Talk:Main Page/archive31

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Breaking News and how it applies to the liberal media

"The liberal media are returning to Presidential candidate John McCain, declaring that "McCain still has a double-digit base of support" and has "seen modest upticks in New Hampshire polls" and "gained some ground in Florida and California as Giuliani's lead narrowed." McCain is scheduled to be on a Sunday news talk show for the third week in a row. [3]" So what does the fact that the article is written by a liberal have to do at ALL with what the article is about? Why mention that it's a liberal newspaper? To my mind (albeit liberal), it seems that this encyclopedia is more about insulting liberals than anything else. Sure, I think politicians and anything related to politics is fair game, but I don't see why everything has to be so polarized! The fact that McCain gained some ground and the fact that he is going to be meeting with some people on Sunday has nothing to do at all with this being a liberal article. In fact, as liberal media has such a negative connotation here, it detracts from the main point of the article and instead draws focus to the fact that it was written by a liberal. Can we please be more careful with choosing our words?! Thanks! =) ObiBinks 17:41, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Dumbledore is gay

J. K. Rowling announced that one of the key characters in Harry Potter books, professor Dumbledore is gay. Not only does these books teach whitchcraft to children but now they allso promote gay agenda. Mayby a subject worth mentioning. [1] ConanO 16:08, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Well obviously we shall all have to confiscate this book from out children now! Tubesock 10:57, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

That's... strange. I don't see why she would bother to do that. Conan, have you read HP? There really is very, very little indication evidence within the book that he was gay (I'd personally argue there was none, but some people read into things more than I). So whether or not it turns out he was gay is really irrelevant, since you don't know it reading the book. It could turn out that he was a drug-dealer as well, but there weren't any drugs in the book, so why would it matter? I do find it very strange that, after the fact, JKR would bother to say that he's gay. If anything's pushing the gay agenda (which I would doubt, but to each his own) it's not the books themselves, it's JKR outside of the books. HelpJazz 16:26, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
I haven't read any of the books, but this announcment by J. K Rowling is getting a lot of attention in diffrent media. ConanO 16:32, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
I have personally read the books and I can assure you there is no such content. :P --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 16:54, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
So JK Rowling decided to make this up now, after millions read her books. What a liberal stunt that is. I'm not sure if or how to publicize her new claim.--Aschlafly 18:59, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Liberals applying revisionism to their acts, or to make a point, deserve absolutely no notice whatsoever. It is yet another glaring example of their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 19:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Is it a... "liberal stunt"? Do liberals commonly engage in this sort of marketing? I like the HP books and wouldn't like to so quickly condemn their author without a reasonable basis... Feebasfactor 19:48, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, i atleast don't like the idea to get kids first to admire an character in a book and then afterwards slip in information like this. I don't allso know how planned this was from Rowlings part, but she should have known how keenly liberal press would jump on the subject and spread the word. ConanO 20:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Right, ConanO. JK Rowling did a liberal bait-and-switch, getting young people to like a character and later declaring, without any justification, that he's gay! Her stunt is so transparent (she's pandering to the liberal media that promote her books) that is not even worth publicizing.--Aschlafly 20:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, knowing the liberal bias of the MSM... that does sort of make sense. I'm seeing their bias towards homosexuality in action yet again, and I guess JKR is just complying (quite disappointingly) because the it's the liberal press she's marketing to... Feebasfactor 20:23, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Right. JKR's books sales are dependent directly on the positive press she and her books get in the media. If JKR were to declare that she opposes the homosexual agenda or is pro-life, the media would drop her like a stone and her enormous books sales would decline.--Aschlafly 20:50, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
JKR herself said that she asked her editor to omit a reference that had been made to a past girlfriend of Dumbledore so she (JKR) probably had it in mind. I also think it's irrelevant and you right-wingers are making a mountain out of a molehill.Alloco1 10:00, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Schlafly, I think your problem with this "revelation" continues to be a misunderstanding about what being gay is. Being gay isn't a political statement - instead, it's a deeply-rooted personality trait, and an aspect of personal identity. You may disagree with being gay, but that doesn't mean that everyone who says "x is gay," is making a political statement. You shouldn't look for hidden motives in JKR's statement; she clearly just thinks of her character this way, and who are you to try to suppress her artistic vision, or blast it because it doesn't conform with your vision of white-washed America?

