:25, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Under their new, Conservative President, it is expected France will soon become a full partner again. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:27, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, ASchlafly, two shooting wars is hardly ("The French joined other NATO forces in the Bosnia conflict as well as the 1991 assault on Iraq to free Kuwait, which Iraqi forces had taken over the previous summer.") "easy" in my books. And France left the military structure for good reason, if you read the article and think "national sovereignty" is a good thing. And TK, what exactly is your point? France is not a "full member" of NATo, but to say it's "rejoining" NATO is plain wrong, as it has always been an integral part of NATO's political structures. Bill 23:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, Bill, the Bosnian conflict and the Gulf War obviously are "easy" compared to the other military conflicts. Headlines are concise, and you do not suggest a concise improvement to ours. It's correct as it stands and you suggest nothing better. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:15, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, which more difficult military conflicts fought as NATO engagements besides the air war in Kosovo (no Nato casualties) did France sit out? As for a headline, how about "France Considers Rejoining NATO Military Structure."?!?!? Concise is nice, accurate is better. Bill 00:34, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Bill, I put a welcome on your talk page, so please read it. This is a conservative wiki, so we place a higher value on doing than constant debate! Please find positive contributions to articles you can make, or better yet, create new ones! Thanks. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

A suggestion: Why not model a higher value on accuracy and make the suggested change? Doing something has more value when you do something correctly, rather then propogating (not to mention defending) errors. The article clearly supports the change and perhaps your reflexive francophobic intuitions about what is a "higher truth" should take a back seat to the source you actually cite. No nasty replies please, just ban me.Mattmott 15:48, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

France's command military structure has withdrawn from NATO joint planning and operations since c. 1968, while its policy and coordination have maintained a relationship. In the Gulf War of 1991, while France did participate with other NATO forces, it's command structure remained independent.
Much of this is related to how NATO was set up back in 1948. The BRD (West Germany, and now modern Germany) is forbidden, (and to an extent voluntarily), from having its own General Staff. The Bundewehr's entire command structure is integrated into NATO, and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland is incapable of any military planning or exercises outside of NATO. It's moreless a sovereignty issue, and France beginning with DeGualle, was unwilling to surrender this soverreignty (although this demand was never placed upon France, or Great Britian, or any other NATO member). France, simply put, was unwilling to participate in joint command with the US, GB, & the BRD against the Warsaw Pact, viewing it somewhat as provacative. However now, with France adopting things like the Euro (which some view as a surrender of sovereignty), the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the election of a more conservative central government, and a percieved threat based upon the Iranian bid for Mid-Eastern hegemony, at this point in time France is willing to join in closer integrated command. This needs to be seen in conjunction with our front page news item last week, "France threatens war." Rob Smith 17:07, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Do-Nothing Dawkins?

Breaking news says: "NYT calls Richard Dawkins an "eminent scientist" and an "evolutionary biologist," when in fact Dawkins is merely...", and so forth. Now, I have no love for Dawkins, but his piddling university position or lack thereof doesn't change the actual fact that he is indeed an eminent scientist and an evolutionary biologist (actually, I'd say Dawkins is "prominent" rather than "eminent", but whatever...). --PeteVan 15:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Think so? His "position" is at a Museum and it is misleading to describe him as a "university" professor, and the source of the position was a process not allowed by credible universities. Does he even hold a degree in biology? I don't think so, and to call him an "eminent" "evolutionary biologist" is absurd. Maybe the N.Y. Times thinks Hillary Clinton is also an "eminent scientist," but calling her one does not make her one.--Aschlafly 15:05, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I think he has a bachelor's degree in zoology, a master of arts, and a DPhil and a DScience.ConserveATory 15:43, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
OK, so no degree in biology, then??? Perhaps Richard Dawkins can be called a zoologist, but ot an "eminent" "evolutionary biologist." In fact, he does not appear to be a biologist at all, let alone an "eminent" one.--Aschlafly 16:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, zoology is a field of biology and it studies animals and the animal kingdom. Evolutionary biology is a sub-focus of this school, and zoology is actually more geared towards evolution than biology in general. Dawkins has taught zoology for 20ish years and written substantially about evolution and zoology. Whether he's "eminent" or not is subjective, but he's pretty clearly an evolutionary biologist- you might as well say someone isn't a doctor unless their bachelor's degree is specifically in medicine as opposed to, say, biology or kinesiology.ConserveATory 17:30, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
No, we don't call someone a medical doctor unless he has a degree in medicine. Clear enough? Dawkins apparently lacks a degree in biology, and never obtained tenure in biology or zoology or any other science department. After teaching for 20ish years he finally benefited from the donation of a position at a Museum, not a university science department. Jonathan Wells is a more "eminent" "evolutionary biologist" than Richard Dawkins is. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Claiming a degree in zoology is not a degree in biology is like claiming a degree in statistics is not a degree in mathematics- just because one is a sub-field of the other does not mean they are not related. I think you're focusing too much on trying to undermine the proponent of an idea rather than rationally disputing the ideas themselves. He was a scholar and teacher at Berkeley and Oxford, two prominent schools, in evolution-related fields, and did substantial research and writing on evolution. I don't understand what criteria you're using to dismiss his credentials, or why this is such an issue.ConserveATory 18:15, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
"eminent" is actually a honorific bestowed on profs at universities and, as such, is not at all subjective. Either he has be designated eminent or he has not. If he has then he 'owns' that title, even if you're not fond of him. Same thing with the Zoology vs. biology issue. its all sour grapes. Mattmott 18:59, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Dawkins' professorship is at a museum, not a university science department. Maybe you think this atheist is a genius, but his credentials don't support the liberal claim that he is an "eminent" "evolutionary biologist." No one even gave this guy tenure for decades until someone donated money to a museum to give him a job there, and he apparently never even earned a degree in biology or molecular biology.--Aschlafly 19:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
He was appointed "reader" at Oxford in 1990, which is similar to US tenure. His "museum" job, while created with the intention that he be the first one to hold the post, is actually explicitly designed for "a scientist of distinction in their field of expertise." The position is essentially a teacher who can work through mass media, which is what Dawkins has proven effective at; he is not just some tour guide. You keep saying he didn't earn a degree in biology, despite his study of zoology and extensive work on evolution. His credentials easily exceed the requirements of being an evolutionary biologist (including working on evolution-related topics with Encarta and the Encyclopedia of Evolution). At best you're nit-picking, and at worst you're just lying.ConserveATory 20:19, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
The title of professor in England is not awarded in the same way as in the USA -- it is usually only given to holders of specific positions ('chairs') and many prominent academics have not received the title 'professor' because there was no suitable vacant chair. Chairs fall into three categories: (1) Departmental chairs, which typically carry a heavy administrative burden. (2) Chairs founded by endowment, such as the Lucasian chair currently occupied by Stephen Hawking. (3) Personal chairs designed to last for the tenure of one person only. Dawkins' professorship falls into the second category, a type of professorship has been in operation for more than 500 years and has not stopped Oxford from producing 47 Nobel prize winners. Dawkins' chair is based at the Oxford Museum of Natural History (which is part of Oxford University) but his academic work is within the Evolution group in the Zoology department. I hope this helps in fixing the inaccuracies in the story. --Jalapeno 00:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I think the people here might enjoy this ...

