Talk:Main Page/archive74

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Telegraph article

Just one point, I noticed you mentioned "I'm not impressed by the lack of social positions (like abortion, marriage, prayer in the classroom, etc.)"

I just wanted to point out that in Britain prayer is legal (and in some cases encouraged) in public (state run) schools. Also religious education forms part of the governments national curriculum and in most cases students are required to study it up to the age of 16.

Obama apologized?

Did Obama apologize for his joke at the expense of the Special Olympics? I didn't think he apologized. I thought someone else tried to retract it. The statement on the Main Page that Obama apologized has no source for it.

Also, I question whether "gaffe" is a proper description of his "joke". A gaffe is usually calling someone a mistaken name, or saying something someone didn't really mean to say. This was not of that type.--Andy Schlafly 15:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I Googled 'Obama Apology', and the first result was So, yes, he apologized quickly and without media prompting. Pepperlynn 15:39, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
That's not an apology to the people he insulted, or to the viewers of his comments. We don't know what Obama really said on that reportedly private phone call. Obama knows how to put out the short Youtube videos when he wants to.--Andy Schlafly 15:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Mountain. Molehill. Pepperlynn 16:02, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Liberal media

Just a few comments on the latest news item about the democratic senator indicted for assault. For one thing, you incorrectly state the article doesn't mention that he's a democrat until the last paragraph. Actually, it states that in the 3rd paragraph, only 5 sentences into the article. And another point, it seems that an attempt to portray one news article as an example of liberal bias is the emphasis here, when the emphasis should be the story itself. RobertWDP 20:43, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

It is explicitly mentioned twice: the third paragraph begins "Monserrate, a Democrat", and the final reads "After a closed-door meeting with fellow Democrats..." (emphasis added). Kallium 22:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Wow, that's bizarre. But notice how the version you reference was posted after I posted my observation. Was AP reacting to Conservapedia? I'm going to double-check the time-stamps again now.--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
My post: 6:02pm ET. AP's most recent version was posted 6:51pm ET. Apparently AP "changed its story," after I observed the bias.--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
In my job I have to work with the Associated Press. We, as journalists, don't just 'change' articles. We have to send out a correction letter, followed by an apology, as I was taught [and had to do] at my school. The fact that there is no correction letter and no apology lead me to believe that you may have just misread it, at first. It happens, people skim over things. CodyH 23:16 23 March 2009 (CST)
Correlation does not imply causation- and I'm not sure the omission of an easily obtained public-record detail could be considered "bias" (if it is, it's a weak one)- but nonetheless I did find earlier versions that did not indicate his affiliation, so your original post was indeed accurate in that respect. Kallium 23:22, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Thank you, Kallium, for vindicating me against Cody's accusations!!!! God bless you!!! Cody? Cody?--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Here is one time-stamped 12:29:20 MDT (14:29:20 EDT) which includes the Democrat identification. (In the spirit of fairness, Cody didn't accuse you of anything- in fact, he was quite gracious.) Kallium 23:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

This revisionist practice on the part of the media has been well documented during the just-over Presidential campaign by media watchdogs like MRC. The deceit of the media is so well documented as to be a truism, and hardly worth wasting one's time arguing with their apologists like Cody. This article on the WCBS site, fails to mention his party affiliation, time stamped at 11:10 AM, EDT. This article from the Daily News originally didn't say he was a Democrat, but was "updated" at 12:48 PM, EDT, to reflect he is a Democrat. Here is another, from posted at 11:46 AM, EDT, that also still fails to identify his party. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Anyone who notices that an article doesn't indicate party affiliation would have no difficulty in finding that information in a matter of seconds- cover-up conspiracies don't work with freely and easily available public information. I think you may be overreacting a little. Besides, isn't the subject of the article the more important issue? Kallium 00:05, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I will add that a wire is sent out worldwide with the original, minus party affiliation and the story is typeset by thousands of news sources. Update, Opps, forgot to mention Democrat, how convenient. Freely and easily public information is the job of journalists to provide. It has always been first sentence- a Republican, last sentence- a 'Crat. Another corrupt Democrat is the real news. The poor victim, another statistic.--Jpatt 00:13, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Exactly so, Jpatt! The story here isn't yet another corrupt politician, but rather the complete corruptness of the media. Many are thinking it is high time to remove the special rights the media is granted in the Constitution, because they have long ago forsworn their duty to the public. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I definitely don't support the Senator's alleged (and apparently actual) actions, and I'm all for honesty by the media, but there are two problems with your assertion of "complete corruptness": first, if the media were behaving that way, the AP article would not have added "Democrat" at all, and second, if they were really that corrupt and wanted to hide such information, they would, for instance, have omitted the part about the surveillance videos- or better yet, they would have not published the story in the first place, at least not through the more "leftist" outlets. That is all. Kallium 00:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Are you being serious, Kallium? The point is, as I have already said, omitting unfavorable facts about liberals is a truism where the media is concerned, and "correcting" something only when their deceit is pointed out by Conservapedia, or some other party is proof of their being corrupt. Wake up and smell the coffee, Kallium! This is 2009, and no one with any credibility denies how corrupt and biased the media is. If you ever need a rope to pull yourself up and out of the rabbit hole you have fallen into, read Conservapedia for the truth. It will set you free! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