Further, I think it's incorrect to characterize this as a "bait-and-switch," any more than the reality of "coming out" is a bait and switch. Since society represses and harasses "out" homosexuals, many gay men and women prefer to remain "in the closet" for a good deal of time, or maybe just don't realize that they're gay for a long time, meaning that the friends of many gay men and women often won't know their friend is gay. When their friend finally comes out, is it proper to say that the friends have been "duped" in an elaborate "bait-and-switch"? Obviously, the friends are faced with what is (for some) a tough choice: accept the person for who he or she is, or feel "betrayed," get on your pedestal, and scream about the immorality of homosexuality? A true friend - and a true Christian - should probably opt for the former course... don't you think? The lesson that JKR's trying to teach us, if she's trying to teach any lesson at all, is that homosexuality is not so obvious, and is not so dangerous that we ought to push away friends or family for being gay.-Chaplinsky 11:37, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Better question. Does anyone here, other than me, know people who are gay, or know people who have "come out" since they've been friends? And how did you react? How did you think of your friends after they came out? Any differently? For my part, the answer is "no" - it shouldn't, and didn't, affect our friendship in any way.-Chaplinsky 11:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't think you can say that Schlafly doesn't know what "being gay is". His older brother John Schlafly is a homosexual and he has been supported by both Andrew and his mother ever since he decided to come out in 1992. I don't think Andrew is against people who are homosexual, just the homosexual agenda. He probably also doesn't understand why the author of the book had to announce something like this after the books were published and it didn't really add anything to the story. --Steven45 12:09, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
  • This is typical of Liberal Deceit. JK Rowling, a supporter of the international homosexual conspiracy aims to indoctrinate young people into believing being gay is ok. Its a disgrace and I for one will boycott any shop selling the Harry Potter series. Boru 07:30, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
That (boycotting) is what you should have been doing all along. Those books dabble heavily in witchcraft and pagan idolatry and should not be read by children or by adults who intend to uphold the sanctity of the 10 Commandments and serve our Lord. --Steven45 12:47, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Don't you guys think you're making just a LITTLE bit of a big deal about this? If you will actually read it in context, Aschlafly, it was an answer to a direct question: "Has Dumbledore ever had a love interest," not a publicity stunt. And for God's sake, Steven45, it's a book! A fictional story! Any reasonable person will realize that nothing supernatural portrayed in the book is actually possible.--Tfulton 20:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
So what you're saying is that we should ignore it, Tfulton? Just ignore it? And the effects that all of that has on our children, we should ignore that too? I don't think so. Karajou 20:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
What effects that it has on our children?--Tfulton 10:57, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
How about getting our kids to think that bad things are good for them for starters. And your dead horse question was previously answered; now quit beating it. Karajou 20:28, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
So should we ban any commercial that says that you should eat at McDonalds or something that says that you should eat potato chips? Having a gay character is hardly forcing the "homosexual agenda" onto any readers. ObiBinks 19:50, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Your wrong. She clearly tried to force the gay agenda upon the readers. The question asked was "Did Dumbledore ever find true love?" She then responded that he was gay. It wasn't even in the book, and nothing makes any notion that he was gay, she just made it up after the fact. I had the utmost respect for Ms. Rowling, but this is absolutely ridiculous. His sexuality had nothing to do with the story, and was a clear attempt to expose young children to the perversions of the homosexual lifestyle. Lukecorlando 20:01, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I would disagree- she wasn't trying to force the gay agenda on the readers - otherwise it would mention he was gay in the book - I think this was a marketing ploy - where she felt that since she already had a bunch of heterosexual relationships, mentioning that one guy is gay would only boost the book's popularity (and it's not like she could somehow increase the popularity of the book by announcing dumbledore was straight - since everyone already assumed that).--IDuan 20:12, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
No, Iduan, Lukecorlando is right. Rowling was obviously pandering to the pro-homosexual media at the expense of children hooked on her books. It was an exploitation of the worst kind.--Aschlafly 20:14, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
The fact is, there are gay people in this world. There always have been and always will be. Although you may think that homosexuality is wrong, or is at least undesirable, it would be simply irresponsible to teach our children to hate those who are different. In the words of the Dalai Lama, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." There will always be disagreements on what is the right or wrong way to live one's life, but I don't know of a single person who does not appreciate kindness and compassion. I say that Dumbledore being gay is all the better, because it shows our children that we can learn to love somebody despite how differently they view the world. The world could really use more love. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleCyder (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure, gay people will exist in this world between now and the Second Coming. As will adulterers, and drunkards, and thieves, and murderers. Does that mean that we say that what they are doing is not sin? That's not going to do anyone any favors--least of all those caught in the toils of their particular sins.--TerryHTalk 22:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
In other words, you like the propaganda effect of Rowlings' surprise declaration that a popular character is gay, despite a lack of any indication of that in her books. I wonder if you would be as thrilled if an unpopular character who suffered from depression and was suicidal was suddenly declared to be gay. I doubt it!--Aschlafly 21:30, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
That would make no difference whatsoever... I don't know what point you're trying to make here. My point is that we should learn to love one another despite our differences in worldview. We should be kind and loving towards suicidal and depressed people as well. After all, they need it the most. Love is Jesus's message, and I'll quote conservapedia to prove it!
"...these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing love for God and for all people." For ALL people! Even homosexuals! AppleCyder 22:22, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
She didn't mention his sexuality in the book because it has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter. If he were straight, and he had a previous relationship with someone, it wouldn't be relevant to the books. If he were gay, and he had a previous relationship with someone, it wouldn't be relevant to the books either. Why would she do something for money?! Her entire family line down to ownage is probably already set for a luxurious life anyway. There is no need for her to try to get money or popularity or anything of that sort. She probably just didn't want the movies to change Dumbledore's character any more than they already have! ObiBinks 21:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

AppleCyder, what you have said angers me greatly! Jesus never preached acceptance of sinful behaviors, and consistently spoke out against homosexuality. Your distortion of the truth is not appreciated here at Conservapedia, and the fact that you would twist the teachings of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to conform to your leftist agenda is disgusting and abominable! Lukecorlando 23:22, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Jesus's message was love. I was merely quoting conservapedia. If you disagree with the factual accuracy of the article on Jesus, I suggest you change it. AppleCyder 23:30, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, apparently this needed to go down here. The books were already out, and no one thought Dumbledore was gay, because as we've said, there was no indication in the book. If she really wanted to try and put a pro-homosexual theme through it, she would have done so through the book - because the children that read her book aren't going to be paying attention to her after they're done with the series and already know the ending.I'm not defending JK Rowling's actions - I'm merely saying that it was obviosly a marketing ploy (perhaps a genius one - again, she had no way of increasing her heterosexual-child audience, but she could increase her homosexual-child audience by retroactively announcing a character as gay - I mean I'm sure she'll make thousands by saying that). Well regardless - we can only speculate whether she was trying to push a homosexual agenda or make money - however, Aschlafly, we can both agree that it was an outrageous and scheming statement, to say the least.--IDuan 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Am I the only one who thinks that Mrs. Rowling, as the sole creator of the Harry Potter universe, has the ultimate authority to do whatever to her characters? And about the book itself, now that Dumbledore is "outed", alot of plot elements fell very nicely into place. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 00:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I think the public has the "ultimate authority, Hoji. They like the books. What is clear, however, is they don't like revisionist thinking on the part of politicians or authors. It was a deceit on Rowling's part to take advantage of her position to foist politics, a social agenda, on her (mostly young) readers. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 03:43, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

"Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests."