... if you like being judged by the standards of your enemies. Seriously. I've never been a great fan of this project, but it gladdened my heart a little to see the way that Metapedia discusses you; CP went up a good few notches in my estimation.


Apparently, you are 'for the most part politically correct', and 'have a secret set of rules. If they find that an editor has racial consciousness, they will ban that editor'. :-)

You've had a few of them on here, as well; User:WHEELER and User:NeoMyth both seem to be of their ilk.

Let liberals and conservatives alike join together in opposition of fascists. --SayaSan

That's great! LOL!! CO2 19:09, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
CO, what's your justification of removing an entire section in which several sysops posted? If that was trolling as you described it, I'm sure one of the participating sysops would have removed it. --Jenkins 19:11, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
TK gave him a warning, he's new. Also, he said he's from Wikipedia, they do things differently over there. CO, I recommend reading the "Useful links" I left you on your page. They'll give you a helpful outline of the rules here. And if you're ever in doubt, ask a Sysop. TK is especially helpful, and almost always handy. Greg 20:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Bipartisanship on the Senate Floor

This might be a nice headline for the front page:[1]

It's always great to see both parties working together, making a sincere effort to put aside differences to come together and make a united decision on such a divisive issue.--Xerxes 22:38, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I never thought I'd see Mr. Brownback agree with the likes of Hillary Clinton! Greg 22:43, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is interesting, but note that Sam Brownback and Hillary Clinton are both doves on the Iraq War. The article doesn't explain this, but it appears that nearly all the "no" votes were Republican and perhaps George W. Bush opposes it also, so I'm not sure it was really very bipartisan. It's non-binding, too, making me wonder what its significance is. But thanks for suggesting it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:59, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

This has been talked about for years. The problem is, the Kurds will never go for it. The Kurds are resigned to remaining a minority in a larger state; if they were to become landlocked, dependent upon paying all sorts of custom duties for imports and exports via the Persian Gulf, they are sophisticated enough to understand the cost in a lower living standard, not to mention the cost of maintaining thier own military and border defense against numerous hostile neighbors. This is just window dressing, designed to give cover to whoever of both parties to pretend they are concerned, and that they have a plan or solution, etc. But the Kurds rejected the idea a long time ago. Rob Smith 23:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Kurds the only group who are *for* segregating the state? Iraqi Kurdistan has already cordoned themselves off in northern Iraq; they have their own currency, their own flag, their own prime minister, their own security force (not to mention their own ad campaign). They are the safest part of Iraq by far. They have been persecuted for centuries as part of other empires; why would they not want to be separate? If anyone is against it, it's definitely the Turks. If Iraqi Kurdistan is recognized then Turkish Kurdistan must also be recognized, which is not something Turkey is yet willing to do. HelpJazz 16:21, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes and no. You're getting into a much larger issue and discussion now.
The Kurds did recieve support from the US for many of the things you cited beginning in the early 1990s, after the Gulf War. The intent was never, on the part of the US (all through the GWH Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush Admins) to dismember Iraq. It was to build local democratic governments in the region. The Kurds have been exemplary in this manner (we will leave the discussion of Arab democracy alone).
One of the basic legal grounds for removal of Saddam was that Saddam did not control all the territory he supposedly claimed to have, i.e. Kurdistan. Saddam & the Ba'athist regime did not control Kurdistan. By rights, Saddam's claim to be head of state of Iraq could be challenged since he did not control all of Iraq (for example, what if a group like the Taliban controlled Kurdistan, that is to say, either willingly or unwillingly, terrorist organizations ran terror training camps out of that terrotory with either the intent to, or the accomplished fact of, conducting acts of war or terrorism across borders; the fact the incumbant regime is either unwilling or incapable to control territory it claims to control can provide a legal basis for removal or curtailment of that regime).
So you see, the disucssion enlarges rapidly. The Kurdish territory's problem is somewhat analagous to Poland's when it was recreated in 1919. The Poles were landlocked, the Treaty of Versailles took non-Polish territory and created the Polish Corridor, because it was felt the Poland could not survive independently without a seaport, that Poland would be at the mercy of others who wanted to annex it. The problem with the Shat-al-arab waterway is, it's not big enough for the Kurds access either. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, and the Gulf War were fought over this issue, that is to say, even Greater Iraq feels its access to the Persian Gulf is restricted.
The Kurds, like Western diplomats & historians, are very aware of these problems, and a landlocked Kurdish state surrounded by hostile enemies forced to maintain a standing military & border defense, without a free trade agreement (which could be ammended or terminated at any time) in the longrun has no chance of success.
By contrast, the situation of the the Czech & Slovak Republics is somewhat analagous, but that has to be viewed with the larger context of incorporation into the EU & cooperative security arangement (like NATO) which guanrantee its survival (such was not the case from 1919 til 1992, incidentally). Rob Smith 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


