Talk:Main Page/archive75

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


UCSD Email Fail

I really don't see why this article should make the front page at CP. It's an admin error that could happen at any institution, and has happened at many. The administrative staff at a uni have nothing to do with, and are no reflection upon, the academic credentials of the institution itself. You do not need to have a Phd. from UCSD to work in it's post room.

This might be a subject of mild lulz. It is not, however, front page material of what it supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. --Krysg 14:07, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Just moved my comment up to this section since you beat me to it, but I have to say I agree. Why is it that what was essentially a simple mistake (albeit one that ended up being sent to 29,000 people) is being used to try and criticise the quality of not just the university in question, but all universities? It was a simple mistake likely made by one member of staff, it doesn't reflect well on the university of course but I don't think you could justifiably read much more into it than that. RobertWDP 14:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm going to agree with both of you in this; it possibly is not an order of this university to send out the emails to those rejected, and it should not reflect on all universities as a whole. But at the very least, someone got stupid; 29,000 emails to tell rejects they were accepted, then 29,000 more saying "sorry, you're still rejected" should be a case of getting the sender fired. Karajou 15:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Obama Quote

"In prepared remarks, today Barack Obama declared, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

I was rather shocked by this so I looked at your source which is AOL news yet couldn't find these words, wrong source maybe? --Asiak

The quote is correct. CNN played it over and over last night as Obama read the words from the teleprompters. I'll simply update the link on the Main Page here.--Andy Schlafly 09:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
I had concerns about this one too - glad to see you're on top of it. Including both the existing article and a link to the actual quote would be ideal. Of course, it's not news that Obama has Muslims in his family, or that he has lived in a Muslim-majority country. We've all known that for a long time. However, it's interesting to see how he is leveraging his Muslim experiences on behalf of the US. Perhaps the item can be expanded a bit to encourage the reader to look at the article, by including some reference to the new information, rather than just the quote. --Hsmom 09:23, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
You do realize that Obama was referring to his time in Indonesia, a Muslim majority state, and his step father who was a Muslim. He wasn't saying that he himself is a Muslim. And either way I fail to see how this is of any relevance.--Asiak
Asiak, if you put --~~~~ at the end of your post, it will be signed and dated, which is helpful. There's a button on the editing page to insert it - it looks like a scribbled signature. --Hsmom 09:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Asiak and Hsmom can try to spin the quote as much as you like, but its message is unmistakable, and that message is primarily for Americans.
It will be interesting to see how long Obama defenders continue to remain in denial about his belief system.--Andy Schlafly 09:39, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, are you reading "I know, because I am one of them." to mean "I know, because I am a Muslim"? I didn't hear the clip on CNN, so perhaps I am missing something by reading it instead of hearing it? What was the message for Americans, as you heard it on CNN? You're much more up on this stuff than I am; sometimes I don't see stuff that is obvious to those who keep up with the news more than I do. --Hsmom 09:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Thank you Hsmom. And this "defender" will continue to remain in denial until someone produces legitimate hard evidence to say otherwise. And I wonder how long Obama "opponents" will continue to manipulate his words to make them sound more controversial. I also wonder how long his opponents will continue to stretch things to make him seem like a Muslim, when it is obviously not true and even if it was it is hardly relevant. --Asiak 10:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
<edit conflict>Asiak, I agree that the item as it reads now seems irrelevant. We all know that Obama's father was Muslim, and I believe his half-sister is also Muslim. It's not that uncommon in African American families to have Muslim friends or relatives. Also, we all know that he lived in Indonesia when he was young. So on the surface, the item seems to be "old news". The "new news" is in the linked article - it's the way Obama can relate to Muslim heads-of-state, in a way that previous presidents have not been able to do, by using his familiarity with Muslim religion and culture to the advantage of the US. That's news. --Hsmom 09:42, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
It's good news, right? I'm confused by the point of the news entry, as it seems to rely on an assuption that's unclear. ShmuelBernstein 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

News roundup

Just a few headlines that caught my eye, one for opinion and one for error:

We all knew the election of a Democrat for president meant this: Barack Obama Slashing Weapons, Fighter Programs. In order to pay for ATV trails and resod the National Mall, America would have to sacrifice Defense Department spending.

First off, the F-22A Raptor fighter program was highly over-rated, a gross waste of money, and produced no viable results for it's cost. Every jet cost $137.5 Million to roll off the lines, compared to the JSF [a comparable figher, with carrier and anti-ground capabilities as well] for $83 million. so I think cutting the Raptor was a wise choice. To put it in comparison:

Let's round off a soldier's total equipment costs [Including armor, eyepro, weapon, 210 rounds of ammo, etc.] at $10,000. I am not sure of the exact figure, but I know that each m-4 kit costs under $1,500. Now, multiply that by 2,000 soldiers [Another ballpark figure, but i'm fudging the numbers] for a Division of infantry. That's $20 million. Add in vehicles, communications equipment, and logistical assets, and you come close to around $40 million. For a Division of Soldiers. You can fund at least three major division on one F-22A. [If someone has better figures than I represented, I would be happy to use them. Once again, these are approximate statistics, not exact, and the total may be less or more. Still, even if it's one division, you can put a lot more boots on ground for one F-22.]

The second article in this little roundup was about the President. The article goes to state:

In prepared remarks, Barack Obama declared, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."

The general vibe I get from the Conservapedian treatment to the news is that "OMG he said he's a muslim!", which is an error in fact. In print we have these a lot of the time, known as misplaced modifier. When the President stated 'one of them', some would believe that he is referencing 'Muslim-Americans' in the first sentence. However, the modifier 'them' is closer to 'Muslim-majority country', or even to the family reference. While it is well documented that President Obama spent some years of his childhood in a foreign city [Jakarta, Indonesia, from ages six to 10], I believe he is speaking about his family, most notably his father. -- CodyH 08:33 07 April 2009 (CST)

If you listen to the speech, and his speech patterns, it's clear he was referring to the entirety of his statement, i.e. all the previously mentioned clauses. Combined with the other evidence we've compiled here, I'd say it's pretty damning.--FredCorps 23:43, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
I'd say with all the evidence included in other areas and in his own words that he is not Muslim, but that is my expressed belief, and I won't try to force it on you. The speech, however, was clearly not referring to himself [and yes, I read the article and listened to the video] but to the enrichment of America's cultural diversity by Islam, in the same spirit that Mormonism, Judaism, Baptism, Christianity, Catholicism, and other faiths have contributed. -- CodyH 09:49, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
The carefully chosen remarks were plainly designed to condition Americans to fully support a Muslim President. Obama could not have gone any further without admitting that he lied about his religion in order to be elected.
No Christian would have worded those remarks as Obama did.--Andy Schlafly 10:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
A blanket statement like 'No Christian would have worded those remarks as Obama did' can be taken wildly out of context and used against you because it invokes the 'No true Scotsman' argument. Instead, try "A Christian who is comfortable with his faith" instead of the blanket statement. It still keeps you on message and protects you from a logical loophole in your argument.
As for a Muslim president, I still see no article or law that states that a Presidential candidate cannot follow a specific religion as long as it does not affect his judicial policy [We still don't have shari'a law, so I think we're covered]. Remember the spat that JFK created because of his Catholic faith? I believe, instead on trying to demonize the man for his religion, you should target the fact that he lied about it consistently since he joined Trinity Church some years ago [A position I do not believe in] and continues to lie to a public that trusts him [Again, a position I do not believe in]. -- CodyH 13:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
No, Andy. Nothing is as "clear" about Obama being a Muslim as you seem to think it is, as evidenced by the fact that many people, including at least a few Conservapedia sysops and admins, reasonably think you are wrong. TaKess 23:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Israel article

I would like to make an addition to the Israel article to discuss the Law of Return and recent changes in the law that create ambiguities in the rights of citizenship of people residing in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Is someone responsible for this article that I must seek approval from to make edits? American conservative people and American Christians might be interested to know that some recent changes in our laws are creating difficult problems for the Arab non-citizen spouses of Israeli citizens who would otherwise have been permitted citizenship if they resided anywhere other than Palestinian authority zones. It is literally creating a problem of being from the "wrong side of the tracks." Thank you - Shmuley Bernstein ShmuelBernstein 11:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Question on Envelopes

Now I do not mean this entry to be read as sarcastically, so please do not take it as such. This is a sincere attempt to obtain information/understand another perspective. My question has to do with the red envelopes sent to the White House as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Now this act is obviously symbolic in nature, and has no real tangible effects in of itself. May I ask, why is it that this act is extolled and promoted, but then an act such as Earth Hour is demonized and called "liberal symbolism"? Both acts are symbolic in nature (although it could be argued that Earth Hour at least does save some energy, the amount can be argued separately) and both are designed to further some viewpoint/campaign. I am not casting judgment on either movement, but I am curious as to when is a symbolic act appropriate to further a campaign?