"If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism." -- Ann Coulter
It's not deceit and she's not pushing any agenda. She answered a question. Plain and simple. Just as it would not be deceit if she had announced that he was an ultraconservative or a devout christian. --BillOhannity 08:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Since nowhere in the series did she introduce he was Gay, it is certainly a deceit to post-facto introduce it. The woman is like Madonna, an expert in self-promotion and and being a provocateur, is all. If she had introduced into the public record that she was Christian or conservative at any point, and then denied it, that too would have been deceitful. Plain and simple. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 09:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see it as deceit either. Nowhere did it previously say Dumbledore was heterosexual did it? Either way, it does seem silly to me that she would come out after the fact and decide to announce he was gay - either specifically announce it in the book or leave it up to the readers interpretations, in my opinion. --Colest 10:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, gee....that was hard work to agree but make sure you didn't agree with me! You really don't have to go to so much trouble.  :P --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 10:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Just to clear things up, she only even mentioned it because they (the movie director and peopleses =P) wanted him to speak of a woman he once loved, and Rowling said no because Dumbledore is gay. His being gay has NOTHING to do with HP, so she didn't mention it. His being straight had nothing to do with HP, so she wouldn't have mentioned it if that were the case. She wasn't changing the character after the fact, as this still doesn't affect the book. She was merely making sure that the movies didn't make him even more into something that he isn't. And yeah, I completely agree with you, Hoji. If Rowling says that a character she created is gay, then that character is gay. ObiBinks 19:08, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Dumbledore's being gay had nothing to do with the PLOT. It did have much to do with the books, however. The Harry Potter series is all about tolerance. That's the ultimate message, which has clearly been lost of many of you. --Tfulton 19:36, 29 October 2007 (EDT) EDIT: Just because YOU didn't find any indication of homosexuality in the books doesn't mean it wasn't there. Not all gay men are flamboyant and have speech impediments.--Tfulton 19:39, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

JK didn't do this to get more money off her books, she is the richest woman in England, more so than the queen. She probably did it to get a rise out of the ultra religious conservatives who already view Harry Potter as a prowiccan devil book. However by coming out and demanding that Dumbledore is gay, which she obviously hadn't written him as in the books, she is not only taking away an imaginative aspect of the book but she is purposefully alienating people just because they dont share her views of homosexuality. Incredibly immature and it makes me think less of her already.--TomLee 22:11, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

This may surprise you, but rich people crave money (and attention) even more than poor people do. Of course JK Rowling wants more money, more attention, more praise and more respect. Guess what? Bill Gates wants those things also.--Aschlafly 22:07, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Yes this is true, however she could do that in a million otherways, so if she did it just to get attention, then its just marks her immaturity even more. Also, altough Bill Gates is the richest man alive he also has donated more money to charity than any other person in history, not that he didn't make it back or anything...--TomLee 22:11, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

You're naive if you think it is so easy for JK Rowling to stay in the limelight and continue to make big money. Most authors and other media stars inevitably become has-beens longing for their prior attention and income. I'm sure JK Rowling spends good money on publicists to try to keep her as the darling of the media. If you think it's so easy, maybe you should apply for that job! It wouldn't surprise me if her latest stunt was the idea of a publicist, which JK Rowling then agreed to do.
As to Bill Gates, if you define "charity" as giving money to a foundation that you, your father, and your wife control, then he has given a lot. What difference that money has made is debatable, to say the least. A few months back I looked at the giving pattern and found it to be even more hostile to faith-based charity than the U.S. government is! And I haven't noticed any change in Bill Gates' desire to make more money just because he has a lot already. Have you?--Aschlafly 16:29, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Well seeing as there is a court ordered "seperation of Church and State" thing going on, it would be hard for the government to give to faith based charities, because it would promote one faith over others. By the way, theres no reason to be hostile, this is just a talk page... and concerning JK Rowling's need for limelight and money, she has come out with other ways than declaring Dumbledore gay, in fact she wrote several Italic text hand writtenItalic text copies of a spinoff of harry potter which are encrusted with jewels. The few she has decided to sell currently being sold at auction. Also I'm not saying that JK Rowling wont go out of the limelight if she stays quiet, if she really wants more fame and money, theres always another book to write, which due to her already existing fame would instantly be a best seller despite its quality. All I'm saying is that she didn't do this to stay in the limelight, or if she did then it is a bad decision on her part that reflects poorly on her character --TomLee 16:58, 4 November 2007 (EST)

TomLee, whatever you do, don't go into the field of public relations because you seem to be clueless about what motivates the media. Notice how JK Rowling's claim that her character is gay made headlines, but her efforts that you cite above did not? Don't think for a moment that JK Rowling's public relations advisors were surprised by that. It was as predictable as it was transparent.--Aschlafly 23:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Well perhaps comprehension isn't your strongest subject, but if you cannot see... I am not disagreeing with you. I am simply expressing my opinion that "I" don't think that its very logical that she used the Gay card for more book sales. However, I am also saying that it's possible and if it's true, it's in bad taste. --TomLee 20:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Why did you change it?

Not that it's a big deal or anything, but why did you change the "discussion board" to "talk page." I liked the old title better. Chippeterson

Because we generally refer to the talk pages as "talk pages", not "discussion". Jallen 21:19, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Jim Ogonoski

The main page news on the by-election in Massachusetts suggest that it might be a backlash against gay marriage, while the linked Fox News article doesn't mention this subject. Maybe Fox didn't mention it because Republican Candidate Jim Ogonoski, an Air force veteran, didn't run on an anti-gay message - he is apparently against as well gay marriage and the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. He ran on a foreign policy message, namely that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the president and the intelligence community failed the US, but that it would at this stage wrong to withdraw from Iraq. He proposes that the US should rebuild Iraq and engage with its neighbours at the same time. Maybe the front page should say Voters reward republican candidate for admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake.Order 22:47, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Errors in Al Gore's film

You are quoting a report by Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I was pleased that on the main page you state he is a famed skeptic of climate change (which he is) rather than a famed authority (which he is not). I note that in both this story, and your previous one on Mr. Gore's film was that you omitted an observation by the British judge about "An Inconvenient Truth", specifically, "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Of course the film contains mistakes. So does this web site.

The Viscount Monkton once designed a puzzle and offered a large prize to anyone who could solve it. He claimed that he had to sell his ancestral home to honor the prize, but later admitted to making up the story (lying?) to hype his current puzzle project.

He also once denied that hetrosexuals could contact AIDS.

I am not sure why the Christian Right dismisses global warming, but you would be better served to quote someone with some authority in the subject. While most scientists agree that climate change is real, there are some legitimate dissenters. Certainly, there are better authorities that this exagerating remnant of a failed aristocracy.

