Talk:Main Page/archive44

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Christians abolishing Slavery?

Dinesh D'souza claims that Christianity ended the slavery!! This distortion of history is pathetic.As every one knows, Christianity has endorsed slavery during most part of its existence, from the time of New testament.

Bible has endorsed, regulated and controlled the practice of slavery.

Jesus could have spoken against slavery.. but he did not.

Most of the resistance Wilberforce faced were from the church and did you know that slavery continued for another 30 years (more than half a generation)within the church after the slavery was abolished in the Great Britain? --JBuscombe 15:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Christianity does not endorse slavery. The closest it comes is saying that people should respect those in authority, and that, if you're going to own slaves, you need to treat them well.Your exegesis is quite wrong. --MakeTomorrow 15:46, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I'm removing the material you used without attribution (and most likely without permission) from the "Religious Tolerance"[1] and "Evil Bible"[2] websites. Google is your friend (unless you copy and paste your arguments from other people and portray them as your own). Jinxmchue 14:21, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Now, as far as your (and those other people's) arguments are concerned, what you must understand is that the Bible isn't a primer on vast, direct social upheaval. Such upheavals are disastrous and lead to much death and destruction. There are only a few examples of such upheavals in the Bible and absolutely no calls for it to be a common practice among Jews and Christians. Peaceful social change is a long, arduous process which relies on changing people's hearts. That's what Christ's message does. That people misused the Bible to justify slavery does not contradict the fact that Christian teachings led to the abolishment of slavery. Jinxmchue 14:42, 17 January 2008 (EST)
To user MakeTomorrow, I only have this one thing to say: Read Leviticus, Exodus, Ephesians, etc. There are many places within the bible that talk about using, treating, and keeping slaves. Even selling daughters into slavery. I use this site here: [3] as my center piece. Should I gather others? CodyH
I wouldn't exactly consider that site a good source of information. For another view, read this. Philip J. Rayment 20:23, 20 January 2008 (EST)

New Style

Wow - CPWebMaster - I like the new style - almost everything about it! Even the relatively small changes to the menus on the left I like! Awesome job!--IDuan 16:35, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"All images" covers roughly ONE TENTH of all images

Could we either remove or re-label the "All images" link? It's slightly misleading. Including subcategories (and assuming that images in a subcategory aren't also in the parent category), the category there currently contains roughly 580 images. Comparison: There are currently about 4,960 uncategorized images. And I think pretty much all of them are protected, so those who haven't earned the right to categorize images won't be able to help here... ;) (This isn't me being mean, but it does show how CP's protection spree can backfire horribly, resulting in sysops alone having to do those five thousand categorizations if you want to keep the pretty gallery view. I don't even know why all images are protected - you'd need upload rights to vandalize the image, anyway.) --Jenkins 15:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I'm having a crack at them at the moment, but yup, fair cop, it's a big oversight. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Democrats and Values

How can you say, seriously, the democrats are not in touch with American values. They are not in touch with your values obviously however they are in touch with a large proportion of the population. If the democrats won the presidency, lets say also by a large margin, surely that would mean they are in touch with Amercias values. MetcalfeM

Good news

A British Airways Boeing 777 from Beijing to London crash lands just inside the boundaries of London Heathrow Airport after both engines apparently fail on the final approach. None of the 152 people on board is killed or seriously hurt, and a lucky escape for the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of west London who live under the approach flightpath to the airport. These pass over the main built-up area: if the engine failure had happened a minute, or a few minutes, earlier, the results could have been catastrophic. Whether we attribute this happy outcome to divine intervention, the skill of the flight crew, or plain luck we should all be happy, I hope. This matters personally as I was born and brought up (though no longer live) under one of the main approach flightpaths (as my mother and sister do still). I'd add a link but the BBVC site seems very slow. DavidSullivan 16:48, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, extraordinarily lucky escape. Ajkgordon 17:38, 17 January 2008 (EST)

So the BNP is right?