Again not trying to instigate anything, but just gain information. Cheers--AndrasK 15:15, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Try to understand AndrasK that this is a conservative wiki. You may think Earthhour represents something good for both conservatives and liberals, it does not. It pushes the leftwing doctrine man-made global warming, which is of course, a lie.--Jpatt 16:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
According to the news articles, not even Al Gore found "Earth Hour" particularly important. And I hardly think there can be an equivalence between supporting global warming curtailment efforts and human life, the murder of babies. One is a historically repeating natural occurrence, and the other is a deliberate human choice. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:29, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Reagan and Church?

I found this on Fox Nation. It doesn't seem correct to me that President Reagan didn't go to church while in DC. Can anyone else find a cite for this? BHarlan 17:43, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

  • President Reagan and Nancy infrequently attended the Santa Ynez Presbyterian Church and the First Presbyterian of Santa Barbara, when at the Ranch. When in Los Angeles, they often attended their home church, the Bel Air Presbyterian Church. To attend one church regularly, as President involves sometimes great inconvenience to the parishioners, due to the Secret Service carting over, metal detectors, etc. So, after being elected, Reagan opted not to attend one particular church, out of respect to the other church members. Many times, if he wanted to attend a service, it was at the very last minute, usually only the Pastor being informed less than an hour before, and just before the service began they would enter from the side, if possible, and be seated in the first row. When at the White House ministers were often on the guest list for the weekends, and he talked often to Billy Graham, as a White House guest, and on the phone as well, whom both the President and Nancy had known several decades. So, Bill Sammon is correct in what he said. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:23, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the info, TK. I suppose Obama will use this as political cover, even though it should surprise nobody that a Muslim doesn't go to a church to pray! BHarlan 19:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, all I (or anyone) can go on is the statement issued by the White House, that they will find and attend church services in due course. They didn't say he wouldn't for the reasons President Reagan did. So one must assume that eventually they will.  ;-) --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:12, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

UPDATE: Obamas Still Searching for Church to Call Their Own --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Please don't ban me

Why did my other account ShmuelBernstein get banned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FredCorps (talk) -- 20:20, 7 April 2009

This comment wasn't mine, as is easily seen in the history. Why did you put this here?--FredCorps 00:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
  • 08:06, 7 April 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs | block) blocked ShmuelBernstein (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Using anonymous proxy: Golden Lines International Communication Services, Israel (; use your legitimate ISP if you want to edit here)

--₮K/Admin/Talk 00:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Offshore Drilling Gov't Comment Page

I just filled out a comment on the page. "Yes please, more oil" ha ha! Anyway, it wasn't that hard to get to, and you don't have to remember any code if you simply cut and paste. But I'm fairly net savvy and I could see how some people may have difficulty. Here's a direct link to the comment and info page for the docket.

I thought you may want to put it up in the sight somewhere so those here who support the drilling could send out their feelings. I'm all for it, as long as we're very VERY careful and don't cut corners on safety precautions and as long as it's just a temporary measure to help us get some new energy sources up and running. Hopefully some renewable ones. But anyway, I though you may appreciate this easier to access link for the government comment page for offshore drilling. Just hit the link then click on add comment. --NicholasT 08:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Grammatical error in Biden story

It reads "much more safer." It should be either "much safer" or "much more safe."--FredCorps 10:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Economic War Games

This is a little unnerving. The Pentagon recently hosted a series of war games simulating economic strife between the worlds superpowers. They invited economists, CEO's and such and had them manipulate numbers for economic supremacy...and China won. That's a little concerning to me. Newsworthy? --NicholasT 08:48, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I think so. Thanks for the tip! --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:26, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Obama Bow

although I do not like Obama's politics, I think it should be pointed that George W Bush bowed before the Saudi king (before having the king put a medal on his neck) and going way back, President John Adams bowed before King George both links curtesy of Little Green Footballs. Nathayus 13:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Did Obama make a similar bow before any other head of state on his recent trip? Karajou 13:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
I believe Obama has bowed to an envoy from Japan, so I really think it's more of a cultural thing. Still, he ought to know better when it comes to how he is perceived. Unless he really doesn't care.--FredCorps 14:04, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh Poppycock, FredCorps! A neck bow, nod, is etiquette. Bowing almost to a persons waist, as Obama did, is not even comparable!
The Bush reference is an apples and oranges comparison, inasmuch as President Bush was receiving a medal from a diminutive man, and short of getting on his knees, or the King standing on a box, how would one comfortably enable the medal being put over his head? And I have doubts, Nathayus, you really dislike Obama's politics, insofar as the whole point of your posting was relativism, to point out his action was no different than other President's when in fact it was not. Obama made a deep, very deep, bow, past the King's shoulders. It cannot be credibly interpreted as other than what it was: A highly visible sign of deep Muslim respect for the Saudi King. It was hardly the normal Head of State "nod" that is usual. As for your Adam's comparison, or Green Footballs really moronic, over-reaching, Obama idol-worship comparison.....using something so inane and archaic as a 16th Century social convention is political relativism truly worthy of radical leftism! --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:20, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Little Green Footballs has Obama idol-worship? Now that is an interesting thought. I'm sorry you doubt my personal opinion, but as there really is no way for me to prove that to you, I suppose we can't go too much further. Nathayus 14:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
  • The fact you made a sock when your previous posts from the Denver school district earned you a block under another name, and your only contributions under this new name were to this topic, says all we need to know, Nathayus. The fact that I had blocked the IP of your earlier post, and you ran and found a proxy to still argue this point proves your liberal deceit. Godspeed to you. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:00, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Regarding Obama's deep bow, the video doesn't lie, but the Obama apologists do. Obama did not bring his left hand up until after he was done bowing. President Bush lowering his head to receive a medal from a shorter person does not constitute a bow. I've been looking into Charles Johnson's posts about Obama and against conservatives, but he's gone and blocked me from the entire site. Jinxmchue 21:50, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. I think this supposed bow, if that actually was the case, shows diplomacy, respect and an attempt to bridge rifts and differences that have been caused between the US and even her closest Arab ally. The House of Saud should be seen as friends and allies of anyone looking for sustainable peace in the region, and showing them a little courtesy is hardly a bad thing. it is always better to be seen as civilized and respectful than coarse and uncultured. However, it is hardly earth shattering news, whatever the case. If he did, kudos for the nice gesture of respect for King Abdullah. If not, I hope that a good impression was made, etiquette honoured, and real progress made, whilst the press found nothing more substantial to write about that how the rulers of the world greeted each other. --Krysg 17:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