For those who don't believe in climate change, I suggest you scan The Wall Street Journal. That paper is certainly no fan of Mr. Gore, or of climate change theories, but just read the business articles and a pattern starts to emerge: Vineyards opening in Canada, US & Canadian coast guards adjusting their routes due to less sea ice, increase in freight rates on the Great Lakes due to depth loss, easier access to resources in the artic etc. One gets a sense that those who move large amounts of money have accepted climate change as a fact and are now looking to profit from it. --TraJSmith 14:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

It's not that we don't deny global warming. We just don't feel that man is contributing significantly to global warming. Ultimately God is the one who controls just how warm it's going to get. If God in his infinite wisdom has justification for global warming than man should not attempt to alter his almighty plan. God has created every man, animal and flower on this planet and if (like the dinosaurs from 8000 B.C.) he sees a reason to remove them, we should not question his divine authority. --Steven45 15:11, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Exactly right, Steven! Nice to see a post of clarity by someone who knows what he is doing! If I can ever be of help, my contact info is given on my user page, and my email is enabled through this wiki. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
But by this same logic, would you say that we should never provide medicine to someone who is sick? Or evacuate when a hurricane is coming? Or put out a forest fire? All of these events could easily be interpreted as an act of god (in fact, I believe there's a debate page somewhere that says natural disasters should just be renamed acts of god), yet we try to prevent and/or stop all of them. Where and why do we/should we draw the line? --BillOhannity 19:35, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I to am a little stumped by Steven45's reply. I thought God gave us free will. Certainly I control the temperature in my house. It is the work of the Chinese to make their air and water quality terrible. Where is the line? If, say, we contaminate the enitre atmosphere through whatever means, is that our doing or the Almighty's?--TraJSmith 23:31, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Global warming may or may not be happening. It is irresponsible to ignore it. God ultimately controls everything but that does not mean He does not leave things up to Free Will. God gave us dominion and part of that dominion is to protect what He gave us. SkipJohnson 13:07, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  • It is the egocentric ideas of Man, to think he can control, stop, alter, Global Warming. That it is upon us, there is little doubt. That it could be getting colder in some spots, warmer in others, is a distinct possibility. That this has happened many times before (Unless one is YEC, and then it is impossible, I guess) is pretty much fact. Most scientists believe if it is indeed mainly caused by Man, nothing we can do now will lessen or stop it, at least have enough of an effect to make a difference. If mostly a natural cycle, same is true. Mankind will adapt or perish, as is God's will, subject to the abilities of Man to exercise control over himself and the planet which he was given dominion over by God. The whole point is, the Gore crowd really actually cares little about the future. Their agenda is mainly political, and rooted firmly in the present and near-future. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:11, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
FYI, the YEC perspective is that yes, we had the Ice Age, shortly after the Flood. I can't speak to the data that show an apparent warm-cool cycle.--TerryHTalk 20:19, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Not Fond of the Main Page Color

Are you like getting ready for Valentines Day in advance? :P --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 09:16, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

It's too redish/pink! --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 09:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I suggest you get a new monitor, or possibly, just possibly adjust your settings! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 10:13, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I've tested the colour change with Firefox and Internet Explorer, both producing similar results. Do you really prefer the old gray background? It came across as being quite dull. Jallen 11:15, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
It looks pink to me (Maxthon, which uses the IE engine). I think the page looks fine by itself, but when I go from a normal (light blue page) to the main page it seems jarring. What if it were just the same color as the other pages? HelpJazz 11:29, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I personally think that the new color is to distracting when I am reading the front page. Perhaps a more light shade of pink. But I personally think that a light blue would look the best! --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 12:19, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Isn't all this pink a bit ... erm ... homosexualist? RogerDailey 13:07, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
That user was a vandal/sock account. The "pink/red" colour was not intended, I have changed the colour again. Jallen 21:09, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Beth, blue really isn't a good choice. All the links on CP are blue, the logo is part blue, if you are not logged in, everything is blue. Jallen 21:13, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
  • People! People! You need to look at it with a GOOD monitor, and one that is adjusted optimally, which 40% most likely are not. Also it depends on the Browser one is using. In Firefox, it now looks a disgusting mustard/gold. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:02, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Anyone for this color? It is more of a neutral color compared to linen, which has a pink tinge. :P --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 10:33, 26 October 2007 (EDT) P.S. If you don't like it, change it back please!

I like the ivory. It's neutral and provides better contrast.--TerryHTalk 10:40, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts exactly! The blue, which I thought might work, does not show links very well. Ivory is light enough not to be to a shocking contrast but not to light as to not be noticed! :) --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 10:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

  • The "problem" (and I am not sure there is one) is one of too many cooks. Someone with graphic design knowledge and marketing should be making the decisions as to colors, layout and all of that. Online "covers" sell as surely as those of printed magazines. Before someone is undertaking to change things, they should state the equipment they are using (monitor capabilities, graphics card, etc.) and qualifications. That seems a bit draconian, so perhaps we could go back to having Jallen in charge of improvements (as Andy has appointed her), recognizing not everyone will like any changes whatsoever, and that most will need a period of adjustment to get used to them? We are not going to be "voting" on changes here. CP's presentation of its Main Page is one of marketing, not contributor opinion. Those having issues should perhaps contact Jallen on her talk page, or via email, to discuss, rather than making yet another public issue or being sarcastic. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Is it ivory still (I have slightly 'different' colour vision)?. Whatever it is called, I do not admire it at all. Blue power! Pachyderm 18:01, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Drop outs

Schools are letting kids drop out because they'll lower the test scores. Yet another failure of No Child Left Behind. Schools know they'll be penalized if they keep poorly performing kids in school. Maestro 09:26, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Thousands of failures, but millions of successes! I think those odds are worth the benefit. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 10:15, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I have to say it TK, I'm rather surprised (although quite glad) that you're willing to admit that there have been "millions of successes" within our public school system. I'm glad we can agree on something. --BillOhannity 17:23, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Unlike ideologue liberals, Bill, I actually believe in giving credit where credit is due. That of course, unlike liberals, doesn't blind me to knowing the horrible problems public schools face due to the NEA and the whole Secular-Progressive Movement. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:34, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but we always knew that NCLB sucks.--Tfulton 20:16, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