Update on this proposed, marvellous solution:

"Joe Biden just held a conference call with reporters to "clarify a couple of things" about his Iraq plan...Biden is angry at Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, whose embassy issued an unusual (and unsigned) statement criticizing the resolution. By doing so, the ambassador (and his superiors in Washington who no doubt authorized the statement) was adding his voice to that of Prime Minister al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders, all of whom complained that the kind of federalism called for in the resolution would lead to more sectarian violence and result in the bloody partition of the country. [2]
"Biden's problem is that his proposal for Iraq, which originally appeared as an op-ed with Leslie Gelb in the spring of 2006, was long ago short-handed as a "partition" ...NYT

Comment: Leslie Gelb, veteren of the Johnson Administration's bungling Vietnam War policy and the Carter Administration's bungling Iranian policy. Gelb is a piece of work. I've been meaning to do his bio for several years, perhaps somebody can help get it started. 14:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

University of Memphis shooting

Let me start by saying that I think it's disgusting that you are trying to use this kid's death to score cheap political points.

Having said that, you know absolutely nothing about the shooter, the victim, the circumstances, etc. Stop making the claim that every time something anything bad happens in any public school setting that it was caused by this "lack of morals" that you perceive in public schools. I, along with countless others, attended public schools. I know exactly what morality is and what right and wrong is, as do a vast majority of the people who attend or have attended public schools. And I can tell you that inserting religion into schools is not the answer that you're looking for because it would do little more than create more divisiveness among the students. After all, look at what it's done for the world today.--BillOhannity 09:09, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Tell you what, if you can provide evidence that the rate of violence in private schools or homeschools is even 1/10th that of public schools, your little lecture might be taken seriously. We'll wait patiently while you do the research and get back to us with the results. I think what you'll find is that people like yourself who claim that public schools are anything more than dens of iniquity are deluding themselves.--Conservateur 10:58, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
For information's sake: Charles Carl Roberts, who was homeschooled, was the perpetrator of the Amish school shooting in October 2006. The Appalachian School of Law (a private law school of roughly 400 students) suffered a shooting by a former student in January 2002. In 1975, a Catholic school in Ottawa was attacked by a student. Though tragic, given the proportion of private/home/religious students versus public students, it's not surprising that there are more public school student shootings. However, examining the actual ratios of shootings and attacks in both camps would probably reveal a different story.ConserveATory 13:13, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Which is why I suggested that the originator of this topic research the rates of school violence, not the total number of incidents. Even when comparing the rates of violence, I am confident that private schools and homeschools are far, far safer than public schools.--Conservateur 13:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I'll do it. I found a publication from the Department of Justice about school safety here (PDF file). 4% of public school teachers reported being physically attacked, versus 2% of private school teachers. 4.3% of public school students reported having been a victim of a crime at school in the previous six months, versus 2.6 percent of private school students. 28.6% of public school students reported being bullied in the previous six months, versus 22.7% of private school students. There's lots of other information in there, but most of it doesn't distinguish between public and private schools, and, of the information that does, much of it is marked "interpret cautiously." So, in the categories that are available, the rates in private schools are certainly more than 1/10 the rates in public schools. Masterbratac 14:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Very well said, Conservateur. I can add that the claim by "BillOhannity" that religion in school "would do little more than create more divisiveness among the students" is a phony excuse. Liberals oppose prayer in school because they oppose exposing children to prayer. It has nothing to do with "divisiveness among the students." For most of the history of the United States, including most of the 20th century, there was prayer in public school with virtually no "divisiveness". "BillOhannity" should at least be honest in his argument against religion in school.--Aschlafly 11:45, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I think what BillOHannity is trying to say is that the school shootings might not have been caused by lack of public school morals. It is a VERY likely that a lack of morals somewhere along the line caused the shootings. I don't think his main point was to say that prayer in school is definitely the cause, but that it not the only possible cause. For example, the shooter could have bad family morals because they don't go to church. MrJohnson23 13:25, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I am curious about what part of the "well-regulated militia" contemplated by the second ammendment the shooter belongs to? As well as Cho, the nutter that killed those Amish kids, etc. Is it possible that easy access to weapons might contribute to our absurdly high rate of gun violence?--TraJSmith 14:11, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