So I point out that "complete corruptness" wouldn't have published the article in the first place (how that's a "rabbit hole" I do not know), and your response is an ad hominem. How insightful. And note that I did acknowledge that the outlets in question tend to be leftist, although you chose to ignore it and indeed reverse it. By the way, a look at the link I posted shows that the change happened before the article was mentioned here, so unless you can unequivocally demonstrate "some other party" being responsible for pointing out the omission leading to its inclusion, you are making unsupported assertions. Kallium 01:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Your idea of what is "complete corruptness", Kallium, is just that; your good idea. Conservatives intrinsically reject Ad hominem, so you aren't getting any points here for that. Conservatives understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. Liberals and Atheists are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. We also understand how important it is that those debating an issue be trustworthy, otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate & intellectual argument because they come from deceit, like Richard Dawkins. As for making unsupported assertions, truisms are what they are, and only a deceitful person would postulate they are not. --₮K/Admin/Talk 04:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
TK, regarding your above statement, what special rights would you have taken away from the media? Corry 08:17, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Since the press no longer lives up to its implicit responsibilities to be accurate and fair, they no longer deserve the explicit rights granted by the people. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

So would you have the government run the media? That's a pretty scary thought, regardless of which party is in power. Corry 09:09, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Corry, how did you get assumption from what I posted? You just took 1+1 and got 3, you know that? Removing the media's special rights under the Constitution wouldn't mean the government would be running the media, it would merely mean they would no longer have special protections that others do not. --₮K/Admin/Talk 09:18, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
You can't be serious. If you really took away Constitutional protection of a free press, you are, in effect, giving the government the power to control the media. Would you want a bureaucrat from the Obama administration or the Clinton administration to have the power to pick up the phone, call an editor at the Washington Times or Fox News and say, "no, I don't think you'll be publishing that story today." For that matter, would you want an Obama staffer to be able to call Andy Schlafly and say "Delete that 'President Obama may be a Muslim' section. Now. The Office of Media Control Agents will be dispatched in fifteen minutes if its not down by then." (Okay, I'm not sure if, legally, a web page is considered free speech or free press. That's not the point here.) ArthurA 09:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I think what TK is trying to say—and please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth—is that the media should be held accountable for its blatant bias, be it conservative or liberal. The media's primary purpose is to report the truth, and by skewing that truth to meet an agenda, misleading the American public, which should be punished. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 09:20, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • It is way too early in my day, ArthurA, to spoil it with the hysterical, and without logic argument you are advancing. There are hundreds of legal protections already in place, that would prevent the government from taking them over. Still, it would be hard to envision are more fawning and drooling adulation than the media already gives Barack Hussein Obama. Jeffrey, you are spot on. --₮K/Admin/Talk 09:26, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
(edit conflict)And who would mete out the punishment? The government would. The clause in the First Amendment which you struck out prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of the press, so the only reasonable assumption would be that you prefer that the government can abridge the freedom of the press. Corry 09:30, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Whose "basic moral character" are we talking about here? I don't consider "examination of an individual's character" to be a "personal affront" at all- the problem is when it becomes smearing followed by dismissal of another's arguments or points on that basis- which is the very definition of ad hominem, even according to your own article. In fact, your last sentence, which directly translates as "it may be unsupported, but it's True anyway, and you are immoral to deny it", is a perfect example. Please address the actual content of my posts without simply honing in on the terms ad hominem and "unsupported assertions", and preferably without calling me deceitful for expressing different- and in fact my actual- opinions. Thank you. Kallium 09:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
So, if the Obama administration said today, "There's plenty of legal protections for gun owners already, and there's lot of problems caused by guns. We're proposing that the Second Amendment by stricken from the Constitution", you'd be fine with that? ArthurA 09:30, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
There aren't, however, legal protections for gun owners who use their rights to maim, murder, etc. The U.S. court system sends them to prison. Your analogy is flawed, though I do see the point you're trying to make. It's a fine line to walk, but the bias in the media today should be dealt with. There are numerous watchdog groups, but what good are they doing? Perhaps a watchdog group with more authority—be it government-run or private— is the solution? --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 09:46, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
So you would prefer greater government regulation in this case? Corry 09:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I've never been a fan of further government regulation. I would prefer a privately-run organization to monitor at least the major news outlets. The problem with either type of organization is preventing a bias from being inserted into their rulings/decisions. That's why it's such a fine line to walk. I think a slight bias is unavoidable; it is the blatant inserted bias—the kind that skews the actual facts of the story toward a party line—that needs to monitored, regulated, and corrected. At least that's my opinion. I'm sure there are numerous other ways that a lowly civilian such as myself hasn't even thought of! --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
(ec) I think the best way would be to do what you're doing right now- being vocal about what you perceive as bias and (I am assuming) not giving your business to media outlets with whom you disagree. Voting with your dollars, as it is. We had closer regulation of the media through the Fairness Doctrine, and Reagan did away with it (a move with which I agree). I agree that bias can be a fine line, and I think that it is too fine a line to trust anybody in power to walk. And going to your above example regarding guns, there are laws against knowingly broadcasting falsehoods. But after that, do you count positive and negative stories about different politicians? Do you count how many pundits an outlet has from each side? It would be a highly abusable system, and most likely we would end up with a much more biased end product, but with the bias always favoring the party in power. Corry 10:17, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
The question that needs to be answered is this: how far can one stretch the truth before it becomes a falsehood? You're right—it is a system that could be exploited, but perhaps not as badly as it is being exploited at the present? The media holds more keys to people's thoughts and beliefs than I would like to believe. With that sort of influence, there needs to be at least some form of oversight, (stricter) guidelines, etc. I agree with the "voting with your dollars" sentiment, and that is a great tactic for the time being. In the future, I would like to see someone with a larger audience address this topic with some plan of action, though. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:28, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
This argument is getting moronic. Removing the special privileges granted the press in the First Amendment, has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which isn't about freedom of the press in any case, nor would removing them invite government intervention. It would however remove the libel shield the press enjoys, and hides behind with impunity. Some of you need to spend more time reading the Constitution and U.S. history in general. The truth will set you free. --₮K/Admin/Talk 10:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
From what I understand of history, the press at the time the Constitution was drafted was anything but unbiased. And I fail to see how removing a constitutional clause designed to prevent government intervention would do anything but invite government intervention. Wouldn't a conservative be the last person (ok, maybe after a libertarian) to remove a check on the government and feel confident that abuse and corruption wouldn't follow? Corry 10:17, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Just a thought....without the current constitutional protection given to the press/multi media, how long would the clearly and blatently biased, "In The News" section on Conservapedia last? Or maybe it doesn't count if the bias is coming from a conservative source? BrianTS 10:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's worth pointing out that "the press" as referred to in the constitution refers to the printing press in general as an umbrella term for non-speech communication, not to the journalism industry specifically. ("The Press" as a nickname for the mass media dates from 1926.) The constitution is not saying "People can say what they want, and the print/radio/TV/web industry in particular gets a specific shout-out." (Though that would be quite prescient of the drafters.) The constitution is saying, "People (all people; private citizens) are free to say what they want, and to write/publish they want." (...with later legal stipulations against libel, slander, incitement of hatred, etc.) Removing those four words from the constitution would achieve an entirely different outcome than what seems to be assumed. That is to say, it would affect every single American's freedom to put pen to paper, not simply curtail the corruption of what we today call The Press. BenOdelle 12:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I never thought I'd get a response. sorry for the reply, but I have a job to attend to. Business, and all that. Back onto topic, I never accused Mr. Schlafly of anything. I simply stated that people sometimes misread things, and that is what may have happened in this instance. Kallium, however, stated as well that he saw the same thing, and TK brought up some evidence, though I wouldn't call a re-write [at the hands of a local editor, and therefor subject to various changes] and a news brief [Implied on brief, with many things taken out] solid evidence. Both the editions by Colleen Long, A.P. have his party stated in there. Whether it was changed or not after seeing the CP article is contested, with the conservative view on the side of evidence [by the aforementioned timestamps], and I will not argue that. Why they did not release a correction and apology is beyond me, as it is standard practice. As to why TK called me an apologist, I haven't the slightest idea. CodyH 12:23 24 March 2009 (CST)