Re Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer's comments about California wildfires: First, Global Warming could well be a factor in the fires. Second, Boxer was referring to the shortage of manpower and equipment as a result of deployment of National Guard troops to Iraq,which also is credible. The fact that something is anti-Bush doesn't make it wrong. Wake up!Alloco1 11:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, it does, just like your post, which is an example of Liberal Hysteria! First of the 17,000 some California Guardsmen, only 1,500 or so are in Iraq. Second, as to equipment, there wasn't any delay or lack thereof according to all credible news agencies. Third, the chapparel covered hillsides of Southern California are a result of warm, arid climates such as theirs, because it is already basically desert. More warming, and less rainfall would actually help the area have less vegetation, thus limiting the fire danger. Fourth, both Reid and the even more moronic Boxer have completely backed-off their comments. Fifth, I have looked at your "contributions" before typing this last point, and have concluded you are, or are at least as nutty and insincere as those two Senators. Godspeed to you! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:32, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
There is plenty of equipment and aircraft which are available for use at Camp Pendleton, courtesy of the United States Marine Corps. There is also the growing fact that the fires were started as a result of arson. You wake up, Alloco1. Karajou 18:41, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

This site is growing rapidly!

Interesting as it is, that there have been over 28,700,000 page views to this site (I assume since it began). A more informative indicator of growth would perhaps be the monthly statics for individual IPs i.e. the number of IPs not their addresses (Privacy Policy). This would show the rapid growth in use and user base, as it progresses from month to month. Is it possible to produce such statistics? FactFinder 08:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, it is. And many firms provide such a service, based on unique hits and referrals. Here in the United States we value Free Enterprise. Please feel free to purchase a subscription from any of those companies, and you will have such figures for easy retrieval. Those statistics show that Conservapedia is the fastest-growing educational site on the Internet. It is not CP's responsibility to "prove" the figures compiled by others. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Don't you think that a lot of the page views might be because of the controversy that your site causes and from people like me who are outraged by it?--Tfulton 20:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Of course! Traffic is traffic. The buzz, good or bad, only gets us more word of mouth. If only 10 out of 100 find us of value, and agree with the idea of a Christian-friendly, Conservative-friendly encyclopedia, and they tell one or two others, that is a fantastic amount of growth. And tens of thousands of hits. And as Christians, we believe in redemption, so many of those who come to laugh will be led to see the light, I believe. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:01, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Dear Mr. TK. If the techies at CP or the CP software can't deliver the information I would eagerly follow your suggestion involving Free Enterprise and purchase software like123 LogAnalyser. For this one needs the logfiles. Are the logfiles available so that I may run them through commercially available software? If others have already compiled the figures could you let me know who the others are? As you say, it is not CP's responsibility to "prove" or "provide" figures that are extant elsewhere. As it stands at the moment the figures given for growth are simply a tally of the hits for this site since its inauguration. That tells us nothing about the nature of the exponetial growth from month to month. From this we could draw an accurate graph showing this rapid growth for each month - a steep diagonal line from bottom left (e.g. January 07) to top right (e.g. November 07).
FactFinder 14:06, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
I think the best indicator would be the total computer memory space required for our articles.Conservative 23:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
The growth in the KBs used for articles would certainly show us the quantity of article growth, and may well be a better indicator nor the number of articles since many are like this or this. That of course tells us nothing about the growth in the number of users of this educational, clean, and concise encyclopedia. FactFinder 15:55, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Currently, it appears as if a small number of people are doing the bulk of editing which should not be surprising. I believe I read somewhere that a very large percentage of edits at Wikipedia are done by about 600-700 people. However, my memory could be incorrect in regards to this matter.Conservative 18:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Public schools and atheism