  • "lack of morals"
  • Well stated. Killers do not kill because of a "lack of morals." At least we have that position clarified. Rob Smith 14:35, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, the problem with just looking at the rates of violence in public schools as opposed to those in private schools is that it does not take into consideration the people who attend private and public schools. Public schools accept everyone as students regardless of their family wealth, upbringing, etc. Generally students who attend private schools come from a.)wealthier families, b.)stronger families (i.e. parents not divorced and supportive of the student), and c.)better neighborhoods where they are not exposed to violence on a daily basis. So of course some public schools will experience higher rates of violence among the students, because they have a much more diverse student body. Another problem with your argument is that you lump every public school in the country into one group, when they clearly shouldn't be. The high school I went to was a public school and in my four years there we did not have any acts of violence at all. Had I attended, say, an inner city school this would undoubtedly be different. The lack of violence in my school had nothing to do with this "lack of morality" that I keep hearing about. Your reasoning about the rate of violence in public schools being caused by lack of religion in schools would be valid if religion was the only variable, but it clearly is not.

And Aschlafly, please tell me how I am being dishonest. Say we did teach religion in schools. Which ones would we teach? Well I'm going to guess that your answer to that would be Christianity (just a hunch). What do you do if your student body is (just throwing some numbers out there) 7% jewish, 5% hindu, 5% muslim, 3% atheist,...? Your options seem to be either to force your own religion on them or to tell them to put their fingers in their ears and wait until everyone else is done. Is that fair to them?

Finally, I would like to add that, while you keep telling me to provide provide evidence to support my position, I have not seen conservateur provide evidence to support his claim that "private schools and homeschools are far, far safer than public schools" and that Aschlafly provided no evidence of his claim that "For most of the history of the United States, including most of the 20th century, there was prayer in public school with virtually no 'divisiveness'." Nor was there any evidence provided to support the original claim that all of this violence is caused by lack of religion in schools.

Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I was away at class at a public university all day, where it should be noted that I was not killed, shot, stabbed, or taught to be immoral.--BillOhannity 14:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so then this is just another demographic fact or statistic we are just supposed to ignore, sweep under the rug, and pretend that it doesn't exist. In fact, if somebody suggests this demographic fact or truth actually exists, then we are supposed to target, slander and defame such a person for simply reciting facts.
Yes, we do understand all relevance of this argument. Rob Smith 14:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I didn't sweep them under the rug or pretend that they don't exist. I simply said that they are being used in a very misleading, deceitful, and incorrect manner. Yes, violence rates are higher in public schools. But there are many differences between public schools and private schools other than the presence/absence of religion. Therefore, making the claim that adding religion to public schools would solve all their problems is wrong, irresponsible, and deceitful. --BillOhannity 15:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Well you appear to make some sort of conclusion ("Therefore") without evidence (some nebulous concept of "differences" is all I see). And this conclusion sets yourself at odds with William Jefferson Clinton, the last great spokesman of liberal causes to hold high office in the United States, who saw many problems with the ban on school prayer. [3] Rob Smith 15:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I mentioned some of these "nebulous differences" earlier if you had bothered to read. There are differences in family background, regional background, diversity, and wealth just to name a few. And I do not particularly care that I set myself at odds with William Jefferson Clinton since I am not a democrat or a liberal or a member of the Clinton fan club.--BillOhannity 15:23, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Not a democrat or a liberal eh? This sounds to me like #30 here. Now who's being deceitful?--Conservateur 15:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll put this as plain as I can. By the real definition of the word, I am not a liberal. By your definition of "anyone who does not agree completely with me is a liberal," then I guess I am. And if, as you seem to think, the only alternative to being like you is to be "liberal" then not only will I readily admit that I am but I will rejoice in the fact, because apparently being a "liberal" by your definition means being open-minded and willing to engage in a discussion. You clearly do not have any real response to my anything I said regarding the issue I raised, so you resort to calling me a deceitful liberal. By the way, in so doing I believe you have illustrated number 12, over reliance on mockery.
And TK, if it is an "indisputable fact" as you put it, then it would be easy for you to find and cite some sources (and no, blogs and newsbusters do not count as credible sources). --BillOhannity 16:28, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • No one is scoring any points off of anyone. It is indisputable fact that the liberal Secular-Progressive movement has lead to a general and widespread moral decay. It is full of deceit. Shootings like the one in Memphis, and other university towns, are the inevitable result. Pity to those who cannot understand that! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
How exactly did you deduce that that is an indisputable fact?ConserveATory 16:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how a bunch of students huddling together praying, "Lord, let's not have anyone of us shoot any fellow students today" iminges on anyone's rights. In fact, it's probably just such a social device that could combat such behavior, moreso than all the tried, tested, and failed liberal brainwashing scams innocent students have been subjected to over the past 4 decades. Rob Smith 17:12, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
The statistics and situations noted above don't really support that hypothesis though.ConserveATory 17:45, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Do you at all understand how silly that sounds? Is everything in life quantifiable? Love? Hope? Faith? And if we cannot attach a formula to them, do you therefore reject all such? Give me a break! You're supposed to be a person, not a computer! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Rob isn't talking about qualitative values. He specifically claimed that prayer in schools could combat school shootings. If someone makes a claim saying "Action A causes Consequence B", then yes, it should be quantified- otherwise, it's just speculation.ConserveATory 18:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • No speculation. Just because someone is ignorant of those facts, that does not bring with it some obligation to educate the person. Or offer proof, does it? Is that not the same as "guilty" of posting a lie, until you prove you are innocent? Please provide "proof" to my satisfaction, that Christian Schools have as many or more shootings than public ones. And I was not speaking to Rob's post, but to yours! That was very close to a trolling post, ConserveATory. Very close. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Actually TK, ConserveATory is correct in this case. First, the accusation, and therefore, the burden of proof, is conservapedia's, by merit of the statement made on the front page that states "Secular-progressive movement claims another victim." This places the burden of proof on conservapedia to prove its statement, not on ConserveATory to defend against it. Secondly, there have been no studies done, now will there likely be any studies done, to definitively prove that violence occurs at a higher rate due to the lack of prayer in schools. The above statistics, while they do show a that violence does occur at a higher rate at public schools, does not include controls for socioeconomic status, racial disparity, regional culture, etc., and thus cannot go to show any causation. Furthermore, the facilitation of an experiment to control all of those factors would be akin to facilitating a human zoo, which, due to the nature of consent, would be considered unethical to conduct, and likely still meet with claims of inaccuracy due to factors that can never be controlled such as genetic disposition. --Unvoided 21:05, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