I disagree with Krysg. The Saudis owe us respect, not the other way around. How America is perceived is a bull excuse. If they can't see America stood for righteousness when it came to Iraq, then forget what others think. If Obama was to bow to anyone, it should be the Queen, the staunchest of allies. Have you seen her title.
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Order of Canada, Sovereign of the Order of Australia, Sovereign of the Order of New Zealand, Sovereign of the Order of Barbados, Sovereign of the Order of Valour, Sovereign of the Order of Military Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Sovereign of the Queen’s Service Order, Sovereign of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of St. Andrew, Sovereign of the Order of Logohu, Sovereign of the Order of the Star of Melanesia, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

He bowed to the custodian of two Mosques. --Jpatt 17:42, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Jpatt, I am a monarchist, and I have every respect for HRH Queen Elizabeth II. However, that does not mean I don't think Obama bowing before King Abdullah was wrong, just because he (King of Saudi Arabia) is not my sovereign (as it happens, I have a lot of time for him). I'd like to have seen Obama bow before the Queen though. I think your ruler owes mine some thanks for our tireless support, misguided or otherwise :) --Krysg 18:58, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
No American, president or otherwise, is expected to bow in any way to anyone - not even royalty. A slight head bow is considered polite and respectful, but not necessary. A deep waist bow is extraordinarily against protocol as it denotes subservience to the person being bowed to. Jinxmchue 22:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Coming Attractions at YouTube at a Time of My Choosing


. The time of stalking will soon be over. It will soon be time to move in for the kill. :) conservative 19:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

...This confuses me greatly --NicholasT 07:59, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Wow. Homicidal, much? After all, the Internet is Serious Business.
Seriously, it is! -- CodyH 11:03, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

What on earth is this nonsense? Surely the original poster is a parodist!? Why hasn't anyone reverted this yet? SimonAG 19:59, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

If conservative has actually flipped out, has found the addresses of and kills some youtubers, will we be held responsible for not reporting this foreshadowing to authorities? I mean, I jest, but only partially. I remember that shortly after the Columbine incident I was suspended from school for two days pending psychological evaluation for telling me friend "I'll kill you!" after he shot his fifth rubber band at my head during lunch. I'm not sure what the rules are these days in the real world for murder threats, even if they are apparently in jest... kind of. --NicholasT 07:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

A couple of people who know me saw the deer heads and cheetah caption and laughed. The title above is coming attractions at YouTube. If you can show me how you can literally kill a person at the location of YouTube I would be very suprised. Last time I checked, it was not possible to literally kill someone in the "territory" of cyberspace at a cyberspace "location". Please tell me when your melodramatics are over. :) conservative 22:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Here is what I wrote on the Conservapedia evolution talk page: In the Conservapedia evolution article, perhaps a section on YouTube and popular evolutionist/atheists poorly and/or errantly promoting their atheist/evolutionary dogma may be created. Do you have any suggestions as far as individuals who could be featured?  :) I believe I have some rather humorous examples that could be used which I believe will be revealed at time of my choosing. By the way, if I did discover a very popular YouTube evolutionist making a factual error in the scientific realm (that even his evolutionist friends would be forced to admit was an error), which occurred when he was promoting his atheistic dogma, how widely do you think I should I make it known?  :) conservative 22:30, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
I am a student of theatre (I use the British spelling out of respect for my main man, Willy S.). Dramatics are part of my nature, both melo and otherwise :). It is not at all impossible to extrapolate an individual's real name, phone number, and address from information they post on sites such as youtube, although I've been trying to get Kenneth Branagh's number for years...alas. But anyway, it's happened before that a crazy person has announced his intentions via online forums. It happens. Cheetahs aren't guns and I don't seriously think you're going to kill anybody. A humorously presented post should be met in turn...and I was kind of just making sure. You know what the neighbors always say about the axe murderer: "He seemed like such a nice person!" As for killing a person via wouldn't be easy, but seizures can be deadly. :) HA!...But seriously, I don't want to be an accessory, so please don't use the seizure idea. --NicholasT 23:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Need help with vandal

I don't know where else to turn, and I can only revert vandalism, since I haven't yet earned block rights. Please look at User:PaulLaroque. Thanks. BHarlan 01:19, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Child Actor Sentenced to Death

Is there a place where I could figure out what exactly Mr. Deleon acted in? No mention of his career was in the article provided or in other sources. JY23 17:23, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Very little. See here [1] JDWpianist 17:43, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
he was never a "Hollywood Actor" -- at age 14 he was an extra in a show. He never had a credited role. RJJensen 19:01, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
He was in fact a child hollywood actor. So his bit in power rangers was one show. He was in fact an actor in commercials “Skylar James Deleon (born John Jacobson Jr.) is a former American child actor. The son of a convicted drug dealer, Deleon began acting in bit parts in commercials as a child. At age 14, he appeared in a non-speaking part in the series ‘Mighty Morphin Power Rangers’ on the episode titled “Second Chance” [2] Don't trust wikipedia to get the story right.--Jpatt 19:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
Not to split hairs, Jpatt, but what you posted is verbatim what Wikipedia says. JDWpianist 08:32, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

But how can you possibly equate someone who appeared in a few commercials and one episode of a TV show as an extra, to a 'hollywood actor'??? He's a criminal who happened to have an insignificant role in something years ago, not an actor who happened to commit a crime. SimonAG 19:58, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

SimonAG, it seems as your only reason to be here is to argue. I suggest you contribute or be gone. --Jpatt 20:01, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

But I am contributing, I'm trying to help you correct an inaccurate news story on your main page. Can I consider the spelling correction I have made in your previous post a contribution? SimonAG 20:05, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Hoillywood values comprise a lot of hyperexaggerated PR and CP must not fall for that. Deleon was a con man. After appearing at age 14 in a couple scenes in one 30-minute show--in a non-speaking "extra role"--he always called himself a Hollywood actor and even a "child star". An encyclopedia should not be a sucker for that ridiculous hype.RJJensen 20:48, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

The critics above miss the point. Nobody cares, least of all the families of the murder victims, whether this criminal was a good actor or not. What matters is that he was a child actor who grew up with Hollywood values. Indeed, some of the child actors are most notably messed up as adults. Check out Tatum O'Neal's troubled adulthood, despite all her privilege and opportunities.--Andy Schlafly 23:15, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

He was never an actor--he was and is a con man who lies about his past. That's how he fooled the people he murdered. We should not be fooled by his fantastic boast that his four minute appearance as an "extra" standing in the background in a half-hour TV show ago made him a "child star". Tatum O'Neal is what a real child star looks like and Andy is right to point out her problems. RJJensen 23:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
Don't want to perpetuate this discussion, but this murderer does seem to have been raised in the Hollywood culture. That's the point.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

If he wasn't a child actor, then why does even the vaunted Wikipedia describe him as such? A struggling child actor in bit parts is still a child actor. Jinxmchue 00:07, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia was fooled, The guy repeatedly claimed to be an actor, that was his trick to meet people like the couple he murdered. It's a well-known con-man trick in Los Angeles because tourists go there hoping to meet a "star". He not only murdered, he lied: he NEVER had a speaking role in anything. The TV series used him as an extra in ONE episode and did not list his name in the credits. Should we believe this liar-murderer? RJJensen 00:33, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
  • What this shows is there is good reason as to why we don't cite Wikipedia! I guess we need to keep repeating that it is never acceptable to use WP as a source or citation here on Conservapedia. --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:11, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Mea culpa, TK. I was the one who first linked to Wikipedia, because it was the only single site which consolidated the known information about him. And at the moment, the information about his "acting career" is scant, which explains the confusion. Everyone here is reading between the lines, because there simply aren't that many lines to read at this point. JDWpianist 08:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

The distinction between a successful actor and a wannabee is not a meaningful difference with respect to Hollywood values. Deleon did enough to earn a place in the Screen Actors Guild; the fact that he may have been unsuccessful with an acting career simply makes him more representative of Hollywood types. Indeed, it is when they start to fail, as nearly all do, that the Hollywood values become most dangerous.--Andy Schlafly 10:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Obama brother