Where in the article[2] for the breaking news does it mention atheism having anything to do with the failure of American students? The article does inform us that Japanese students consistently finish first or second in international achievement tests, apparently due to the rigorous curriculum of math, science, history and geography. Interestingly in Japan, a country with no state religion, only 1% of the population is Christian. Perhaps the solution is to teach Shinto or Buddhism in public schools. FredDangelberry 14:07, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Exactly right, Fred. The point is, instruction based on basic moral principles, no matter the the brand name of the religion, is preferable to teaching none at all, using the vague concepts of right and wrong, moral relativism's based upon the Secular-Progressive revisionist, politically correct precepts. In Japanese schools, they do indeed teach very strong Shinto-based moral precepts, FYI. As for Japan having no state religion, neither does the United States, and the fact that Japan presently does not, is due solely to the United States and a great man by the name of Douglas MacArthur. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:37, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Why include the word atheistic before public schools? This seems to imply that schools that are "atheistic" foster drug abuse, and also suggests that schools that are not "atheistic" would not have a similar problem. I can't help but view this as very naive, since drug abuse has been a problem in every culture and every period of human history. I have friends who attended private Catholic high schools and told me that several of their fellow students used illegal narcotics and hallucinogenics on a regular basis. And from own personal experience, I know dozens of people who call themselves Christians and yet they drink everyday (alcohol is a drug). Drug abuse is not a product of political stance or religious views, as the author of the headline might want you to believe. It stems from emotional problems such as low self-esteem, depression, and feelings of inadequacy, along with cultural upbringing. AppleCyder 20:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Public schools are atheistic and, yes, the lack of right and wrong does make a difference with respect to drugs. Drug use by church goers is a tiny fraction of what it is by non-church goers. Drug use by my class of Christian homeschoolers is zero, while it is perhaps 50% in the public school down the road. Your suggestion that religion does not make a difference is, frankly, absurd.--Aschlafly 20:59, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
How exactly do you know that your Christian homeschoolers don't use drugs? Drug abusers tend to be secretive, and after all, no kid would want their parents to know that they use drugs. But assuming you're correct that none of your homeschoolers have ever tried any drugs, even alcohol, I would attribute that statistic to the fact that they are homeschooled and therefore under extremely close supervision from their parents. Kids who go to public schools are exposed to a multitude of different people and lifestyles, and have a lot more social freedom, leading them to a much greater chance of at least trying drugs or alcohol. Kids who are homeschooled, on the other hand, may not even be aware that people in their community do drugs because they are so isolated from what really goes on. It doesn't matter if these kids are homeschooled as atheists or Christians or anything else, because isolation and supervision is what prevents them from doing drugs. AppleCyder 21:32, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Homeschool kids aren't isolated. That's a false stereotype. They are away from the atheistic environment of public school ... which is precisely the point.--Aschlafly 22:05, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
The atheistic environment of public schools? Public schools, as institutions, hold no religious affiliation, but the students who attend them most certainly do. Public schools are made up of all different types of people (including Christians). Keeping kids out of public schools doesn't keep them away from an "atheistic environment", it keeps them away from the wide diversity of children that live in their community, who most likely come from a wide variety of backgrounds and religious traditions. If your goal is to keep children away from people who are different, that is isolation. AppleCyder 22:15, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
AppleCyder, you're in denial. And there is no denying that public schools are atheistic. Sure there are "all different types of people" there, but they can't say a classroom prayer and the environment is distinctly and overwhelming atheistic.--Aschlafly 22:18, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Public schools are not atheistic, they just doesn't promote any single religion as being better than another. It's not as if teachers preach to their students about the non-existence of God, they just don't have an opinion on it. They allow their students to form their own opinions. I find it hard to believe that you consider public schools to be "atheistic" considering that I took an Eastern religions class in high school. You seem to equate "atheists" with "anyone who doesn't explicitly approve of Christianity".
  • And please, do not say that I am "in denial" just because I disagree with you. I respect your opinion and most certainly want to hear it. I expect the same from you. AppleCyder 22:54, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Public Notice: Catholic Boys schools may not have the drug busts that public schools often are credited with, but having spent fourteen years as an officer, at a public school, the vast majority of those who are buying the drugs, are dealers from local private schools. (See, they have the money, and the scarcity factor)--Markos88 22:47, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment merely reinforces my point: atheistic environments attract drugs. The dealers you reference can sell drugs more easily in the atheistic public school environment than elsewhere.--Aschlafly 23:11, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
AppleCyder, while I completely agree with everything you've said, I would advise you to drop the subject. This is coming from someone who has argued the same points several times to no avail. But I have to ask, Andy: are you saying that it's okay for Christian private school students to sell drugs? I don't know if I'm misreading or misunderstanding what you said, maybe you can clarify? --BillOhannity 23:21, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between an atheistic environment (which is what the public schools have, inherently, without religion) than everything in that environment supporting atheism. I'm going to be a public school teacher in a couple of years, and I don't support atheism. I assume the front page comment is meant to refer to the latter. DanH 23:32, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Right. Note that if someone refers to "a boring party," that does not mean everyone at the party is a boring person. That means the party itself was boring. Ditto for describing public schools as atheistic: that is commentary on the public school environment and rules, not a commentary on every single person who might be there.--Aschlafly 23:52, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Surely the appropriate term to use here is 'secular' rather than 'atheist'. Atheism referes to disbelief in God; an institution cannot by definition have such a belief (just as a building, or a mountain, or a car, or a tree cannot have such a belief), irrespective of what its human members might believe or not believe. Of course, a secular school might be staffed solely by atheists, but then again it might not. And the secular Wisconsin scxhool which expelled drug-using pupils seems to be taking a pretty strong line with the problem. Pachyderm 08:26, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
No, atheism entails a hostility to religion, an insistence on censoring prayer in the classroom. That is what public schools are. Secular connotes no religious affiliation, but not a hostility to faith. Public schools were secular in the first part of the 20th century, but now they are atheistic.--Aschlafly 21:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

New York Times

Another examples of bias in the New York Times here, but I don't know if this really amounts to anything. Apparently one scientist retracting his work in order to defend evolution is important news, even though scientists do it all the time. I think the only notable part is why he did it: to spite creation scientists citing his work. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, but then again I didn't use to notice this sort of thing as much; you can decide if it's worth mentioning here or on any other articles. Feebasfactor 18:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

New here

Could someone show me where I go to report vandalism? I reverted an instance just now. LawrenceDalton 19:11, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Thank you so much, Lawrence! :-) You can report it to the CP Desk, or the page of any active Admin! Welcome to CP, btw! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 19:40, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm new here as well. I look forward to helping out however I can! JHoover 14:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Welcome to you as well, JHoover! I left you a special message on your talk page. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Huckabee passes Romney in nationwide poll

After an overwhelming victory at the FRC's Value Voter Summit and the Value Voters Debate straw poll, Mike Huckabee's nationwide poll numbers move in front of Mitt Romney's according to the nations most accurate polling service.[1] I guess social conservatives do matter after all! --Tash 20:56, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Golden Compass

Never heard of it before. can some one explain what this book is about and how it misleads the children?--Abednego 15:44, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

In the trilogy, a young girl, Lyra Belacqua, becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium; another character, an ex-nun turned particle physicist named Mary Malone, describes Christianity as “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” (Far from Narnia - p. 1)
Near the end of “The Golden Compass,” Lord Asriel asks Lyra to bring him a copy of the Bible, and he reads her a passage from Genesis. In Lyra’s world, the Bible isn’t quite the same as ours: when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, the first thing they see is the adult form of their daemons. “But it en’t true, is it?” Lyra asks of the story. “Not true like chemistry or engineering, not that kind of true? There wasn’t really an Adam and Eve?” Lord Asriel tells her to think of the story as an “imaginary number, like the square root of minus one.” Its truth might not be tangible, but you can use it to calculate “all manner of things that couldn’t be imagined without it.” The metaphor is not just cunning; it helps explain why Pullman, a champion of science, writes in the fantastic mode. (Far from Narnia - p. 4) --Crocoite 16:38, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
So... is he, in this case, suggesting a non-literal interpretation of the bible? I don't quite get it. His works don't sound very Christian-friendly, particularly not to biblical literalists, but I'm not entirely sure I understand where the atheistic deceit is... Feebasfactor 18:08, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Pullman represents God as a decrepit and perverse angel in his novels, who captures the dead in a "prison camp" afterlife. As one fallen angel tells one of the novel's young heroes:
The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty – those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.
When the hero finally finds this "god," he is ultimately described as a "demented and powerless" creature that "could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery." The boy then kills this "god" by breaking him out of his crystal cell, thereby evaporating him. The only "god" in this universe is matter.
Meanwhile, the Church is depicted as an organization bent on power, control and the torture of children by cutting. An atheist's 'Narnia' knockoff --Crocoite 18:28, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
These articles are describing (mostly) the book's sequels, not the book itself.AshantiMendez 23:53, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