  • Perhaps because you pointed to a "policy" that has been documented thousands of times as usually being ignored? It isn't a rare occurrence that "corrections" are sent out after most media deadlines, with the misleading story on page one, and the correction, if given, appears on page fifty, below the fold. Look at the Pope Benedict story on the main page I just posted, for an even better example of media manipulation. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:37, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
CodyH, not to belabor the point, but you did initially suggest that the error was mine. You say now that what happened is "beyond" you, but we explained how bias was the cause for what happened.
It's not a big deal, and I'm not offended. Many people would admit, "you were right, I was wrong," and then open their minds to new insights. But by all means suit yourself.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Barney Frank news article -- typos

I believe usual spellings for the mortgage agencies are "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" -- the news item spells them differently, including two different spellings of Fannie Mae. ArthurA 08:24, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, ArthurA. Seems the media is of two minds on how they are spelled as well! --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Their own web pages are and, both of which use those spellings. I'd consider that the authoritative source. ArthurA 08:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Did you at all look at my changes before hurrying back to post again? --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes. I was responding to "Seems the media is of two minds on how they are spelled as well!" My apologies. ArthurA 09:15, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Czech government collapses

I saw on the liberal BBC (please forgive me for linking to them but I cannot find any other links at the moment) that the Czech government has collapsed to the Green Party withdrawing its support. I know that the Czech President (Klaus) recently gave a speech at the anti-global warming conference. Does anyone know if the two things are related? RoyR 18:48, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

"Catholics say 'No-Bama'" : A Double Standard?