  • there have been no studies done, now will there likely be any studies done, to definitively prove that violence occurs at a higher rate due to the lack of prayer in schools
  • This is a bogus premise. We do not need to draw a conclusion, "due to;" all we need to do is lay the statisitcs side by side, of the incidence of violence in schools with prayer and those do not have prayer. Rob Smith 21:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • That's statistically erroneous to do so. Like I mentioned before, there are no controls in place in that kind of statistical analysis. While it could be that there is no prayer in the public schools, it could also be that the students from public schools come from generally poorer families, or that children with disciplinary problems have to stay in public schools due both their inability to comply with a private school's standards.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that it's okay to make a conclusion based upon two correlating statistics, those being that violence is more prevalent in schools where prayer is not prevalent in this particular case. However, by that same strand of logic, I could argue that hair turning white causes wrinkles (or vice versa). While it is true that the relationship between the two correlates (both increase at the same time), neither one is the cause of the other, as both are caused by aging. Laying the statistics side by side regarding public and private schools, prayer, and violence only shows that they are in some way related, and loosely at that, due to immediate association of private school with prayer (not all private schools are religious institutions). When statistics regarding wrinkles and white hair are laid side by side, they provide no indication of cause, just as the information provided already regarding school violence doesn't, either. --Unvoided 23:06, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
  • (a) what is "statistically erroneous" about examining value x against value y? (b) "controls in place", what does this mean? Does this mean, for example, if we made a comparison of frequency of violence in public & private religious schools in both New York and Tennessee, discovered a large variation between both control groups in both states, and averaged the two together for some sort of "national average" which would be representative of neither state, is that a "control"? (c) the only "conclusion" that needs to be made, for a parent in flyover country, is "are the odds my kid will be a victim of violence 1 in 10 or 1 in a 100." It's not rocket science. And folks in flyover country don't need a godless enlightened scientific number cruncher whose only purpose in life is to prove that he is right and God is wrong. Rob Smith 01:20, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I know, I know, I'm supposed to be on vacation (and I'm not supposed to be reading this page, for that matter :p). I'm going to bed right after this. Word to the wise - as soon as you've devolved into whose understanding of statistics and/or evidentiary rules is correct, the debate is effectively over. You're down to chasing each others tails and waiting for somebody's mommy-kitty to grab one of you by the scruff.
By all means, keep going as long as you like, but if anybody's here because they actually want to resolve something, it's time to go read a book and chill out. Aziraphale 02:41, 2 October 2007 (EDT) <-I know, not much of a peacemaker....
Rob, you are misinterpreting statistics. Examining value x against value y very rarely gives an accurate conclusion. What you are doing is falsely claiming causality based on correlation. This is a frequent mistake among those not familiar with mathematics, so don't feel too bad.ConserveATory 09:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
If you look back through the discussion you'll notice that no one has disputed the simple claim that there are higher rates of violence in public schools than in private schools, although Masterbratac did find statistics that show that the danger isn't as high as you believe. What we are saying, however, is that there is nothing to support the claim that lack/presence of religion in these schools is the cause for the difference. --BillOhannity 10:17, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Examining value x against value y very rarely gives an accurate conclusion.
  • Odd, not a day goes by we don't hear Hillary Clinton leads Obama by value x to value y, with the conclusion she's the winner and savior of the planet. I thought it was just Media bias, but now I see its a faulty statistical conclusion by the uneducated. We'll have to remember that, and it will be be a good factual basis to deny reality when she takes the oath of office.
  • All that can be deduced from "Candidate x leads candidate y" is that candidate x has more support (with a typical sample size, the results are correct within a 5% variance 95% of the time). An unspecified media report making a fallacious report should not encourage you to do the same.ConserveATory 12:35, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Couldn't agree more. What are we going to do about the millions of brainwashed individuals who are persuaded by this, however, and then I personally have to live with the consequences of this deceit? Rob Smith 13:54, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • What we are saying, however, is that there is nothing to support the claim that lack/presence of religion in these schools is the cause for the difference.
  • Ok, so this is like the incidence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. [4] All the stats, and analysis point to (a) a higher level of physical violence by perhaps a factor of two or three times, and (b) unrewarding emotional abuse. But these statistical facts conflict with the politcal agenda of clogging the courts with gay divorces after gay marriage is legalized. So we just suppress or deny what we all know are facts. Simply put, science conflicts with progress, so there must be something wrong with the science. Rob Smith 12:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • That's a completely unrelated (and flawed) argument. It is extremely difficult to confirm that "all the stats point to" anything- it took several decades and numerous studies to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. You should really familiarize yourself with logical fallacies and statistical causation.ConserveATory 12:35, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • So a stat that says, "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples" [5], or "Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" among gay partners [6] is meaningless and should not be allowed to conflict with the gay agenda or the drive for gay rights and same sex marriage. By "conflict," I mean should not be publicized or talked about. Rob Smith 13:48, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure why you're bringing something like this up, but I'll try to educate you. If you're trying to say that same-sex couples are more likely to be violent, then you need a better source. The study you quote says it has an extremely small sample size: "Violence perpetrated in same-sex couples is an important area of study but very little data exist to describe the extent or nature of the problem." A small sample size means that there is an extremely large variance in the statistics, and when the values being compared are 7% and 15%, it is entirely possible that the rates of violence are actually the exact same in the general population. The second source you brought up (but, interestingly, did not quote on rates of violence) has a large sample size and shows a violence rate of 9%- factoring in the variance, this means there is no significant difference in rates of violence between homosexual and heterosexual couples. The emotional abuse study from statcan only covers current partners, but still shows an abuse rate of 61%; the abstract of the other study does not specify if 83% is among current or past and present partners, but it implies the latter. The "gay agenda" has nothing to do with this.
On the other hand, if you're implying that homosexuality causes violence or abuse in relationships, then that's an entirely different can of worms, full of things like confounding variables and bias in sample size and time.ConserveATory 19:20, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