I find it interesting that Conservapedia makes a story on it's main page that, basically, condemns a demonstration by people against the BNP. (As an aside, 'freedom of speech' includes the freedom to hold demonstrations against something.) So, I assume that, by condemning this demonstration, you agree with the BNP, whos leader, amongst other things, called the Holocaust of World War 2 the 'Holohoax', and described it as 'the hoax of the Twentieth Century', and has been imprisoned in both the UK and Austria for incitement to racial hatred. Would this be correct? Zmidponk 16:53, 17 January 2008 (EST)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Ajkgordon 16:55, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Read my post again. Especially the part where I point out that 'freedom of speech includes the right to hold demonstrations against something'. So, it seems, Conservapedia applies that concept to the BNP, but not to the people who protest against the BNP. Zmidponk 17:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Firstly, Nick Griffin has never been imprisoned in Austria, and his conviction in England was a suspended (ie no porridge) sentence; the conviction was, iirc, under the Public Order Act 1986, and was because he edited a right wing magazine. I believe he has also gone on record as stating that he was wrong, the Holocaust did happen, and "The BNP has cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon." Politically and philosophically he's not my cup of tea, to be sure, and the other guy is definitely not going to get a Hannukah card off me this year. Again. But I agree with Ajkgordon above. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, sorry, you're correct, it was Irving who was imprisoned in Austria (then banned from ever returning to the country once released), but you still seem to be selectively applying the 'freedom of speech' - the BNP is free to say what it wants, when it wants, but those protesting against them should shut the hell up. As to Griffin's 'admissions', given that he has, in recent years, gone on a deliberate effort to try to distance the BNP from racism without actually changing the underlying aims of the party, I take them with just a grain or two of salt. Zmidponk 17:16, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Edit to add - That sort of adds weight to the paleocon position that natural rights are philosophical superstition (Dr. Donald Livingston, Professor of Philosophy at Emory University: "Whatever they might be, natural rights are universal and apply to all men. Further, they are known by reason, independent of any inherited moral tradition... It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of natural rights must be in a condition of permanent hostility to all inherited moral traditions. Any such tradition, no matter how noble the goods of excellence cultivated in it, can always be seen as violating someone's natural rights under some interpretation or another.") 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Well, it seems to me, as Jdellaro points out below, it is Convservapedia that brings up the subject of 'freedom of speech', then selectively applies it to condemn those who are protesting against the BNP, so are tacitly agreeing with the BNP, and the argument of whether 'freedom of speech' really exists as anything bar a philosophical superstition or not is entirely irrelevant. Zmidponk 17:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Just to make sure that you know I am no supporter of the BNP - I think they are an odious organisation that is covering up its foul racist agenda quite well. While I understand the objections of the protesters, they actually end up giving the BNP the very oxygen of publicity they crave. Ajkgordon 17:43, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, I would say that's done far better by giving them a platform from which to speak, as the Oxford Union did by inviting them to the debate in the first place. Zmidponk 18:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)
With the exception being none of the protesters said they were free-speech advocates. They were protesting the debate--but CP was the one that labeled them "free speech advocates". So really, there's no irony here without CP's creation of facts to make it ironic. (See BBC report above for a further reply.)--Jdellaro 17:11, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure that I agree with this item being on Conservapedia's main page, given that the protesters don't actually claim to be in favour of freedom of speech, so I'm not convinced that the irony exists.

However, to respond to a point made initially as an aside then apparently as a more critical point by Zmidponk, I would agree that the protesters have a right to express their point of view, but not to disrupt the meeting. There seems to be a mindset among some (i.e. leftists), which Zmidponk appears to be endorsing, that a right to express a view is also a right to disrupt, to suppress an alternative point of view, and in some cases even a right to do so violently (although I'm not suggesting that Zmidponk would agree with all of that).