Opposing Obama at the University of Notre Dame? Protest! Opposing Ben Stein at the University of Vermont? Censorship![1] Jack Murphy 20:31, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

  • And comparing a respectful petition, JackMurphy, compares in what rational and logical way to shouting/screaming down, trampling people, throwing fruits and vegetables, and making threats? I detect typical liberal deceit here. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
The new total 101,502 have signed !!!!!! --Jpatt 22:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Courtesy of the Conservapedia article on censorship, it may be defined as "protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses," although I think it's fair to generalize this to any speaker on a campus. So, if Obama is a "speaker on campus", and Roman Catholics are "protesting" his address, we can infer that it is indeed a form of censorship. Unless, that is, the article is implying it only constitutes as censorship if they were to protest and disrupt, or if one was to insist that it must be a conservative speaker. If that is the case, I wonder what words of condemnation would echo here if 101,502 Catholics were to actually show up and disrupt his address. --Jack Murphy
  • If anyone disrupts a speech, seeks to block those interested in hearing what a speaker has to say, I have condemned them, JackMurphy, as does any clear headed person. Problem is, I cannot find one incidence of conservatives doing so. Yet, searching Google, one finds literally hundreds of liberal, left-wing hordes doing the most vile kinds of what is today loosely called "protest". I wonder why the left is almost singly responsible for shouting people down, disrupting those who disagree with them, etc. If you have an open mind, you will find the answer to that. The truth will indeed set you free! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Confusing link to the midterm

I find the "In The News" link to the midterm a bit confusing. The link itself is "World History course midterm", and follows up with the words "has been written". But the link itself just connects to the course, and only at the end of the paragraph does it say actual midterm will be posted later. I'd suggest something like "The midterm for the World History Course has been written, and will be posted later in the week", followed by the rest of the item. ArthurA 11:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I improved it as prompted by your suggestion. Thanks. Also, thanks for your explanation of the origin of the word "Virginia". I inserted that in World History Lecture Nine. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 12:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Glad to help. ArthurA 13:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Charitable Giving

I noticed, waaaay down the bottom of a very long Main Page, your entry about charitableness and giving. Wouldn't it be good to link to a charity of your choice near that - or better yet - at the top of the Main Page? I'd hope your readers would be generous givers, and I'm sure a good cause could be agreed upon. I'd like to suggest one - Self Help Africa. What do you think? KBinbota 13:32, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Conservatives are big supporters of charity. But that doesn't mean everything advertising itself as a "charity" is helpful. See the first Conservative parable. Your link does look good, by the way.--Andy Schlafly 17:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
But if conservatives are such big supporters of charity, wouldn't it be good to have a few links to recommended charities on the Main Page? It would be more beneficial to those in need than simply asserting that liberals "aren't charitable". Finally, I can absolutely assure you of Self Help Africa's intent, they are the real deal and do tremendous work, bypassing the large, bloated aid organizations and directly helping local farmers on the ground. KBinbota 18:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
No, your logic doesn't follow. Given that the world produces far more food than it can consume, the biggest cause of poverty is not lack of charity but a lack of good policies as well as improper education. For example, as I type this, I hear on the television news that Obama is going to increase taxes on charitable giving. Now that's something you should be speaking out against now.--Andy Schlafly 18:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Hold on - you're connecting dots I never made, it's your own logic that got a little confused there. I totally agree with you - the world IS producing far more food than it can consume, and the West wastes vast amounts of food - the problem, as you say, is the policies, and WHERE the food is grown and distributed. And helping Africans become more self-sustaining in their own food production needs is exactly what the sustainable agriculture movement is about. It's a good cause, and hard to criticise. I don't want to turn this into politics - that got me banned the last time. I simply wanted to suggest that placing a link on your own home page to charities of your choice would set a better example than simply complaining than 'liberals don't give to charities'. That's the only point I wish to make. KBinbota 18:43, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm criticizing your demand that we re-prioritize. Charity is important, and conservatives are more charitable than liberals. You still don't seem to recognize the significance of that point. Conservatives do want to help people, as reflected by their giving. Some liberals, in contrast, care more about personal power. Is it necessary to give you a few high-profile examples?
There's hardship in some areas of Detroit that are just as tragic as Africa. Those hardships in Detroit are not due to lack of money, but are due to self-serving policies by some powerful liberal politicians. For example, liberals do better with a more illiterate population. That's why illiteracy in Detroit is shockingly high.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
You keep blending things I neither implied nor said said into thoughts in your own head. No matter. If you read what I'd written, you'd see that I'd 100% support you putting a link to Detroit-area charities on your front page. Absolutely. I never suggested it HAD to be Africa. Just some charities of your choice. KBinbota 23:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
You still won't admit how liberal policies cause the hardships. Your denial reinforces the need for this site to emphasize policy issues first. Hopefully after continued emphasis here on the hurtful policies and after your reconsideration, you'll realize that charity is only one part of the solution. Ending the liberal policies that cause the hardships would be even more beneficial, and hence the greater emphasis on that.--Andy Schlafly 08:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Would you consider adding a link to this Detroit area charity to your Main page? You could raise some useful revenue for them, and I'm sure many of your readers would donate something. KBinbota 13:23, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
KBinbota, we focus on truthful education here, which helps alleviate many problems ranging from poverty to mental illness. You keep posting links to other approaches. In fact, you're 0 out of 17 edits in terms of substance here, in violation of our rules.
Liberals could end illiteracy and the resulting poverty in Detroit and nationwide immediately. But then the literate population would vote them out of office, and liberal politicians care more about their power than anything else. Keep supporting the liberal approach and not all the money in the world is going to alleviate the hardship.--Andy Schlafly 18:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, I'll drop the subject after having my own final comment. You proclaim that conservatives give more to charity, yet you won't consider putting a link to a charity (of your choice) anywhere on your site to support them? I don't understand you always bringing the debate back to liberals - I never once mentioned liberals, you did, and so does the Main Page article which maintains conservatives donate far more than liberals. If so, then where are the links to charities? Are you arguing that people shouldn't give to charities, but instead 'fight liberalism' in other ways? KBinbota 18:37, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
KBinota, you insisted on last wordism with your illogical rant. I give criticism of liberal policies a higher priority than charity because liberal policies are the biggest cause illiteracy, poverty, mental illness, lack of faith, and other tragic hardships. We prioritize to be most effective.--Andy Schlafly 08:34, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
Do you have the news source? I'd love to read it and it would make for good ammo in the future. Even better, put it on the front page! RedFlare 18:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