Altruism is a new article that deals with an important virtue. Any collaboration will be much appreciated. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Great start, Joaquin!--Aschlafly 19:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia block on the main page

Why does this matter? Ed Poor was unblocked as soon as someone noticed the block, and the blocking administrator hasn't logged on since then to explain what happened (check the Ed's block log versus the admin's contributions). Not only is it a bit petty, but for a site that aims to avoid gossip, this is certainly hypocritical.ConserveATory 19:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I've had my fifteen minutes of fame. Can we move on now? --Ed Poor Talk 19:26, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia never seems to apologize, and that is a reason to keep it up there. By the way, ConserveATory, ever notice how liberals don't seem to understand what the term gossip means?--Aschlafly 19:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Dalton McGuintyisms aside, I was unaware of such a fact- I'm sure some reliable third party publications could convince me otherwise. Since you haven't informed readers that the blocking administrator hasn't logged on, it may technically just be misinformation.ConserveATory 20:39, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Just a comment. I am no fan of Wikipedia, and enjoy this site enough to make it my homepage. So, I have noticed that most of Wikipedia's errors and misteps are quickly reported in the news items. It seems unnecessary to waste the space bashing Wikipedia. Doesn't your good quality speak for itself so you do not need to put 'the other guys' down?--Historymom 19:28, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
We believe in accountability, and often we report on internet news not easy to find elsewhere. As the amoral or even immoral Wikipedia predictably declines, we will report on that periodically. After all, many of us here were early contributors to Wikipedia, and it remains an important part of the internet, so its intellectual and moral decline is newsworthy here.--Aschlafly 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Has anyone noticed this yet?

Judge Rejects State Internet Porn Law - Activist judges block a law intended to protect children from harmful pornography. Can someone put this on the front page?--JonathanDrain 20:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Great catch, and I've passed it on, but I'd rather not post stories about pornography on our front page unless there is a particularly compelling reason to do so. This one was a close call and I almost posted it, but decided against it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:13, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Please alert us to future stories like this here on the talk page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:21, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Re Wikipedia and supression of article North American Union. They really didn't; they subsumed the material under INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA. Check for yourself. Tapping into NORTH AMERICAN UNION gets you to that page.Alloco1 00:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Speak English! What in the world does all that mean? "INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA" sounds like just another name for suppression. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:18, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Phony soldiers

Democrats criticize Rush Limbaugh for the phrases phony soldiers and fake soldier during broadcast with caller.

Limbaugh also said:

  • Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. [7]

If I have time, I'll write more about this. Or someone can take the ball and run with it. Might make a good main page item. --Ed Poor Talk 07:14, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


Nothing in that article mentioned that the scientists were athiests or materialists. Or is that just taken for granted here? Maestro 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I won't touch Maestro's comment, but there's another issue here: the source doesn't seem to support the news claim. The headline states that scientists are trying in vain when no explanation exists, but the source clearly states at the end of the article that the given evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that birds detect the earth's magnetic field. I suggest a different source or a headline that aligns with its cited material. ENelson 13:59, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Both of you seem to misunderstand a wiki. The headline links to several entries, not simply an external article that ENelson calls "the source." We are far more than a news referral service.