Philip J. Rayment 20:26, 17 January 2008 (EST)

For a start, even the police at the event agree that those intent on actual disruption were only a 'small minority' of the protestors. Secondly, going by the article, even those who actually managed to gain entry to the debating hall did not disrupt the event. Thirdly, what was this small minority doing to attempt to disrupt the event? Chanting anti-fascist slogans - in other words, giving voice to their point of view. I'll ask again, as there has yet to actually be an answer - why is Conservapedia selectively applying 'freedom of speech' in order to slant the item into condemning the protestors and defending the BNP? Is it, as I stated originally, because they agree with the BNP? Zmidponk 21:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Chanting slogans that will disrupt a meeting is disruption, not merely expressing a point of view. Their point of view can be expressed somewhere else. I leave it for others to comment on the rest of your post. Philip J. Rayment 00:29, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, right, so those protesting against the BNP are only allowed to give voice to their point of view basically at a place and/or time when it has no relevancy, instead of at the time and at the place where it would have the most effect, whereas there is nothing wrong at all with the Oxford Union actually giving the BNP a platform from which to air their views, plus a small measure of legitimacy, by actually inviting them to a debate? Zmidponk 14:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
You are taking my comments further than they were intended. They could protest outside the venue (on public property), but not by disrupting the meeting. So the time and place would be quite relevant, even if not as close to the "action" as they'd like. But so what? Why should they have the right to disrupt someone else's meeting? Should anti-evolution protesters be allowed to make their protest in a classroom where evolution is being taught (I'm talking about protesters who are not students in that class)? That's what your rationale seems to suggest, because that is the most relevant time and place.
No, there's nothing wrong with the Oxford Union inviting the BNP (which is what?, by the way) onto the platform, but it's the Oxford Union's meeting, so they decide, and they are under no obligation to invite the protesters.
Philip J. Rayment 18:33, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Well, firstly, the analogy of 'anti-evolution protestors disrupting classes being the most relevant time and place' is arguable at best - the teachers and students themselves are powerless to change the policy of teaching evolution. The most relevant time and place would be to protest directly to the people with the power to change this. Conversely, it was the people organising this debate that had the direct power to change things as regards this debate, and, obviously, those people were present at the debate. Secondly, the majority of the protestors did exactly as you describe - they protested outside, yet this item on the front page suggests ALL the protestors shouldn't have done what they did. Thirdly, even those who gained entry to the building were simply making sure their views were known - and hence exercising their freedom of speech. Zmidponk 21:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
The analogy was the first thing I thought of, and maybe is not the best, but on the other hand, it's not always true everywhere that the teachers are governed by such a policy. In some places, there is no policy, and it might very much up to the teacher.
Protest meetings are rarely to the people best in a position to change things, but to the public via the media. If they want to appeal directly the the people in a position to change things, one or two people make an appointment to see them in their office.
Which do you think has more effect, someone ringing up and saying, 'can I have an appointment to discuss your decision to invite X and Y to the debate?', or 1000 people standing outside the venue showing exactly how much they are displeased at this decision? The first is answered with a quick 'no' which is easily forgotten and dismissed. The second will stay in the mind and cause you to think long and hard about whether doing this again is actually worth the hassle and serves a purpose. Come to think of it, how do you know some of these protestors did NOT ring the Oxford Union up, seeking an appointment with somebody with the power to change this decision, in order to get the opportunity to try to persuade them to do so, and were either put off, or simply told 'no'? Zmidponk 19:50, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Which has more effect is beside the point, because the end does not justify the means. How do I know they didn't try an appointment? Who says that I do know that? I never claimed that they didn't try it. But trying it and failing does not justify forcing someone to stop by disrupting the meeting. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Either way, forcing one's views on another, such as by disrupting the meeting, is wrong.
Well,the means were these people exercising their right of freedom of speech. No justification required, unless you believe these people simply do not have that right? Zmidponk 19:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Yet it is right for 'parties' like the BNP to force their views on everyone by, for example, after the London bus bombings, plastering thousands of leaflets everywhere with a picture of the blown-up bus with the slogan 'maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP' on it? Or blast them out over loudspeakers when their candidates run in elections? Or use the platform given to them by anyone that does, even in a debate about 'freedom of speech', to voice them? Zmidponk 19:26, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Putting up posters is not forcing one's views on someone else. Your argument is incoherent and in serious trouble if you try and make this sort of comparison. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Distributing leaflets by the thousand, to such a degree that people simply cannot avoid seeing them, IS forcing your views on others. Blasting out your tripe at very high volume from cars equipped with loudspeakers IS forcing your views on others. Using any excuse to publicly air your views, even if you've been invited to speak on a different subject, IS forcing your views on others. Zmidponk 19:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I accept (and have never disputed) that most did stay outside. And the Main Page does not contradict that; I don't see a problem there.
Well, the item says that 'students disrupted a debate about free speech to squelch one side's views', and, going by the article, the only disruption was caused by the sheer number of people protesting causing the debate to start an hour and a half late. If it's the protestors outside who caused the disruption, and it's the disruption caused that the item is criticising, it is the protestors outside that are being criticised. Therefore, the item is criticising the protestors exercising their right to freedom of speech in order to 'protect' BNP's freedom of speech. As I said, Conservapedia are selectively applying the principle of 'freedom of speech' in order to slant the item to defend the BNP. Why is this? Is it, as I have asked, because Conservapedia agree with them? Zmidponk 19:26, 19 January 2008 (EST)
It's hard to see how protesters outside could delay the debate inside, unless it was by preventing attendees entering, which it says that they did. So even those outside forced their views on others. Therefore the criticism is still not that they exercised their right to free speech, but that they hindered others from doing what they were quite entitled to do. Again, this is wrong, and deserves not just criticism, but condemnation.
Ah, right, so if you exercise your right of freedom of speech to hold a protest, and too many people agree with you, and show up to this protest, causing it to be difficult for some to make their way through the crowd, you should be condemned for doing so. Gotcha.
I said that I was going to leave some of your questions to others, but you've said that the BNP is racist, and Conservapedia is anti-racist, so clearly they do not agree with them.

Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)

So what is the reason that Conservapedia are slanting this item by selectively applying the principle of freedom of speech in order to defend the BNP? Zmidponk 19:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)
You are condoning crime by claiming that "those who gained entry to the building were simply making sure their views were known - and hence exercising their freedom of speech". They were more than doing that. They forced their way in; they were trespassing. It is perfectly possible to have freedom of speech without committing crime, so the right to free speech is not a right to commit a crime. I used to be involved in a discussion forum in which it was a blockable offence to condone a crime. I'm not sure that we have that rule here, but if we don't, perhaps we should.
Philip J. Rayment 01:10, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Well, in the article, the police seem to think that no criminal offences occurred. Try again. Zmidponk 19:26, 19 January 2008 (EST)
So it does. I've often seen cases where the police will fail to enforce the law in cases like this, and their failure to prosecute anybody I would put down to that. However, as you point out, this is more explicit. Is trespass actually a criminal offence? Or a civil one? Perhaps that is the explanation. Or perhaps what the police meant is that there was no criminal offence that could be applied without the Oxford Union "pressing charges". But clearly if people forced their way in, they were doing something that was not permitted, and that is wrong, whether it can be prosecuted as a criminal offence or not. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Or it could be that the people who gained entry were, in fact, paid members of the Oxford Union, and so were not even guilty of trespass, but were being kept out because they were protesting against the inclusion of Griffin and Irving. I don't know if that was the case or not, but that is just as likely as your scenario, so trying to argue it's still wrong based on pure speculation doesn't really lead anywhere. Of course, the question has to be asked - if it's wrong to make sure your views are known in a debate about freedom of speech, where is it right make sure they're known? Zmidponk 19:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)
That's true, but the very reason for the protest was the fact that the Oxford Union invited the BNP to the debate, which, as I said, gave them a platform from which to air their racist tripe, and suggest the OU regarded them as a legitimate organisation with legitimate views. As you seem unaware, I will explain that the BNP is a 'political party' that bears something of a striking similarity to the National Socialist party in Germany in the early to mid 1930s. And, yes, I am talking about the one that later became known as the Nazi Party. Up until the late 90s, they were openly and violently racist, anti-semitic, Holocaust deniers, but, in recent years, they have become less outspoken about those views, in public, at least. However, on a few occasions, various party members, from low to high, have been caught out saying exactly the same sort of things in private, and the main aims of the party have been reworded into more subtle language, but still remain essentially the same (making Britain white again, basically), so the idea that they have really changed in the way they claim is a tad difficult to believe. Zmidponk 21:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
The BNP stands for the British National Party. I have had the unpleasant experience of discovering the occasional leaflet from them, delivered in my area, in my letterbox once in a while. They are, to be crude, rascist scum.Darkmind1970 19:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