I saw strange story on BBC about half a brother of your President Obama not being allowed into Great Britain because he was suspected of horrible sex attack on British girl. Is this true or does American media censor stories like this? I read it on BBC web site which I put link here. --Temujin 09:42, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

That looks like gossip, the kind of stuff we avoid here. It could hardly be called educational.--Andy Schlafly 09:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't know if that assertion, backed by a news article, really counts as "gossip." It may be alleged, but the Obama article already includes alleged facts like that Obama is a Muslim, and that he likely wasn't born in Hawaii, so why not put this in? --RobertT 18:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, it was reported here by Fox News which essentially was the report by a credible U.K. newspaper, The Times, which I linked to in the Main Page news item. This is a family-friendly site, and it seems to me the one of the important items is that the Obama family seems to have a proclivity for illegal entry into countries, and of course not knowing just where members of their family are residing... --₮K/Admin/Talk 10:10, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Easter Sunday

I realise that your main page means well but I think in all fairness I should remind you that for many millions of Orthodox Christians throughout both the USA and the World, Easter Sunday is next weekend. We don't all follow the Roman and Western Protestant churches way of calculation of the date as you no doubt know well. Xronia Pascha! BrianNTS 15:55, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Well I realize that, however your first clue would be that this is an American/Conservative encyclopedia, therefore no one of good will would ever take exception, or think it unfair that we celebrate the risen Christ on our front page. So your post is but a mystery to me, since Conservapedia has always also recognized the major Eastern Right holidays. No matter the day, we all celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ! --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:06, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Might be an interesting debate topic

Is it an insult to the Vatican for a US President to appoint a non-Catholic, pro-abortion rights person as Ambassador to the Vatican?

The thing is, should we be appointing people to ambassadorships because their background, character and beliefs are the same as or similar to those of the host country? MikeAndrews 12:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Maybe you're on to something, Mike. How about appointing a member of the IRA as ambassador to England????--Andy Schlafly 12:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, Andy beat me to it. MikeAndrews, as the child of a diplomat, I see the ultimate aim of an ambassador (or any of the diplomatic staff really) being to represent the views of the incumbent government that has appointed them to that role (which is why I find it strange that the ANC government here is appointing senior members of the official opposition to ambassador posts). However, in some cases it would probably be best to take into account the culture and beliefs of the country in which you are technically a guest. You are there to build and foster relationships and having somebody pro-abortion in the Vatican is hardly likely to get things off on a good footing. In a similar vein, we would be unlikely to send a woman to be the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 12:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Jessica, it strikes me that your majority party has hit upon a brillant political stratagem! Appoint all opposition leadership to jobs outside of the country!  :P --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:16, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
LOL - well, it works to to perfection so far, seeing as they all accept the nominations (including the leader of the opposition in Parliament!). Then again, I suppose it is as a friend explained to me - "Politics" is derived from the Greek "poly" meaning "many" and "ticks" meaning "blood sucking creatures" {^_^} --KotomiTnandeyanen? 14:45, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
The current US ambassador to Egypt, appointed by Pres. Bush, is a woman. A couple of women have been ambassadors to Yemen. I would imagine that we don't go out of our way to appoint Muslim's as ambassadors to Muslim countries or card carrying communist to be ambassadors to communist countries. I don't know, it just seems like it doesn't have to be seen as an insult by the host country if the ambassador isn't completely on board with that countries culture. MikeAndrews 14:35, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
At the end of the day Mike, I suppose the ambassador is there to represent his government first and foremost and after all, they are not supposed to get involved in the internal affairs of where they are posted (look what happened when the US ambassador to Zimbabwe (rightfully) spoke out). At the end of the day, it is up to the leader of the host nation to accept or reject their credentials. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 14:45, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Agreed! MikeAndrews 14:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Columbus and liberal bias

I'm confused--how is deciding not to recognize Columbus Day an example of liberal bias? TaKess 11:53, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

It is a liberal politically-correct movement. This nation honors Columbus, liberals hatred of Columbus is the same as blaming America for taking land from American Indians. Like liberals who change Christmas break to winter break as not to offend a minority. Or voting for a President because he is black, not because he is qualified. Getit?--Jpatt 12:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
No, I don't get it. Columbus took natives as slaves and sent them back to Spain, and (according to Bartolome de Las Casas, a noted Catholic historian and priest, hence a conservative Christian) pretty much waged open ethnic war against the Arawaks. Why is is liberal bias not to respect a man who does these things? TaKess 12:30, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
It is anti-intellectual to judge past events through the prism of todays "political correct" thinking. Historians and journalists cannot even manage to get the facts straight on events occurring twenty years ago, let alone 500. That liberal thinkers, with the ultimate advantage of 20/20 hindsight, pronounce judgment on historical figures based upon the knowledge we have accrued since they lived is laughable! The idea of Columbus Day is to honor a great historical figure and the "discovery" of the New World. Did others previously also "discover" some other part(s) of the New World? Yes. Does that minimize the great diffusion of knowledge his voyages produced? No. In retrospect, by modern society's standards, did Columbus and party do reprehensible things? Most likely so. But to use the advantage of hindsight to turn him into a "non-person", historically speaking, and denigrate the symbol that he represents, of the adventurer, pushing the boundaries of man's knowledge, is stupid. Such politically inspired historical revisionism has always been present, and historically resisted by the intelligentsia. No more, it seems, with radical liberals insisting on meting out some Bizzaro World form of post-facto "justice" that really isn't. --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:26, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm doubly confused now. Since when do conservatives couch things in terms of "anti-intellectualism" and "modern standards"? It sounds like you're advocating moral relativism. Columbus was a skilled navigator--no one should doubt that--but we don't have to honor men who do awful things by giving them a holiday. TaKess 12:30, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
So after how many years of honoring Columbus, time to correct? Foolish! Let's remind everyone what party was for slavery- Democrats. It's about time to dissolve the Democratic party for the support of slavery.--Jpatt 12:34, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Why are you trying to change the subject? (See Liberal style #51.) Even Christian historians agree that Columbus was not a man worthy of honoring, unless you think Bartolome de Las Casas was actually a liberal. At best, Columbus seems like he was similar to Benito Mussolini or Barack Obama--a person who claims to have been a Christian but whose behavior (apparently) reveals that he could not have been one. TaKess 13:13, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Jpatt, TaKess knows he is being deceitful, and merely goading. A silly ploy (and not so much of a gamble), when dealing with me, because he already knows what the outcome of such deceit is. Anti-intellectualism isn't specific to any political school, but it is specific to man. Let me put this in terms a liberal can understand; Since Columbus cannot possibly face a jury of his peers, he is actually not "guilty" of anything, other than the suppositions of some Historians. Terms like "seems like" are based on knowledge today, not on the prevailing thinking of the time. It is a liberal/ radical leftist trait to tear down the basis of our society, from Columbus to George Washington and other Founding Fathers, to legitimize their hatred of it, and love of European-like welfare state Socialism. --₮K/Admin/Talk 13:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
I am still not sure why you're trying to change the subject by bringing up things like socialism or George Washington; the only person I have criticized on this site is Columbus. You claim that it is laughable to pronounce judgment based on the knowledge we have accrued since Columbus' time. Bartolome de Las Casas was a contemporary of Columbus, and he wrote extensively of the cruelty inflicted on the natives by Columbus and his men. What information have we gained since then which legitimizes what they did and makes them worthy of honor? TaKess 13:33, 14 April 2009 (EDT) in your little, fair-minded world, the word of one person is good enough for conviction? Mitigation means nothing? We used to consider American Natives inferior, savages, and Blacks as well. There was a great body of supposed scientific work proving that they were. Doctors used to appear in Tobacco advertisements. Doctors told us regular, daily consumption of Cocain was beneficial, as was regular blood-letting. Should we de-legitimize the medical profession, put them on trial for contributory negligence, perhaps murder? How about the Democratic Party? They favored slavery, you know, fought tooth and nail against all efforts to abolish it. Should we now take action against it? Or are you in favor of just selective revisionism, only when it fits with your world-view? --₮K/Admin/Talk 13:50, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Again with the silly false analogies and the accusations of revisionism. Listening to the word of a renowned Christian historian who was a contemporary of Columbus, an eyewitness to much of what he wrote about, and wrote the most complete history of the natives available at the time is not revisionism. Calling him a liar, on the other hand, is revisionism. No idea why you continue to try to change the subject toward something else unless, of course, the evidence that Columbus was a reprehensible man worthy of condemnation is simply too strong for you to attempt to rebut it.
Nowhere have I advocated anything similar to what you are suggesting. I have merely requested an answer to the question: Why is it a "liberal" characteristic to think that reprehensible men who slaughtered thousands shouldn't have holidays names after them? TaKess 14:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, the circular logic of TaKess, are the analogies false or spot on? Tell us why America created a holiday for Columbus in the first place. "Oh he murdered and the smartest generation finally gets it, so it is logical"--Jpatt 14:22, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
"renowned Christian historian"? Some Christians would disagree with that statement. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Bartolome de Las Casas was very biased:
"It was in 1522 that, after the failure of his plan at Cumaná, Las Casas retired to a Dominican convent on the Island of Santo Domingo, where he soon after began to write his voluminous "Historia de las Indias". His picture of the earliest times of Spanish colonization is gruesome. He exaggerated the number of aborigines on the island at the time of discovery, and magnified into a deed of revolting cruelty every act which savoured of injustice. Sober common sense demands the revision and correction of his indictments."
"But the bitterness of Las Casas grew with age. In 1552 there appeared in print his "Brevísima Relacion de la Destruycion de las Indias", a most injudicious book, glaringly partial, based upon testimony often very impeachable and always highly coloured." [3] --DeanStalk 16:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Columbus being a sinner disqualifies him from being honored would prevent anyone from being honored! Christianity teaches that we are all sinners. BHarlan 16:49, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Tea Parties