My Favorite, personally They're very niche, dealing primarily with victims of rape in the Congo, since raping the women has become a viable military tactic to some there... It's very horrible.
But I agree that policy is the issue, however I think that our government as a whole is to blame. Take for instance our association with China and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia speaks for itself, it is the only country I know of that openly professes the Qua'ran to be it's constitution. The Saudi Government is composed of Sheiks who came to power through inheritance or violence and the religious freedoms there are nearly non-existent...yet no U.S. leader, right or left would dare make a point of this and risk jeopardizing relationships with the oil rich nation. Then there's china. Though most people in America deplore the actions of certain powers in Darfur, no one seems to care about China...which is odd since it has been the Chinese ability to veto via the Security Council that has kept the U.N. from taking any real action other than pointless threats regarding the area. I'm not saying the U.N. would have any effect in the region, mind you, they were formed in order to prevent genocide and I don't think they've stopped a single event since they're inception...but China sure gets to show off who it likes. China likes Sudan who provide it with oil and it protects Sudan. Then the U.S. gets all worked up over the horrible Sudanese government and no one even looks in China's direction...even though Mao's China killed more of it's own people than almost any government in history...But Obama sends Hillary to China with the message of "Oh, hey buddy! Don't let us get in the way of your progress!" and when Bush penned out his Axis of Evil he never even glanced in the red giant's direction... We ignore the real threats to freedom in the world and go after the "easy" ones...and I don't mean easy in a military sense, I mean easy in a political sense. In my opinion either we should do what we say, and not ignore those powers who we find it inconvenient to oppose, or we stay out of the matter altogether, but this "We're the good guys...when we can be" is just...well I don't like it. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Sorry...I had that rant in me for some reason...--NicholasT 08:59, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

The Fox Nation

What is The Fox Nation? This is the first I've heard of it. Any explanations?--LarryL 19:00, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I understand it is basically a re-vamping of their fan site/section, lots of interactive boards and the like. Guess we will see for sure on Monday! --₮K/Admin/Talk 04:29, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
Update! Check out this article. --₮K/Admin/Talk 04:41, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Famous American Buildings

Our article Famous American Buildings is number 5 in Google among 29,400,000 websites.

See: [2]

Conservative links number 6 among 28,300,000 - [3]

and Famous Bible paintings is number 1 among 2,930,000 - [4]

--Joaquín Martínez 20:11, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Wow, that's fantastic, Joaquin!!!! I went to change the name of the Sears Tower in Famous American Buildings because I heard it had a new owner, but I see that the new name will not come until June. Anyway, well done!--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Vague news

I am just wondering why on several occasions very vague and ambiguous 'news' articles have been posted on the main page, such as the most recent one:

"Conservapedia has learned that it is has more fans of its evolution article among YouTube video producers! Expect more videos featuring or citing Conservapedia's evolution article! Please stay tuned for further developments."

The statement is extremely vague, it gives no details about what it's actually saying. By all means significant news regarding Conservapedia related matters should be posted there, but this isn't news, it's ambiguous claims and predictions. If there are actual figures to provide for such an update then they should be included else the posting seems to lack any real value. RobertWDP 22:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

The Main Page is an interesting and provocative mixture of information by people who have earned Sysop rights through their efforts here. It is not limited to what appears in the newspapers. We don't simply repeat here what is said elsewhere. If you don't like a news item, then the best response is to suggest a better one, and we often post from suggestions on this talk page. You haven't suggested a better item yet, but I hope you do. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 08:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that newspaper articles were the only thing worthy of mention. I said that if it's related to Conservapedia then I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. My criticism is of the fact that the piece mentioned was not in any way informative about what it was mentioning. If you wish me to suggest a better one then I would simply suggest that whoever posted the piece originally should provide some figures to support statements such as 'more fans', as is done when pieces are posted about the number of page views. News pieces on page views for example can be posted when there is a significant update from the last post, but with this it doesn't provide any baseline by which to measure future change. RobertWDP 18:55, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

You make a valid point about that particular news item, and my response concerned the appropriate remedy: better news items. This a basic difference between conservatives and liberals: conservatives believe in competition as the solution, while liberals believe in control as the solution.
By the way, note how few liberals take the World History Midterm Exam. Being a liberal means merely pretending to be smarter, and it doesn't help that strategy to display one's actual knowledge.--Andy Schlafly 20:23, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Brazil Report