More Liberal Deceit

I thought I would share this, as it's another example of liberals censoring conservative free speech:


I added this to the Main Page. Thanks for the suggestion. --Crocoite 14:19, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
If you think that the news on the BNP is worthy to be featured on the front page, why don't you feature this story as well [3] Order 19:06, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Deceit?!! Are you kidding me?!! Nick Griffin is the head of the British National Party, a group which espouses that Britain should be a 'white-only country',and is filled with Nazi admirers . Nick Griffin has called the Holocaust a hoax and a scam and has demonstrated that he firmly subscribes to 'Holocaust Revisionism'. While the BNP has VERY recently said that the have added Jewish members to their group, it is quite similar to the Ku Klux Klan turning about and adding Catholics to their group after maligning them for so long. A group that is 'racist lite' is still racist.

While you can support the right of people (no matter how odious) to speak at public universities, I don't think the protests against this guy should be labeled 'liberal deceit' anymore than the protests against Ahmadinejad could be called that. --Tordenvaer 16:23, 29 October 7007 (EDT)

  • So, you don't think they should be labeled deceit do you? What do they call it in Canada? No matter his POV, does that excuse the demons of the left shouting him down just as they do anyone they disagree with? Can you provide evidence of conservatives regularly shouting down liberal speakers, Democrats or Holocaust Deniers? Does the same radical liberal mob that exists on college campuses shout down mass-murderer Hugo Chavez? No. Therefore it is indeed deceit. You just don't like it applied to people of your own persuasion, is all! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 19:46, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm not following your reasoning for why it is deceit. Liberals do something that conservatives don't do, therefore it is deceit? Conservative...errr..."radical mobs" have every right to protest anything they choose, just as everyone else does. As for an example of "shouting down" someone they disagree with, how about rallies at abortion clinics, anti-gay rallies? Do they count? Also, I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to try and link holocaust deniers with liberals. --BillOhannity 20:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it should be labeled deceit. Deceit as it is defined on Conservapedia as "the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another". Someone who is a "Holocaust revisionist" or a racist engages in deceit. While I might not agree with the tactics the protestors, how can it be labeled deceit? It might be counter-productive, it might be feeding into the delusions of people like Nick Griffin, it might just be simply a mistake but its not deceit, that is my point. Having said that, I do think that sometimes you do need to yell at those who represent evil , whether it be someone like Ahmadinejad , Nick Griffin, any random abortion rights activist (they might be good people on their own, but try and tell me that they don't represent evil). Also, I am not in any way, shape or form a liberal so you can forget that, also I'm not sure what the "what do they call it in Canada" quip was about, I'm a US citizen, have been since the day I was born and I fully intend to remain one until the day I die. --Tordenvaer 20:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Just don't abuse the government computers at work, and I am sure you won't run afoul of HSA, or even OPM! ;-) --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:08, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Atheistic schools?

The article linked to the news bit about drop outs doesn't mention faith at all, but it mentions race and poverty as one of the main causes for drop-outs. The front page seems to confuse "non-religious" with "atheistic". Order 19:19, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I think these are essentially considered to be synonymous, and most public schools are considered "atheistic" due to not permitting (censoring?) prayer in classrooms. Feebasfactor 22:57, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
The censoring of prayer in the classroom is one indicator of the atheistic culture in public schools, but not the only one. Other indicators include:
  • prohibition on display of the Ten Commandments
  • prohibition on display of anything religious
  • lack of virtually any mention of Jesus Christ
  • zero spirituality
  • a focus on materialism
  • lack of teaching of moral right and wrong

--Aschlafly 23:46, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

In addition, there is the promoting of evolutionary pseudoscience as fact which is a important component of atheist ideology. Conservative 23:53, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

  • And official promotion of the Homosexual agenda, teach from an early age that being Gay = "good". Recently there was the case in Boulder, CO, of the High School paying for an outside company to speak to 10th Graders, where they were told it was "natural" and "right" for them to "experiment" with drugs and sex of all varieties. This is another way liberal deceit is introduced to kids at a very vulnerable time.[4] --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Ya I'm not so sure that public school are pushing any "Homosexual agenda" I attend a public school with a a few gay couples, gay and lesbian, and have never felt pressured to give up my heterosexual tenencies. Also it might be more the other way around. Here in my hometown, there is a scandal involving the male principal of one of the larger religious schools being arrested for prostitution, wearing a dress, fake breasts, heels, makeup, etc.--TomLee 22:23, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Nick Griffin

Describing Griffin as a 'British Nationalist' is misrepresenting the man. He is the leader of the neo-Nazi British National Party, a group which advocates the expulsion of non-white British, and a disproportionate numbers of whose members have committed racially-aggravated assaults and terrorist offences.Griffin uses the threat of fundamentalist terrorism to whip up hatred against all British Moslems. This site should not be giving comfort to the neo-Nazi BNP. Pachyderm 08:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Some information on BNP neo-Nazi terrorists: Pachyderm 08:34, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

You would think that good christian folk like you all wouldn't want to support this guy. Goodnessgracious 16:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
That's "Christian" with a capital "c", and no one is advocating "support" for this guy.--Aschlafly 16:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
He is being given implicit support by being described as a 'British nationalist' rather than a 'British National Socialist' or 'British neo-Nazi', and by the sympathetic tone of the item. This guy is poison and Conservapedia ought not to be risking its reputation by extending credibility to Griffin and the BNP. Pachyderm 17:02, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Dead clam