Regarding the headline about the Tax Day Tea Parties, I would argue that they are not non-partisan at all. They may purport to be non-partisan, but if you look at the financial support, promotion, and speaking lineup they are very much partisan. As just one small example, this is a link to an RNC tea party page. Corry 10:37, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

They're non-partisan - when you consider that conservatives outnumber liberals 3:1 (or something like that, according to this website), and when you consider that liberals are against them - then the polling that shows a majority of all Americans are against them, then you can tell that both conservatives and liberals are united against them.--Cupoftea 22:00, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Don't follow your connect-the-dots argument but many people who voted for Obama, and who indicate support for him in polling data, are very much opposed to tax increases or even existing levels of taxation. New Jersey is an example of a heavily Democratic, pro-Obama state that is also generally anti-taxation.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
That might be true - but if that were the case, than many people who voted for John McCain must've been pro-taxation. If you read the article I posted, you'll see that a majority of Americans (currently) favor (quote from the article) "Obama's expansion of the government's role in the economy" - and we all know that big government interference in the economy means big taxes, so thus you can conclude that a majority of Americans favor the taxes.--Cupoftea 22:15, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Terrorism != Tea Party

I thought I'd just point out that there's not enough evidence in the articles provided tot state that tea parties are equivalent to terrorism. One quoted a man as saying that he was afraid because he saw another man with federal license plates filming for a short period, another article quoted a "WND reader" (whose name was withheld - which is ironic, given that he said "Let me know where I need to turn myself in, because I don't want the government wasting money looking for me.") - which isn't exactly a reliable source (a reader who makes a statement about a policy with no evidence whatsoever and no credentials to support making an original statement; it'd be like me saying "According to the government - contributing to Conservapedia is now terrorism", and then the news source quoting me as saying that).--Cupoftea 21:47, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

We can be pretty safe in assuming that the source (which is WorldNetDaily) wouldn't publish an inaccurate quote without making note of the inaccuracy; by publishing the quote and not making any such note, the WND is taking responsibility for the content - thus there is a reliable source to support the statement.--IDuan 21:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh, smart one, so we can be pretty sure that their accurate even though we can't find a source to confirm it? Great. I'd prefer if an editor who wasn't until recently on parol commented on this.--Cupoftea 21:54, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Ok, smarter one, here's where the story broke [4], and here's the report itself [5]. You can read it while you're removed from the site for a while, and your task will be to identify every left wing activist or terror group in this document. Just to be fair. Karajou 22:04, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Dude -read the articles on your own site - one says that a document on LEFT-WING groups was released PRIOR to this document. If I am the smarter one, you, sir, are the brightest bulb in the shed. And neither of those pages mention Tea parties, and the report doesn't mention taxes.--Cupoftea 22:17, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Red Herring argument, CupOTea, sorry. Don't come here and argue a silly argument, cherry picking the source you want to make your point. That's anti-intellectual. Google and see that far and away, it is the radical left, and the Obama Administration, now directing Homeland Security, that is making targets out of anyone who disagrees with Obama's socialist agenda, up to and including the Vets, returning home from Iraq service, are most likely to become Domestic Terrorists! Shame on you and your liberal deceit. This isn't a courtroom, (and we are not on trial, nor do we have to prove anything we say) and you are not a real lawyer, just a wiki one. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:27, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps this is old news and a bit anecdotal, but I do recall noticing an unusually large State Police presence at the tea party I went to in Raleigh last week. Just a thought. JeffC 16:44, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Where did the demonstration take place? Not the city, the location? --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:57, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
It was in the courtyard behind the General Assembly; there weren't that many people left when I got there so that's why I thought the police presence was unusual. JeffC 22:34, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Well that explains it, then. That kind of speculation is what gets all sorts of weird rumors going. Anything taking place at any state Capitol, on the grounds, is under the jurisdiction of whatever State Police. It's actually written into law, in all states. Anything owned or leased by a state is technically under their jurisdiction. If there seemed to be too many state police officers there, it might well be due to their sympathizing with the demonstration, and wanting to take part, but having to be on duty. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:46, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Possible News

It's less breaking news and more of an interesting observation. Wow, the wackiness of the media is spilling over in all directions it seems. I had noticed this happening off and on but reading this article kind of condensed it into a single "Ahh...that's kinda off". Somehow, Sarah Palin has apparently become the next Coke product. Organizations wanting cash are touting the generic Palin brand left and right! (Did you get the pun? Left and Right! I'm hilarious, I know.) She's gonna have to copyright her own name soon. Anyway, newsworthy? I don't know. Interesting sign of the times? Yep!--NicholasT 09:46, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't add it to the Main page, but I did add it here. --DeanStalk 11:08, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Ahh, and now I know where to post such things in the future. Thank you.--NicholasT 13:43, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Stem Cell News Item

Just a clarification on the news item: it was only Type I diabetics (the one that's possibly autoimmune) that were included in this trial (also, now all were cured). Regardless of those small technicalities, that is incredible news! --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:07, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Strikeout humor

The "Barney Fife's Frank" and "President Carter Obama" bits are funny, but I don't think they are appropriate on Conservapedia. jinxmchue 19:20, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Well it is. I am surprised at you, Jinx! Liberals are the ones without any sense of humor usually!  :P --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:58, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
News items should be punchy and provocative. I don't see anything categorically wrong about occasional strikeout humor. As TK suggests, a sense of humor is worth preserving.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, Andy.....and come on everyone....does anyone watch a clip of Barney Frank and NOT think of old, bumbling, Deputy Barney Fife from the old Andy Griffith show? I perceive a double standard, as I think Andy pointed out can make fun of conservatives, but not liberals. Well I say who says? --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:08, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

I just think the humor of their words and actions speaks for itself without the need for adding anything. *shrug* jinxmchue 13:57, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Fair enough. Your point is well taken for the future. There's always room for improvement!--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

"Culture of death" news item needs direct link

The story on Jill Stanek's website is moving down the main page there. The link should be changed to this: "". Jinx McHue 10:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Thank you. I have changed the link and added the deletion log entry from WP. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 11:03, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

UN to dismantle CIA - begining of World Government?