News Item--Human Cloning

This is a bit disturbing, and probably worthy of a news entry...--RossC 18:37, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Clearly unethical. This is obviously anti-murder. Barikada 22:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Bobby Fischer

Nothing like trying to make a political point based on a man's death. Source on his 9/11 comment? Barikada 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)

It was a radio interview he did with Pablo Mercado on the Baguio City station of the Bombo Radyo network in the Philippines.--Jdellaro 11:59, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I've added the reference to the article. And this is just a great case of how people seem to think something didn't happen/isn't true, just because they didn't see/hear it. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 11:45, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Huh? I simply asked for a source. Forgive me if that's wrong, but I'm not exactly going to take the word of a few conservatives with no backup. Barikada 11:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I won't fall for baiting, but I will point out that you should try to watch/listen to/read the news a little more often :) This wasn't buried on page 5 at the time, or today. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 11:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I do not seak to cause trouble, Fox, but... I wasn't attempting to bait you. It seemed more like you were attempting to bait me. :/
But I digress. It was my fault for not knowing that Bobby Fischer was a bit nutty. Barikada 23:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)
It's no secret that he made these statements. It has been in the news before, and now, especially, because of his death. --David Rtalk 18:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I think it would have been only fair to point out that Fischer was clearly mentally ill for most of his life. The comments were, indeed, well reported. But he was -- quite correctly -- pitied more often than he was castigated. KeithJoseph 09:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Has "mentally ill" become a label for anyone who is an embarrassment? I don't think so. Under traditional legal/medical definitions, Fischer was far from insane. Smart people who live without faith often spew nonsense and even hatred as they grow older.--Aschlafly 13:39, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I actually think he may have been mentally ill. His continuous rants about the Jewish conspiracy, etcetera, coupled with hermited existence, point to paranoia. It's not uncommon for geniuses to suffer from delusions; the brain is a fascinating thing. Although I have no doubt that his atheism was a contributing factor (or symptom?) of the same.-MexMax 14:18, 20 January 2008 (EST)
"Has "mentally ill" become a label for anyone who is an embarrassment?" There is, indeed, a depressing tendency for people to ascribe their moral infelicities to any convenient pseudo-illness. But this is clearly not the case with Fischer. He was convinced that he was being hounded by some Jewish conspiracy despite the fact that his mother was jewish. And so forth. Despite the cowardly appropriation of mental illness by the lazy and decadent, there is still something called madness and, by any reasonable definition of the word, Fischer was insane. KeithJoseph 15:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Here's an article for the front page

A victory for the gun rights crowd. The Virginia State Legislature killed a bill that would have closed a loophole allowing gun shows held in the state to avoid background checks that are required with all other gun sales in the state. Can't pass a background check due to criminal or mental history? No problem. Head to a gun show. PS, the families of the students massacred and Virginia Tech are none too happy about this. SSchultz 22:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)

What about the families of the students saved [4][5] in the same state? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 12:17, 19 January 2008 (EST)
This isn't about keeping and bearing arms, I'm all for the right to keep and bear any firearm you like. I believe there should be reasonable measures taken to be certain that a gun dealer isn't selling a firearm to a criminal or mentally ill person. Those measures are already taken in the state of Virginia with the exception of gun shows. It is completely beyond me why the state legislature allowed this loophole to remain open. SSchultz 12:23, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I see your point more clearly now. But how thorough are background checks, and the proposed background checks; and would they have detected many of the perpetrators of the high profile shootings? Also, as we in Britain find out toolate every time, what starts out as a seemingly sensible and justified system can rapidly snowball into the situation we have now, where even scholchildren (by which I mean pre-teen age) who have committed no crime, and may even have only been witnesses to a crime, have ended up with their DNA recorded - permanently - on the national criminal database. There are even babies whose DNA has ended up on there! And these background checking systems go wrong. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 12:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)
There is no foolproof system, I grant you that, but in my mind it's better that I be temporarily inconvenienced when trying to purchase a pistol rather than another Seung Hui Cho be able to go out and purchase a weapon without confirming that he's neither a criminal nor mentally unfit. SSchultz 12:40, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Success of the Surge?