The news headline, about the reports for 'over 1 million' abortions seems wrong. The people making the claim, Ipas, are listed as being an organization for 'advancing women's reproductive rights', then is listed as supporting abortion, followed by media deceit. However, there's no media deceit in the article from what i've seen. The articles that list the number of abortions say that they are done illegally, and the L.A. Times even goes so far as to say they are done dangerously. They are in no way supporting the number, but simply passing along the information given from the Health Ministry and Ipas. I think, in this instance, the media is being deceived, IF there is falsehood in the report. The linked 'NewsBusters' article simply states that the same value has been used fraudulently before, but this is the first time that Ipas [which works with the government's Health Industry] has stated these numbers. Though it presents a disturbing link, I wouldn't state that it is solid proof until someone uncovers the truth of the matter.

If I were to rewrite it, I would use this wording instead. Media outlets including CNN, Time magazine, and the Los Angeles Times are reporting that "over 1 million" women in Brazil illegally terminate their pregnancies every year illegally, with 200,000 having to be treated at hospitals for side effects. However, this figure appears to originate from a group called Ipas, an organization dedicated to "advancing women's reproductive rights" while supporting abortion. Even more disturbing is that the number has been used twice before with fraudulent claims.[18] CodyH 17:19 27 March 2009 (CST)

Turn off your lights!

Hey everyone in conservapedia land - did you remember to turn of your lights for the next hour? It's earth hour! Do your part and turn off your lights! - Leonard Lowe.

I couldn't think of anything less meaningful, more packed with leftist symbolic poppycock and jingoism than that. I turned on all the lights here. I urge everyone to burn all their lights the entire night! --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:00, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Wow, I wasn't expecting to be greeted with such hostility. Earth hour is just meant to symbolize that conserving energy is as simple as turning off your lights. Energy conservation should be on the minds of everyone, liberal or conservative.
Wow, Conservadude/Leonard, you thought that was hostility? Perhaps being a liberal has warped your mind, so you cannot tell a statement of fact from hostility. As Mr. Schlafly keeps repeating, you should open your mind, learn the facts, and the truth you learn will set you free! This turn off the lights deal is part of a coordinated attack on the western world, a United Nations plan to redistribute wealth (see the front page news item from a couple of days ago). If you are truly concerned you should be posting for clean, efficient Nuclear/Thermal/Solar/Wind Power. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:12, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I did think that was hostility, everything on this website that doesn’t abide by your conservative doctrine is greeted with hostility. You mention Andy’s repetition of opening your mind – well you my friend as well as everyone else here that is in charge have minds that are more closed than any other person I have ever encountered. You are trying to tell me that turning off your lights is a coordinated attack on the western world?!? And I’m the warped one?!? Give me a break! And I know that you are going to block me now. That is what you people do. You encounter someone who does not agree with you, so the best thing to do is just get rid of them. That’s not closed minded at all. Maybe I’m the one trying to OPEN YOUR minds to alternative ways of thinking, because you people are trapped in a bubble of ridiculousness and idiotic ideas. Open your mind! I turned off my lights, along with millions of people around the world. You want to leave yours burning all night – good for you. Now tell me how global warming doesn’t exist, or how homosexuality is a disease, or how abortion causes breast cancer, or how gun control decreases crime, or how God exists. Guess what, I am a socialist, Atheist, Canadian. And this site is no longer worth my time. So long. Enjoy your fantasy world.
Thanks for the typical liberal rant. One can tell just by its style.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Can you define that style for me andy? Could the style be reflective of being completely dumbfounded by the 'theories' of turning off lights being a cooridnated attack on the western world, because that is what I'm thinking.
I'm referring to your long-winded lack of substance. Your use of many words to say nothing.--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Your use of few words is lacking substance as well andy. How does it say more than I did?
It's the high word:substance ratio that characterizes the liberal every time. You're right about my little substance in this exchange, but I take few words to say it.--Andy Schlafly 22:21, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