I knew it! We need to get a news item about this.
And of course, H. Obama is just laying down and letting it happen!
Those are the only articles I saw on google news, I'm still looking.
It's all from these OPEC countries- especially the Saudis- controlling the member nations to send the UN to attack the US to protect their friends- the terrorists. If I gambled, I stake it all on that.

JoeKinch 01:24, 22 April 2009 (EDT) Edit: sorry, forgot sig.

  • Well, I miss the connection between doing away with central intelligence and world government, but let me say the left has to have a devil, Bush is it, and they need to vent. Would President Bush be subject to arrest traveling abroad? No. For the simple reason retaliation would be the pay back. Right now any tin-horn dictator loved by the liberals, is allowed to enter the United States unmolested to attend U.N. sessions, etc. Open that Pandora's Box, and the hounds would be loosed. Besides, without our financial support, no country or group of them, has the means to allow those corrupt United Nations officials to live high on the hog like they do. --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:39, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • But don't you see? The UN is trying to weaken or control the CIA, directly working against the US' ability to defend ourselves (let alone the world) independently. They want to replace the US as the global authority. Why else do you think there where so many international donors to the H. Obama Campaign? The answer is so that they needed a weak president who would not protect the people who do the essential work of terrorism-fighting.

I see what you mean about the money needs of the UN, but let's not forget the wealth that the Chinese and Saudi are always draining from us. Either one of these countries could be the real power behind this attack, in my opinion. JoeKinch 13:45, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

MSNBC Obama Poll

Dare I suggest we give Obama a 'D' instead? My reasoning for this is twofold: First, the poll is already heavily skewed towards the 'F' grade (42%), and second, let's be honest, the worst is yet to come. JeffC 13:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Miss California and the other victims of anti-Prop 8 activists

It might be good to note that Miss California is only the latest victim of the widespread backlash against people who supported Proposition 8. Queers (They like being called that, don't they? Or is it only okay when they call themselves that?) and their supporters lost at the polls, so now they are targeting anyone and everyone they can with these vicious, dehumanizing, intolerant, bigoted attacks. Makes me almost wonder if Mr. Hilton might have guessed or known what her answer was going to be before he asked the question. Jinx McHue 13:39, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • And the worst part is that those liberals call everybody else intolerant, bigoted, and dehumanizing, WHILE doing it!JoeKinch 14:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

More dishonesty about the Blair memo... from the New York Times no less!

Just another typical day for the "open and honest" Obama Administration: Link

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Emphasis added. Apparently according to Obama's Newspeak, "open" means "dissembling" and "honest" means "dishonest." Jinx McHue 14:23, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I believe the piece I added to the Main Page on this matter, says just that. Right? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
It doesn't say that the information was consciously deleted from the memo released to the media. Jinx McHue 08:53, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
The truth is often properly inferred, and people rarely admit intentional wrongdoing. In many criminal trials the defendant never testifies, and wrongful intent is properly inferred from the evidence.--Andy Schlafly 09:10, 23 April 2009 (EDT)


I for one am happy and support Toomey 100%. But judging by the last election cycle in Pa., Specter will be re-elected. That generational theft he voted for will line the pockets of Pa. special interests, who will be more than glad to help fund him in '10. Then you have the biggest jerk of a politician in Murtha. He calls his constituents racists, then rednecks and Pa. residents re-elect him. Then you have Obama calling Pa. residents bitter, clinging to guns and bibles and they elect him, go figure. Does Toomey have a realistic shot? I hope so.--Jpatt 22:36, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Featured Article

The featured article Prime Numbers - includes an inadequate pic for the Sieve of Eratosthenes. I described this problem at the talk page of the article, Talk:Prime Numbers, and at the talk page of the pic, File talk:Prime number.gif. Could one of the math buffs replace this Prime number.gif

by this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

or this:


Thanks, Clement ♗ 16:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Yours are more complete, but I don't see a big difference in terms of learning. I'm reluctant to rely on your user page for the link, as user pages can often disappear by virtue of a liberal Parthian Shot.--Andy Schlafly 18:02, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
The biggest difference in terms of learning is perhaps that my version is correct, while the other pic is wrong: look at the number 13 in the Image:Prime number.gif - it is colored green, indicating that it is divisible by 3.
I don't expect you to link to my user-page, copy&past will do. Clement ♗ 18:08, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
Aschalfly, the mere fact that in the picture that is in the "featured article" suggests that the number 13 is (evenly) divisible by the number three should make you want to change said picture to something else. The least we can do is eliminate the incorrect picture.
As for "as user pages can often disappear by virtue of a liberal Parthian Shot", well, if your administrators didn't burn the field and salt the soil after long term and (sometimes) valuable contributors have said their peace and moved to less hostile climes maybe something could be salvaged for use in your little encyclopedia.
For Pete's sake, stop fighting all these niggling little details! You needn't win EVERY battle to win the war! There was a "philosopher" who opined, "Never defend, always attack," and that carried him through his endeavors though he had many detractors and naysayers besieging him. Please, I beg of you, do not continue this siege mentality that only further invites vandals and ensconces you in an ever dwindling editor pool.Marge 12:12, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Margery, you and Clement are right. Sometimes it takes strong words like yours to wake someone up. Thank you so much for your "tough love."
I've unprotected Prime Numbers for you or Clement to fix it as soon as possible. I know you'll do first-class work in improving it. Thank you and I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 12:37, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
I changed the article - User:MargeryCampbell won't be able to do so any more (tough love, indeed). Please remember for other occasions: Sometimes I may sound petulant, but this is because I care about the areas I'm qualified to talk about Clement ♗ 12:57, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

98,000 readers a month

Who reads us? see Quantcast audience profile for Conservapedia RJJensen 18:04, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Wow. That's fascinating. Note how Conservapedia attracts a more educated audience than Wikipedia does, and nearly as many monthly visitors.--Andy Schlafly 20:07, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
Are you sure about that "nearly as many monthly visitors" as Wikipedia stat Andy? I would expect Wikipedia to have many times as many visits, based on the higher rate of editing going on there. -- Ferret Nice old chat 21:36, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
My statement about "nearly as many monthly visitors" was based on comparing to on the quantcast site, which would most reflect the direct visits using URLs. Evidently quantcast treats differently, but the .org site is more likely to reflect referrals from Google, perhaps due to algorithms giving Wikipedia preferences unrelated to visitor interest.
No problem; the basic conclusion about Conservapedia attracting the "more educated" is still true.--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

That's not really all that surprising when you think about it. Wikipedia is popular mainly because it's popular. Thus, it takes only the most superficial sort of knowledge to go there. On the other hand, Conservapedia doesn't benefit from the same kind of media love-affair, and as such, it takes a certain amount of earnest seeking and research to find your way here.
It's a little like McDonald's versus the little four-star restaurant tucked away in a quiet neighborhood. Many, many more people will go to McDonald's...but the people with more educated palates will inevitably find their way to the quality restaurant. --Benp 14:57, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
The analogy to McDonald's and a four-star restaurant is a good one, but doesn't go far enough. Wikipedia tries to be like McDonald's or worse, by encouraging or allowing gossip, smears, obscenity, anonymous vandalism, liberal bias, etc. And people who use Wikipedia are no better off than those who eat a daily diet of greasy french fries.--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

I skewered a liberal reporter friend of mine with a similar restaurant analogy. It was his analogy, discussing some supposedly high-brow magazines, all liberal of course. He was very eager when I applied it to online sites.......right up until I added CP to the list! Of course that wasn't the same thing he cried! His point (and mine) was that sites such as Conservapedia, one would need to weight the numbers. I would say each person who finds CP through the liberal clutter of the Web, and the huge placement biases of the search engines, and the never-ending liberal vandalism/trolling, should be given a factor of ten weight. No wonder our users have greater intelligence, they need it to fight their way through! --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

The nice thing about logic is that it is not a popularity contest. Those who seek the truth are special people who reap special benefits for themselves and for all those to whom they communicate the truth.--Andy Schlafly 20:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Le Pont d'Argenteuil.

Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg

Some files can not be resized. Any help? --Joaquín Martínez 21:31, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

I tried adding "200px", but that didn't help. Anyone else know?--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
I had a similar problem with a file a while ago. Try renaming it without the ' and upload again. The software doesn't seem to like non alpha characters. (& is another that causes problems). Hope that helps. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 21:54, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Joaquín, my friend, what is it exactly, that you are wanting to do? You can re-size it yourself, than upload a new version, with same name, otherwise delete old one completely and then add a new one. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:14, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes, Jessica, Joaquín and Andy, the new update to wikimedia doesn't seem to like thumbnails much, and is every so often refusing to show them. Webmaster is aware of the problem, though. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Thank you to all of you, fortunately JessicaT solved the problem. --Joaquín Martínez 11:00, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Obama apologizes for Air Force One alternate buzzing of NYC

White House apologizes for NYC flyover

President Obama's White House was forced to issue an apology Monday after a photo opportunity gone badly wrong — an Air Force 747 plane did a low flyover over Lower Manhattan, prompting terrified citizens to flee from their offices and high-profile accusations of government insensitivity in the post 9/11 era.

White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera issued a brief statement saying he was too blame.

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision," he said. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, its clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

The panic started Monday morning when a backup 747 known as Air Force One when the president is aboard flew by Lower Manhattan with a U.S. fighter jet closely following, rattling windows and causing some limited evacuations.

Over the course of a half-hour starting at 10 a.m, the plane flew low over the city and near the Statue of Liberty.

The late afternoon statement came as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — an Obama ally so far — said he was outraged.

This, my friends, is what America looks like when there's a true idiot in the Oval Office. Since this was the president's plane, the buck simply cannot stop with Caldera. You know Obama had to make final approval for this brainless, insensitive stunt. Here's video of the panicked, terrified reaction of New Yorkers (possibly some language, but it's difficult to tell for sure):

Air Force One Flyby Of Goldman Sachs Tower

Stupidest. Administration. Ever. Jinx McHue 19:22, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Was it stupidity? Or was is a carefully crafted plan that backfired? I think he wanted to make a scare and drum up popularity; he wanted to make something akin to 9/11 as if to remind the US to be beholden to him. We're just lucky it backfired. JoeKinch 11:43, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

A quibble regarding the news item: It says, "yesterday (Obama's) Air Force One, escorted by a U.S. fighter jet...". That implies the president was aboard at the time, which he was not.--KellyB 15:01, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Here's a thought: perhaps a staunch Conservapedian with Photoshop skills could put together a nice picture of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty and we could send it to the White House...with a comparison of how much OUR picture cost taxpayers, how much THEIRS cost taxpayers, and perhaps a note pointing out that ours didn't cause panic.
Still, it could've been so much worse. I think the President should thank his lucky stars that apparently, nobody was hurt during the panic. They could've been. --Benp 16:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, no kidding. That would've been the economically and environmentally conscientious thing to do. Jinx McHue 00:19, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, sort of. It's one of two official aircraft that the president uses. Jinx McHue 00:19, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I would think to give the man some credit. WH and President comment on fly-over. It seems that he wasn't informed of the situation, at all. Afterwords, he started an investigation into why they did this, instead of using photoshop. Also, in retraction to KellyB's statement, fighter jet escort is S.O.P. for all unscheduled flights in a restricted area, not just for VIP visits.

I can also understand why they wouldn't want to use CS3 for the picture. For evidence, look at Hannity's Photos in this article. Many times, the light is contradictory, or the depth is so skewed it's hard to tell what is going on in the photo. I say they should have used other means to get the photo, but it may be wise not to let Fox near the editing tools -- CodyH 10:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Craig's List Killer

Does anyone else thing we should include this on the front page as an example of Massachusetts' Liberal style, look what kind of human beings Massachusetts produces! --IScott 21:42, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Perhaps, in retrospect, you will find your statement inappropriate, as well as lacking the use of a spell-checker? Geographical location doesn't produce wrong and aberrant behavior. When all is said and done, I am fairly certain we will see that the person is a sociopath for many of the usual reasons: growing up lacking family/moral values, too much unattended computer use, lots of television watching (South Park and MTV garbage) and lack of interaction with appropriate adult role models. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:37, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
My apologies for the poor spelling! Sorry if my statement was unclear TK. What I was trying to say was that Massachusetts’ liberal culture which downplays God and Christianity, family values and morals, creates people like the Craig’s List killer. Liberal culture encourages and promotes the behavior of people like the craigslist killer. I was not implying that the actually physical place caused his actions rather that the culture of the place caused them.--IScott 21:10, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Well the Lord has given us free choice. What one chooses, what one refuses to open their eyes to, is indeed our responsibility. I don't think Massachusetts is more liberal than California or New York, actually. Your point, I understand, and agree with you, insofar as it is a by-product of the general lessening of moral standards, this creeping multiculturalism and relativism of American society in general. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Actually, the suspect wasn't even from Massachusetts. he had only lived there for the two years of being in medical school. he didn't even do his undergrad there. RPreston 10:04, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Christianity wasn't responsible for everything.

In response to the MP article about Dinesh D'Souza .. DeanS tells us that Christianity was responsible for equality and liberty. If my memory serves me right, it was supposed to be Jove's child who gave us those things, not Jehovah's.--सफ़ेद-बाघ 23:44, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Jon Stewart video

The linked video is not a video of Stewart calling Truman a war criminal. It is a video of Stewart saying that calling Truman a war criminal was "dumb" and "stupid, in fact" and that he does not believe Truman was a war criminal because dropping the atomic bomb was a complicated decision. In other words, it totally contradicts the assertion that he has "no question" about Truman being a war cirminal.