Both parties have started focusing on the economy as opposed to the war, because public interest has shifted from the war to the economy. This has very little to do with the "success" of the surge, and it is not the tactic of "liberals." Remember, both liberals and conservatives agreed that the surge would reduce violence, but ultimately, the surge has failed in its main goal, which was to create peace so that progress in the political sphere could be reached (namely, to reach an agreement on an oil law... and no progress has been made). Moreover, 2007 was the most violent year of the war, and 2008 is likely to follow as such. Moqtada al-Sadr recently declared that he will not renew his six month ceasefire, which accounted for a large portion of the decreased violence.

There is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq because it's not a war; it's an occupation. When the occupation ends, the violence will decrease, and political progress will be made.--EasyTarget 12:09, 19 January 2008 (EST)

On a further note, civilian deaths in the first two weeks of January have averaged more than 50 per day, and U.S. military deaths are averaging slightly more than 1 per day. These rates are 50 percent higher than last month (the month that was used to justify the success of the surge).--EasyTarget 12:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Apart from several questionable assumptions, you undermine your point of view by the incorrect (and obviously biased) use of the word "occupation". Iraq has its own sovereign government which has invited coalition forces to remain in the country for the time being. How many American bases exist overseas by invitation of foreign governments? Are they occupation forces? Get a grip. --GDewey 19:55, 19 January 2008 (EST)
There have been questions about the election, though. I believe according to international law, a country cannot hold elections during occupation. I'm trying to determine where I had read it, and the pertinent law.--Jdellaro 22:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Good article that discusses elections and occupations: --Jdellaro 22:44, 19 January 2008 (EST)
GDewey, please elaborate on the "several questionable assumptions" I've made. You're also not addressing my point, which is that the surge is only working to quell the short-term concerns of the American public, but has failed in its short term and long term goals in Iraq.

And the current government in Iraq is hardly sovereign.--Claypool 15:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Bald assertions that the current government is not sovereign cannot be taken seriously. Having regard to the fact that the current government is recognised internationally as the sovereign government of Iraq I would suggest that you should cite some source in support of your surprising proposition.
As to the questionable assumptions, I can indicate that the most significant of those is the assumption that violence in Iraq will decrease upon the withdrawal of foreign forces. That is a highly doubtful proposition as has been pointed out by innumerable people.
There is another significant questionable assumption in the proposition the the surge has "...failed in its main goal, which was to create peace...". I do not recall anyone involved stating that the surge was going to "create peace". It is only a step along what looks like being a long and winding path. --GDewey 18:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)


Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses. Mitt Romney won on the Rupublican side. (Do I get points for breaking news?)[6]--Steve 17:51, 19 January 2008 (EST)

That link is the one Fox news directed me to; maybe you want to use another one. Who has the authority to put something on the Main Page?--Steve 17:54, 19 January 2008 (EST)
If the story's used (and I can't imagine it not being used) then you get 4 points--IDuan 17:52, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Posting now ... Thanks, StevenM!--Aschlafly 17:58, 19 January 2008 (EST)

This is semirelated, but I was wondering if anyone else has noticed this "phenomenon": I am for whatever reason subscribed to the NY Times email alerts, and I got two emails from them about today's Caucus. Both of them had a headline about Clinton leading or Winning the caucus, and neither of them even mentioned that the Republicans were also having a caucus! I'm not normally one to complain about liberal bias (and by normal I mean, like, ever) but come on! If two people won today there should be two names in the headline. It'd also be one thing if this was the only time they did it, but it's not. HelpJazz 18:49, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Good observation, HelpJazz. But let's face it: the readership of the New York Times is overwhelmingly liberal. Let's not forget that it is a business trying to make a profit, and having difficulty avoiding decline like other newspapers. Know your customer!--Aschlafly 18:52, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Oh believe me, I can tell. I don't even know why I'm signed up for them. Maybe at one point I had to sign up for a class, and I've just never gotten around to it. I can't even read most of their articles they are so biased. My "favorite" tactic is when they use someone's opinion as a headline to make it look like fact, until you actually read the article. HelpJazz 18:59, 19 January 2008 (EST)