I think this has all got a bit out of hand here. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the Earth Hour concept as such. Almost inevitably little if any real benefit will come from it but there's no harm in trying surely. Your comment about burning all your lights TK might well be in jest but some people here are looking at matters like this as if there are only two options, them or us. Just because you disagree with some of the views of a certain group of people does not mean that they are wrong about everything, it's no reason to disregard all that they say, and it's certainly no reason to just go out and do the exact opposite as a reflex. The original poster might be a 'liberal' he might not be. But if you are to criticise then it should be aimed not at his broader political beliefs, but at the issue in question. RobertWDP 22:25, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Robert, you have a high word:substance ratio also.
As to the substance, TK's response appears to be right on target, and an appropriate reaction to a liberal sermon to "do our part," as though we aren't doing more meaningful activities already. Work with the lights on creates more wealth and alleviates more hardship than laziness with the lights off does.--Andy Schlafly 22:40, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
I dedicated my Earthhour to capitalism. All lights on, TV on, computer on then left my house. --Jpatt 23:11, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
My family turned on more lights than usual, floodlights, spare bedroom, the whole bit! Earth Hour is just a way for Liberals, Anti-Americans, and Socialists to try and hurt the American economy and lead the US towards a facist government, which will be easier now with "president" Obama at the helm of the nation. I say conservapedia should organize an anti-Earth Hour, a day to use as much energy as possible to help the economy and offset the damage done by Earth Hour!!--IScott 23:25, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
My post was meant to put a spotlight on empty gestures designed to make a certain segment of society feel they are contributing, all the while ignoring that it was American ingenuity, American private capital, American innovation that laid the ground work for all of the burgeoning alternative fuel industries now developing even newer technologies. The left seeks to make political hay out of this, all the while these alternatives have been in the pipeline, and it was the lefts extreme environmentalism that has delayed the introduction of them. The rabid environmentalists have even filed time-wasting lawsuits against wind turbines! Come to think of it, time-wasting - either by lawsuits or silly red-herring, fact evading posts on wiki's by known socks and trolls - seems to be the primary tool of todays radical liberals! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:54, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I just find it amazing how people can read posts by TK and IScott and not realize they're parodists. So be it. ThomasW 08:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh wise one, ThomasW, please grace us with more of your illuminating insights here! Seriously, let's see if you can make a substantive contribution of value, Thomas, before you start lecturing to us.--Andy Schlafly 08:54, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

This earth day was lot on the news here where i live, hard to find anything that irritated me more, on other hand they are telling us to spend more in order to fight the depression, but as soon as the magic words Global warming are mentioned, nothing else matters. I work hard to get the comforts i have in life, not going to sit in a dark for an hour for some liberals. Mayby we should have a day of our own, Gods earth day or something in that line, a day when people could enjoy what earth has to offer without listening to liberal fantasyes about global warming and such. TimoA 14:25, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Thomas, I pity you for having filled your mind with the cesspool that is liberal thought, that you, without credentials or any public track record of being a leader in any political movement, can feel comfortable stating what is and is not parody, if you are not yourself a nasty troll. At the very least, you are so deluded as to believe anyone expressing mainstream conservative thought is a parodist, and that is sad. Mr. Schlafly is my friend, but our political/religious disagreements are very well documented, so it would be impossible to parody him because he knows where I disagree, as does the rest of the world, except you, it seems. Save one or two parodists, none has escaped my exposure/blocking over the past several years. You guys just don't have the "right stuff" to do parody effectively, because without exception you resist attempts to validate your real persona, and that will always trip you up. And please don't take my ignoring, or letting you hang yourselves as not knowing who and what you are, I am just enjoying the "cat and mouse" fun of it!
And one final thing for you trolls to ponder: If you contribute here, being such "good" parodists that you are in fact adding conservative thought, doesn't that really cease to be parody? How can you "claim credit" for parody, when what you add is accepted conservative thought? Just one of the mistakes you and your kind make, is to believe that we care about blocking liberal trolls/time wasters/arguers-without-end, or think we are missing something not accepting your liberal POV. We don't. We would rather have ten good conservative editors than 1,000 liberals and atheists. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:47, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Liberals vs conservatives on religion

fascinating new material is on line The poll was conducted Nov 2008 and is from the religiously conservative Barna Group.

Some findings: Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:

  • their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
  • a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
  • their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
  • the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
  • their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:

  • read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
  • attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
  • pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
  • share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
  • have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)
  • 2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
  • 15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
  • conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
  • 21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals. RJJensen 15:01, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
That is fascinating. Thanks for posting it.
The statistic that stands out the most is the correlation with attending a religious service. In general, the more attendance, the more conservative. But there are exceptions, as in people who do not "preach what they practice" (people who are personally conservative but refuse to advocate it, or advocate the opposite). We often hear complaints about a person who doesn't "practice what he preaches," but a worse and more irrational behavior is a person who doesn't "preach what he practices."--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree with A.S. here, Richard. What also stands out in all such polling/research I have seen, is the meager charitable donations of liberals versus conservatives. While liberals give lip-service to helping those less fortunate than they are, they want to do it with someone else's dime, never their own. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:54, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Spelling error

I'm sorry, but I believe the correct spelling in the article on Since33AD's video series is "YouTubers", not "YouTubbers". JY23 17:48, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Obama radical Muslim terrorist news entry is alarming!

Aside from whether retiring use of the phrase "global war on terror" has anything to do with capitulating to or accommodating terrorists, the news entry does not support its claim that there is connection between Obama and radical Muslim terrorists. The news entry states that the Obama article contains the truth, but I cannot find where it discusses Obama's contact with terrorists other than William Ayres, who I do not believe is a radical Muslim terrorist. There is no specific mention in the Obama article of Obama having ties to radical Muslims. I am deeply concerned about Obama's ties to terrorists and whether his administration will alter the course and capitulate to terrorists. Is there more information on this on Conservativepedia that I am missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VLeistung (talk) --- 07:35, 31 March 2009