Also, note how liberals dispute something that is plainly true, like atheists and materialists searching for materialist explanations. No one seriously disputes that, but perhaps in doubting it one hopes to hide the fact. See liberal style.--Aschlafly 15:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The fact that the headline links to several entries is not relevant to ENelson's point. Nobody is disputing that atheists and materialists are searching for materialist explanations. The only issue is that you are using as a reference an article that does not support your statement. Masterbratac 15:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Masterbratac is right. I never disputed that atheists and materialists search for materialistic explanations. What I dispute is the news article saying no explanation exists. Compounding this is the fact that the citation is an article that DOES provide an explanation.
I still strongly suggest that either an appropriate citation be found and linked, or the heading modified to coincide more with its source. ENelson 15:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Excellant point, Andy. One can only speculate why a source called ScienceDaily carried a news item recently entitled, Bush apologizes to Wiccan widow. Must be of interest to enlightened scientific researchers. Rob Smith 15:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Rob, one could go as far to say that Conservapedia shouldn't make comments about any scientific topics, as (speculatively) very few people here have an education in the sciences. I agree with you that hypocrisy is wrong and people should stay in their fields, though. ENelson 15:47, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
By "education in the sciences," are you referring to Wicca and other occult subjects scientific advancement has replaced God with? Rob Smith 15:54, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Science replaced God with Wicca? When did that happen? Maestro 16:17, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
To answer your question, no. I'm not even fully sure what Wicca is, so I will not comment on it. And why does science replace God, as you say? Why can it not expand on our understanding of the universe He set up?
Anyways, we're both way off topic. If you want to continue this, take it up in my talk page and I'll happily oblige. The issue here is that this news piece has a source that does not adequately reinforce its subject. Considering that at Conservapedia all things must be true and verifiable, I suggest that unless a proper source can be found, that news item either be removed or modified to coincide more with its source. ENelson 16:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so I'm a bird brain (no pun intended). The source says, "Thus, the only two parts of the central nervous system shown to be highly active during magnetic compass orientation are linked to each other." To quote the immortal Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know we don't know." The article continues, "These findings strongly support the hypothesis..."; what hypothesis? So this "strong support" for something that is below a theory (hypo = below), a theory by definition is not a fact, is based upon visual stimuli, i.e. what is "shown." Is there the remotest possibility that other, unknown, unseen, unanticipated factors may be at work, before we elevate this grandiose research to the premature conclusion that it lends "strong support" to what is not even formulated yet as a hypo-theory to either prove, or disprove, that human observation is the deciding factor to establish truth, at least momentarily until someone else observes some new phenomenon, which then disproves all our previous understanding? Rob Smith 16:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm not entirely certain what that meant, but I think you mean that, because this is a "hypothesis," it should not be elevated to the level of a theory. This is true, but irrelevant. The fact is, the article states that there is strong support for this hypothesis. Whether it is a hypothesis or a theory, this contradicts what the main page here says - that atheists and materialists search for the answer in vain, because the answer does not exist. The article does not say anything about atheists and materialists - it's a reasonable assumption, but not something the article says. The article does not say that there is no answer to this. On the contrary, is states that there is strong support for a potential answer. Either the headline or the article needs to be changed. Please be aware that, if you change the reference to something that actually does support the headline, I will gladly drop this. Masterbratac 18:11, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Right, Rob, the "Science" news article is a mixture of circular reasoning and unsupported conclusions, typical for that liberal rag. The "reasoning" in the article is, of course, good enough for atheists and materialists who assume that there must be a material explanation. For the rest of us who, like Isaac Newton, look beyond materialism, the Science article is referenced for only one purpose: to demonstrate that atheists and materialists are still searching in vain for their material explanation. Do tell us, please, if anyone really thinks magnetism guides butterfly migration also. Don't duck that one.--Aschlafly 18:16, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
If that's why this article is being used, the headline should really be reworded. As it stands, it appears that the article is being used to support the lack of an explanation for bird migration, not the fact that the search for an explanation has not revealed any definitive answers. Masterbratac 18:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Masterbratac, your discomfort is with the lack of a material explanation for migration, not our headline. Note how you did duck the question of whether you really think that magnetism guides butterfly migration.
I can't resolve your discomfort with the failure of materialism to explain migration. I urge you to let go of your insistence on materialism. The headline is appropriate and the "Science" article, which has the title of a question ("Do Migratory Birds 'See' The Magnetic Field?"), is just one of several sources used to support our headline. I'll add this issue to our Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness, so our discussion has not been wasted.--Aschlafly 18:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
My discomfort is not with the lack of material explanation, nor is it with the headline itself. My discomfort is with the way the headline seems to read. As it stands, the headline appears to state that this article shows that there is no materialistic explanation for migration. Whether I have a problem with this concept is irrelevant. The article does not support the headline as it is written now. Personally, I think that it might work better if the link were on the word "search," but that's just my opinion. I freely admit that I am not an expert in journalism, nor in any other relevant field. Feel free to ignore this. I'll probably continue to object; from this point forward, however, I will object to this, at least, silently (Unless something really ridiculous happens).
As for the butterflies, I have not the slightest idea what guides their migration. I have no problem with believing that it is magnetism, nor with believing that it is based on the sun, the moon, God as presented in the Bible, Zeus, Thor, some all-powerful butterfly deity, or anything else - as long as there is some evidence for it. However, this is irrelevant; the article is not about butterflies. Masterbratac 19:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Masterbratac, I obviously have not ignored your criticism, but I do urge you to accept the strong likelihood that there is no material explanation for homing and migration. I urge you to accept that not for my good, but for yours. Once you reject materialism, as Isaac Newton did with action-at-a-distance, as Adam Smith did with the invisible hand, as Louis Pasteur and Bernhard Riemann did for their inspiration, the truth shall set you free. In the past some people, including strangers, urged me to open my mind beyond what I learned in school and I'm glad I did. I hope you do too.--Aschlafly 19:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • strong support for a potential answer
  • It doesn't even say this. It says there is strong support (based upon human observation) for an unformulated sub-theory which cannot, by definition, be a fact (A theory, by definition, is not a fact; if it were a fact, it would not be a theory. And the reponse, "theories are unproven facts," is so ludicrous on its face, please consider it first before following this logical fallacy). Rob Smith 18:46, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
The Merriam-Webster definition of "theory" (at least, the one relevant here) is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."[8] There is no reason that a theory cannot be true. Also, if the statement that "theories are unproven facts" is a logical fallacy, which fallacy is it? Masterbratac 18:56, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • If scientists, or "atheists" and "materialists" as you call them, gave up searching for material explanations and chose to explain everything through religion we would never achieve another technological breakthrough. Image if they had given up, say, 70-80 years ago. We would not have computers. Without computers we surely would not have the Internet, and without the Internet we wouldn't have sites like Conservapedia. Are you sure you want them to give up? --BillOhannity 19:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, you find solace in religious enlightenment. That's perfectly fine. I enjoy investigating life. You have every right to think the way you do, and so do I. But this is not what's at stake here. Conservapedia entries must be "true and verifiable", and the news item is not. It says there is no material explanation, nor will there be one. The article that supposedly backs this up says that peope are in the process of formulating an explanation for said phenomenon. They just don't match up! ENelson 20:00, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
No, ENelson, you misstate my views and what's on the main page. Atheists waste my taxpayer money searching in vain for a material answer that they assume must exist due to their lack of faith. This isn't a matter of "solace"; this is factual.--Aschlafly 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Mr. schlafly, (call me Mr. Nelson, or Ed if you like) are you suggesting that research into nuclear physics was a waste of taxpayer money? If you do, then you'd probably be a subject of either German or Russian dictatorship. What about research into thermodynamics? Or electromagnetism? Nobody had any idea what these things were until someone thought "why does this happen?" If you'd rather live purely on faith alone and reject all technology as arcane work of the faithless, then you best cancel your ISP account and go live like the Amish, because right now you're using the fruit of your opponents' labour. America is a world leader in scientific research, and try as some might, that isn't about to change. ENelson 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for restating my point above Ed. As for the issue of wasting your tax dollars Mr. schlafly, the study discussed in this particular article is taking place in Oldenburg, Germany. On top of that, it makes no mention of any government funding, be it the German government or the American government. If your tax dollars are really the reason that this research upsets you so much then hopefully you can rest a little easier tonight. --BillOhannity 20:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • After this long diversion in to the politics of science, I still wonder where the quoted article states that the researchers search in vain? Can someone point to paragraph and line number? The front-page gives the impression that the editor who put it there either didn't read the quoted article, or didn't understand it. Order 21:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Assuming the unproven suggestion that the homing capabilities cannot be explained by material science, how do non-materialist approaches explain the homing capabilities of birds? Order 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