They didn't know it was the oldest until after it was dead. And would it have been less tragic if someone killed it to eat it? What's with the anti-science attitude? Maestro 12:28, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Once upon a time it was science that discovered in 1844 that there was not a single display in the various museum collections of a flightless bird called the great auk; to correct that problem the scientists ordered the killing, stuffing, and mounting of the last 50 of the birds left alive. So what's with your pro-science attitude when it comes to killing something "just because"? Karajou 07:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
A mere 160 years ago.Maestro 16:10, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
That's not true. The last two Auks were killed by private collectors, and the bird was doomed to extinction long before the "final pair" was found.[5] [6] [7]. This is just the last killed pair. There were still Auks seen around the areas until 1952.[8] Scientists predicted its downfall and politicians tried to put in laws, but in the end, overhunting (not private collecting) destroyed the species.
Yes it is true. The species became extinct in 1844 through a combination of years of overhunting and the final push by science to get mounted specimens in their museums. Their is nothing related to them being alive until 1952; where you heard that one I don't know, but it's false. Karajou 15:52, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Just remember, you said "1952"; the source you provided said "1852". Karajou 15:58, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
1952 was a typo. I obviously meant 1852. If you read the sources I've provided, you'll see that blaming "science" is hardly appropriate considering it was only a few Danish museum curators along with several private collectors. This is an addition to egg collectors who destroyed large scale nesting sites. You are greatly exaggerating the claim that "the scientists ordered the killing, stuffing, and mounting of the last 50 of the birds left alive". They did not order this killing of the last known specimens, and according to Conservapedia's page on Richard Dawkins, a museum curator is not an academic position.
So, you're saying your purpose in coming here is to continue the Richard Dawkins fight? Karajou 16:29, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing the point was that if we love nature we should not be over-zealous. --Ed Poor Talk 16:45, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week???

With the greatest of respect to Thomas Kinkade, you've got to be kidding.

With a whole world of art out there you choose a guy who sells his art on home shopping shows for masterpiece of the week? Well, it's a bold move, I'll grant you that.

What's next? Dogs playing poker? --MrJohnSmith 16:25, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

What you just said sounds less like art criticism and more like a personal problem. Karajou 16:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Do you really have nothing better to do?

And I happen to like Dogs Playing Poker, thank you very much. DanH 16:43, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

My apologies Dan. I thought this was a serious site. By all means put up Dogs Playing Poker next month.
And Karajou, I am not sure what you mean when you refer to a "personal problem". I was merely trying to point out that the featured artist is not a person traditionally considered a great artist. Nothing personal. I don't know the man. --MrJohnSmith 20:09, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
It's just the way you said it in the first place. Karajou 07:43, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Rebuttal to attack on Huckabee's conservative record

With Mike Huckabee consistently up in the national polls with other top tier candidates (namely, all the ones who could not fit the Florida Value Voter debate into their busy campaign day) there is bound to be attacks on his record. Conservapedia placed an article on their front page which elluded that Huckabee was a "Christian Clinton", I think it would be beneficial to actually look his record as governor.

When looking at the following achievements and tax increase explanations, its important to keep in mind that the Arkansas legislature was controlled by Democrats (When Huckabee was elected lieutenant governor, he was the fourth Republican to be elected to statewide office since Reconstruction) During his tenure, Huckabee[9]:

  1. Pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state

history — a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families

  1. led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights
  2. Reduced welfare rolls in Arkansas in half
  3. doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married.
  4. cut taxes and fees over 90 times during my ten-and-a-half years as governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million.
  5. Left office, Arkansas had over $800 million in state surplus.

Now, below is an explanation of tax increase in Arkansas during Huckabees tenure (check out this video to see Huckabee’s explanation):

Sales Tax, 1996 : Vote of the people( referendum) Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes, 1999: 80% vote on referendum for fuel tax Sales Tax, 2001

Nursing Home Bed Tax, 2001: Was supported by the nursing home industry, and saved Arkansas from having huge tax increases in the future. (See more info on this here: [10]) It not raised half of the nursing homes would have been shut down. [11]

Sales Tax, 2002: Huckabee publicly opposed it and did not sign the bill.

Income Surcharge Tax: did not sign, was later repealed.

Tobacco Tax, 2003: This is why CATO hates him. Haven’t really seen a response to this yet (I’m sure there is one out there though). Smoking causes huge health care cost to states, (not to mention death and second hand smoke) and while this may not be inline with the big corporation neoconservatives, its inline with Huck’s values.

As far as him destroying the Republican movement in Arkansas, here is Huckabee response to Mrs. Schlafly’s comments on Huckabee destroying the conservative movement in Arkansas. You can see his response here: [12] (moved to main content page, deleted here to avoid copy penalty) Hope this helps, --Tash 00:01, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Huckabee helped many "Republicans". The same drunken spenders who single-handedly destroyed the Contract with America, out-spent the Democrats, and expanded government. Many of those supported by Huckabee & Company were liberal Republican candidates. Establishing his conservative credentials by extolling his help for the Republican Party might help with the party's left of center wing, but Conservatives won't soon forget his deceit. Phyllis Schlafly needs to get out the hairbrush and "educate" her son, apparently. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 08:07, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
TK, facts are facts. I've layed out the taxes in front of you and explained them. Using generalities to attack Huckabee's record is not going to be effective. The truth is that most of the taxes raised in Arkansas were mandated by the people, such as the 1996, Sales Tax, 1999, Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes and the 1999 : Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes 80% vote on a referendum.
I know RINO's, I live in the state that elected Lincoln Chafee, and I helped campaign against him in the Republican primary. Huckabee is not a RINO. The Club for Growth is basically being used by other campaigns to attack Huckabee because they or their supporters don't have the guts to attack him by themselves.--Tash 09:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • 1) I wasn't commenting on the taxes in Arkansas, as we don't vote on Congressional spending. 2) Are you saying, Tash, that PS is being used by other campaigns? If you are, bend over, and when she is done beating Andy, you will be next! Huckabee isn't the Devil. He just isn't much of a Conservative in word and deed, is all. But given you guys are so taken in by him, I will pay your compliments to those running his campaign...... --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 10:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
I wasn’t implying that at all. I'm was specifically talking about the Club for Growth, which is a “527” organization and doesn’t have to disclose donors. The attacks on Huckabee in Iowa before the straw poll came from a backer of another campeign hiding behind the Club for Growth. Mrs. Schlafly is voicing her opinion, not hiding behind the CfG.

You said "He just isn't much of a Conservative in word and deed". Again TK, where's the evidence? It's easy to make statements that you can't and in this case won't be able to back up. If Huck isn't a Conservative then I guess Reagan wasn't one either--Tash 11:50, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Another example of liberal deceit. - Borofkin2 21:26, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Happy Halloween