  • I am sorry, "Viktor", that your mind cannot be opened to the truth. If after reading the entire Barack Hussein Obama article, (along with the given citations, "also sees" and external links) you do not at a minimum admit there are grave questions about his background and ties, I am fairly certain nothing will. There was another controversy about a dinner Obama attended, which the Los Angeles Times refused to release the video of, where Obama spoke lovingly of yet another friend who is a radical Islamic, which was pretty well publicized throughout the world, even on the pages of the LAT. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:42, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
For instance Obama worked closely with Louis Farrakhan in the 1995 million man march. Radical Muslim Farrakhan said in 1996 “God will destroy America by the hands of the Muslims. . . . God will not give Japan or Europe the honor of bringing down the United States; this is an honor God will bestow upon Muslims.”--Jpatt 15:55, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes my mind is open to the truth, but it looks for factual support for conclusions, such as that the article on Obama here discusses his ties to radical Muslim terrorists. I read the article and didn't find anything about the terrorists other than William Ayres, who I do not think is one the same muslim terrorists the news entry refers to. But I think I have been misunderstood if I were to judge by your tone, which I would take to be hostile to me. I am not arguing against the author of the news entry, who I take to be you by the force of your defense. I am not arguing against the point of the entry either, for I wrote to express that I am very concerned about Obama having ties to radical Muslim terrorists and said I wish to learn more about it. I hoped the Obama article would say more because the entry says to refer to the article for the truth on Obama, but it does not mention radical Muslim terrorists, so I asked. The Obama article has opened my eyes to many things that are not covered in European press in any language, so I thank you for the entry, which is how I found this Conservapedia in the first place. I do find it interesting that the Million Man March was organized by Obama and Louise Farrakhan, but I am not aware that Farrakhan is a terrorist! I think he is merely a outspoken member of a fringe sect but maybe you define terrorist different than other places where a terrorist is someone who uses ideology to blow things up or kill people, not make a speech. If I offended you, I am sorry. I am not perfect with my English and it is hard for me to see what others speakers see in the tone of what I write. Therefore if my tone was not good, I apologize for that too. Thank you for your responses to me! Viktor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VLeistung (talk)-- 12:08, 31 March 2009

I would like to see evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is connected with Muslim terrorists. I have every reason to believe he is (middle name), but a citation could back us up. Maybe Fox News? --Jack456 16:10, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Something that is a truism, Jack456, shouldn't have to have "evidence" supplied and spoon fed, unless you are a liberal and then nothing, not even if you were an eye witness to whatever, would convince you. For just one example of the media's cover-up for Obama, take a look HERE
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say. Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms. Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

and also HERE.

John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape. "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

As for my "tone", unless you are a mentalist, please don't attempt to interpret such things, which really amount to a public attack and deliberate distortion of my thinking. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:54, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
If someone is undecided, a link would help convince them. I am most certainly not a liberal, and I do believe that Obama associates with Muslim terrorists. I just believe that to keep looks up, it may be a good idea to include a link so people don't argue with us. We have better things to do then to argue with liberals. Just a suggestion. --Jack456 16:58, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Well yes, I am sure. The news items are not for our liberal enemies, however. They are news items which, for the most part, the deceitful liberal media won't cover, and given to inform other conservatives, and those who come to CP with an open mind. Experience has shown us that liberals, most of all, have minds that can only comprehend or accept their own orthodoxy, and almost incapable of absorbing truth. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:30, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
There are some independents. We aren't going to convince them unless we can back things up. --Jack456 17:34, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Thank you to TK for giving these guotations. They are helpful to understand. But I think TK you are talking to me about the tone and making a joke that I am not a mentalist. I do not think I was incorrect to believe that your tone was initially snide and I believe it is even more true in this last post from you. You said that you were sorry that my mind cannot be opened to the truth! And then you said that if I do not believe a certain thing after reading the Obama article nothing will open my mind! These things are about me personally and they are said only because I asked a question for more facts to support the news entry. I do not know what you or anyone familiar with Obama's ties to radical Muslim terrorists knows so I asked because, which I wrote the first time, these things aren't reported in Europe. To comment on your tone does not amount to a public attack or a distortion at all. This is a common mistake to feel that you are being attacked simply because you feel defensive or that I am saying something false when I express my opinion that can be supported by reading your answers to me. You are the one who make snide remarks about me at my expense, which is unfair to ignore, I did not expect to be in a fight with someone I never met on the second day I am trying to be a part of the Conservapedia. VLeistung 18:00, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
  • As I said, this is only in your mind, VLeistung. If you are not a mentalist, you, being so new as you pointed out, are incapable of having enough information to know what I am thinking, or what my intent was. That is not an attack or snide remark, just merely factual. What we do know, based upon years of experience, is that liberals and trolls are the ones who raise such false flag, Red herring issues. I, more than anyone, certainly hope your contributions show you are here to help, and not endlessly argue such silly speculation. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:11, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I am a conservative, but in Austria I am sure it means something different than in the United States? This is some of the reason I am reading Conservapedia to learn about US conservatives. I look forward to participate here and thank you for your messages on your name page and here. You have given me some good things to know about Mr. Obama, and I hope that in time my additions will give you some things to consider also, and I thank you for your kind invitation. We do well as educated people when the learning continues, so I look forward to learning here together! It is late for me so I will read the rules you posted on my name page tomorrow. VLeistung 19:41, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Guten Tag! --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:56, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Good evening and thank you! I have read the rules you posted and I look forward to helping. VLeistung 13:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)