John McCain barely pulls out over Huckabee in South Carolina. Even more interesting, the New York Knicks beat the Miami Heat. --Steve 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I think there would've been more notice about Romney winning the Nevada caucus---if any of the candidates had chosen to actually campaigned to win the caucus for the Republicans. But considering their majority effort was in S.C., less notice is given to the Nevada Republican caucus. Same thing that happened in Michigan. --Jdellaro 22:34, 19 January 2008 (EST)

So McCain won? Hmmm. Looks like he might gain momentum ... and the Knicks also?--Aschlafly 22:45, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Someone ought to post a link for McCain. [7] --Steve 22:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)
And the Knicks [8] ;)--IDuan 22:55, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Great link ... the first one, that is! I've posted it on the Main page, Steve. Thanks!--Aschlafly 22:56, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Help us foreigners out here, Americans - McCain's win is of massive significance being in the south, no? I may be off with my geography / demographics here but I was expecting Huckabee to romp home. -- Ferret Nice old chat 02:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

It's big. You're right.--Aschlafly 13:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Who do we even think is the frontrunner now? I'd expect Romney - but is it McCain, now? I'm disappointed that Huckabee's not doing well.-MexMax 13:33, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think we can consider Romney the front runner - he's only won one state, and he was the only one campaigning in that state. I'd have to say McCain. I think the biggest question is - where is Giuliani? I've heard that he's campaigning in Florida - but it could be that his liberalness is turning conservatives off and thus he just can't win --IDuan 13:36, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Don't count out Giuliani; there are alot of states that like him. And Huckabee is fighting with his back against the wall now. --Steve 16:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Grammatical error

In the hacker news brief the phrase "real tough..." should instead be "really tough". Little pet peeve of mine :) HelpJazz 23:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

And a reference to an article to support the claim that he didn't pray might help as well. Everything else is even less than hearsay. Order 06:57, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Order, I know liberals deny the obvious, but you're taking that style to an absurd degree.--Aschlafly 13:30, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I am not exactly sure what is obvious, nor what I am denying, but it would be helpful to add a reference for claims on the front page. If you know for certain that he didn't pray for years, you probably have a source for this information. Order 17:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Useful website

Not a news item, just alink for the interested. A very cleverly designed website where you can very quickly find a candidate's stance on "issues typically informed by faith": One Vote Under God. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 21:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)

This Website...

This website seems to be either the work of a room of a few dozen sexually frustrated neo-nazi thirteen-year-olds or the Westboro Baptist Church. Honestly, these articles are written almost hilariously poorly compared to your father website, Wikipedia, and even Uncyclopedia does a better job in constructing it's articles. Where Wikipedia can manage to stay on one "level" by keeping all of it's articles factually based, Conservapedia has various levels of right bias. I know that the creators of this website are WASPs, but you could at least attempt to use fact when dealing with real-world issues. PastafarianBeliver 12:48, 21 January 2008 (EST)

No one's making you come here to visit the site. Don't be a bully.-MexMax 13:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry that we can't all match your intellectual prowess -- by the way, the word is "its" not "it's". Learn together 13:31, 21 January 2008 (EST)

The above liberal rant claims that "the creators of this website are WASPs." Even if that were true (it isn't), why should anyone but a bigot care? Thanks, "PastafarianBeliver", for a sobering reminder of how much hatred there is for people who speak the truth, as conservatives do. Run along now, "PastafarianBeliver", and see how many people you can fool outside of Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 18:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Whilst insulting people for being WASPs is undoubtedly offensive, retaliating with further insults AFTER the original editor has been blocked and cannot respond is also a bit off. --GDewey 18:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)
That, and don't be so conceited, Andy. --MakeTomorrow 20:13, 22 January 2008 (EST)