  • There is no reason that a theory cannot be true.
  • Possibly; but this requires assumption.
  • research into nuclear physics was a waste of taxpayer money?
  • I would precisely say it was. And for all this glorious research, look at all the problems it brought. And more specifically, it was awfully cute the way the KGB got the U.S. taxpayer to pay for it, only to carry on an insane nuclear arms race at what cost for half a century. We don't have to worry about godless commies nuking us anymore, we progressed to non-state jihadists nobody can even locate to negotiate with, if it were possible.
Thank you very much, to both the rational scientists and the commie scum who made it all possible. (Oh, you don't believe the KGB did it? read J. Robert Oppenheimer's bio. Yes indeed the Rosenberg's were scapegoats--Oppenheimer's the guy who should've fried in the chair). Rob Smith 21:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
How about computer technology Rob? Or medical technology? Or any of the countless other technologies we all use everyday? --BillOhannity 21:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Possible news item

Suggestion for the news section:

It's rather frightening to see than anybody can be corrupt once they're at the top. ENelson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The link references the article "BBC Documentaries Censored by Dutch Evangelicals". Looks like a good article for Wikipedia, not here. --Crocoite 17:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Why not? Is the news area purely for slashing at Liberals? Isn't it a form of censorship to block out all criticisms but greatly encourage others?? I thought that was what you hated about the mainstream media. Oh well, guess it's always easier to rationalize censorship when you're not the side suffering it. ENelson 19:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
This isn't censorship. Calling it censorship is another example of deceit and liberal style. This is simply not repeating factually incorrect information. First the liberals want to promote evolution on their own channels like the BBC and now they are complaining when more sensible people don't parrot them. CalebRookwood 19:50, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
What? Of course it's censorship. They refuse to air things unless they meet their exacting specifications. That is exactly the problem most conservapedians have with the liberal media. It is hyopcritical to suggest that now that Conservative media outlets do it, it's suddenly OK. ENelson 19:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia and Google hits

If you type Conservapedia into Google you get over 600,000 Google hits. I think that is considerably more than a few months ago. Can anyone better inform me on this matter in regards to how many you would get in the past? By the way, if you type in "Conservapedia" and "atheism" into Google you get 309,000 Google hits.  :) Conservative 00:02, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow! Note also that if you type in "liberal" in Google, we're number 2 ... and number 1 in accuracy.--Aschlafly 00:06, 3 October 2007 (EDT)