There is a video of the original interview, where Stewart did call Truman a war criminal, on the Comedy Central site. You could link to that instead, but it contains strong language, so I'm not sure what should be done. TaKess 18:43, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Update: On Thursday he apologized and admitted saying that was stupid. video DLerner 15:06, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
Well, you are "half-right", DLerner. While Stewart later offered a lame apology, wherein he actually said he knew he was wrong when he said it, he also said Truman was insane, suffering from temporary insanity when he ordered the bombings. Also, he made the Truman remark to justify his position that George Bush was guilty of War Crimes. To my knowledge he has yet to apologize to Bush....--₮K/Admin/Talk 16:08, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
Everyone knows about the Japanese war crimes of the Chinese but does that really justify a nuclear attack on 2 civilian cities? Or incidents such as the Dresdan bombings? Somehow i think if it was the other way around the term would probably be used. (MSmith2 11:54, 4 May 2009 (EDT))
Liberal crackpot talking points. More Japanese civilians were killed by by firebombing their cities than by atom bombs. If we didn't drop the bombs, an invasion of japan would have killed more civilians than the atoms bombs plus thousands of more Americans. Jon Stewart and all liberals are fools. Politically correct means political dead heads. --Jpatt 12:29, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
  • What a silly, self-indulgent statement, MSmith2. The breadth of ignorance displayed, and of course the revisionist thinking, is pretty typical unfortunately, of many of today's Euro socialists. War Crimes of the Chinese? Justification? Do you know anything of war, and especially World War II, aside from what moronic pacifist professors have told you? You signed up here to make that trolling post? The Allies quite simply saved the entire world. --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:41, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
All MSmith2 did was ask a legitimate moral question, the exact kind of question I'm sure Truman had to grapple with when he ultimately made that difficult (and it was difficult) decision. He even acknowledged the nasty war crimes inflicted by the Japanese against the Chinese. In return, you flipped out, ridiculing him, calling him a "revisionist" and a "Euro socialist" (odd to bring up socialism, because MSmith2 said nothing about his economic views). In fact, it seems like every time someone expresses a dissenting view, you do this. I cannot imagine that it stimulates discussion or invites editors to contribute further. TaKess 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
While the edit is a better one, it still puts words into Stewart's mouth by claiming that he called Truman "insane", which is stretching the truth at best. What he stated was that "war is, by definition, temporary insanity" and thus people who make tough decisions during the stress of war don't have to face the same accountability as the rest of us do. This is not the same as calling Truman crazy.
For that matter, as long as we're getting at people for not apologizing for some things, maybe the front page editors should apologize for falsely claiming that Jon Stewart has no question about Truman being a war criminal, only to link to a video where he retracted that very claim (clearly he did have some question about it). TaKess 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
I'll simply note that a number of Truman's highest advisors and other high-ranking military officers, including Eisenhower, disagreed that the bombing was necessary or would have saved lives. Were they right? I don't know, but there's no reason to think that a hard judgment like that had a clear, obvious answer. Truman certainly thought it was a tough call. The liberals are going too far when they call it a "war crime", thought, for exactly the same reason. TaKess 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Where you go wrong, TaKess (aside from taking your talking points from that vandal site), is in thinking we want liberal contributions that spin, as you clearly have. We are a Conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia. By definition we do not want, and will reject, anti Conservative and Christian edits. The original link that you are talking about was indeed not the original Stewart statement, but I changed it. His apology wasn't specific and rather self-serving after the firestorm erupted criticizing him. As for Truman's advisor's, you use the tired deceit of the half-truth. Who among Truman's advisers favored using the bomb? Who among those you mentioned, were merely against it at first glance, and which ones actually favored its use, after weighing the pros and cons? MSmith2 didn't acknowledge the massive War Crimes of the Japanese, he only mentioned China. What about Korea? The Philippines? It is revisionist thinking to second-guess history, and apply the silly contemporary thinking of those who have never actually faced real life or death situations, to decisions made under those circumstances. And please do not make posts out of order, inserting them into prior conversations. Simply note what you are answering. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:29, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

I was talking about Japanese war crimes inflicted on the Chinese, because you bought it up. But them committing a lot of horrific war crimes does not mean that dropping to their level and bombing civilians is right. Was a nuclear bomb needed to be dropped on a major city to make them surrender? I doubt it. It could have been dropped on a millitary target or anywhere really as proof. I think its well known that infact the Emperor of Japan was ready to surrender, but it was the millitary generals who wanted to stay in the war. Jpatt, your point regarding firebombing is very strange. Yes many civilians were killed by this too so somehow your reasoning is that because nuclear bombs killed less it was an acceptable course of action? It seemed to me like more of a show of power to the Russians and an act of vengeance than actually a necessary millitary action. The show of atomic power alone would have been enough alone without the deaths of so many people. Its personal opinion though if you think it was justified thats ok, its just personal interpretation of the situation. It wasn't a war crime because thats a legal term and i don't believe it was illegal, but the morality of it can certainly be debated.

Also regarding the officers Eisenhower i'm pretty sure regretted it always afterwards and said it was a mistake, not merely against it at a first glance. I'm not sure about other officiers. (MSmith2 19:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT))

  • More obfuscating/trolling the issue? This was about Stewart and his moronic statement, not a debate about U.S. foreign policy, or war policy. As you say above, "I doubt it". You, as in someone living sixty years past and completely unknowing about what real life and death struggle is about, unlike those living at the time, actually faced with real (rather than academic) life or death decisions.
  • In Karl Compton's "If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used," he states, "The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those [Japanese government officials] who sought peace and provided face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war." Why had some Japanese officials continued to support the war even after the atomic bomb had been dropped? What was Emperor Hirohito's role in the surrender process? Why was Hirohito not forced to abdicate as promised by the Potsdam Declaration? All good questions, but not actually germain to the news items focus on Stewart's knee-jerk liberalism. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:27, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
Now that we have established that a) liberals exist and b) they have liberal views, can we move on to more important issues such as the state of the economy or the stability (or lack thereof) of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan?--सफ़ेद-बाघ 20:47, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
Several things, TK.
I have no idea what "that vandal site" is, so I cannot possibly be getting my talking points from it. As I have stated repeatedly (and as you seem not to believe), dropping the bomb was a difficult decision. The view that it should not have been dropped is a view that Truman himself grappled with, and it was a respectable view which many of his advisers held. (Do you want a list?) It is not "liberal revisionism" or "Euro socialism." Trying to link it to socialism, on the other hand, is revisionism.
Stewart's apology was far less "self-serving" than almost any apology I've ever seen in the public sphere. I've never seen a politician (Republican or Democrat) or journalist flat-out admit that what they said was "stupid" and "dumb" and wrong.
Is MSmith2 required to provide a list of war crimes committed by the Japanese before he's allowed to engage in this discussion? Maybe we should also require a list of unwholesome things the Allies did or supported, like granting amnesty to the Unit 731 experimenters in exchange for their (useless) medical "data". Or, better yet, acknowledge that "the other side did worse things!" is not a relevant or morally useful argument to bring up. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong, it doesn't matter what the Japanese did to deserve it: one atrocity cannot be repaid with another, so I have no idea why you continue to bring that up except as a far-fetched way to smear the opposition. TaKess 21:08, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Yes, of course, TaKess, of course you have no idea. Of course. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, off the talk pages. Your capacity for finding excuses for all liberals, and never conservatives, is telling. I hear, very faintly, off in the distance, a bell tolling, TaKess...spend more of your time here contributing positively, rather than arguing what you, or anyone like-minded, can possibly justify or call into question. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:27, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Olbermann: "Torture is bad! Unless you use it on conservatives."


Keith Olbermann is mighty quick to volunteer to administer a technique he calls "torture," isn't he?

So: Sean Hannity doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Sean Hannity doesn't think it's really all that bad, and thinks it should be used. Sean Hannity is willing to undergo waterboarding to prove his point.

Sean Hannity is consistent.

Keith Olbermann thinks waterboarding is torture. Keith Olbermann thinks waterboarding is horrible, and thinks it should never be used. Keith Olbermann is willing to PERFORM waterboarding to prove his point.

Keith Olbermann is liberal.

--BenP 12:46, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, but Hannity said he was willing to be waterboarded for charity. All Olbermann did was call his bluff, and pledged $1,000 a second for every second Hannity endures, and he will double that when/if Hannity admits waterboarding is torture. Check your facts. Watch the videos. DLerner 15:09, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

...which conflicts with what I said how? Hannity doesn't consider waterboarding torture, and to prove it, he's willing to undergo the process himself. That's consistent, whether you agree with him or not. Olbermann insists that it IS torture, that we shouldn't use it, and then offered to personally administer it to Hannity. That's hypocritical, regardless of whether he thinks Hannity is bluffing or not. --BenP 16:44, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
Hannity "says" that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture and "says" that he will undergo it but he hasn't and he hasn't responded to Olbermann's offer. Olbermann doesn't particularly want Hannity to suffer and didn't call for Hannity or anyone else in partcular to submit to waterboarding. Hannity made the offer to do it. Olbermann just wants him to follow through because he assumes that Hannity will discover that waterboarding is torture and whether Hannity admits it afterwards or not, Hannity's experience will be part of the public record for anyone to see (and if they see it, they will have to conclude that Hannity suffered through a torturous experience). Get it now? MikeAndrews 17:21, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Sure. Olbermann objects to waterboarding, but he's willing to use it to make a political point. I wonder: if someone said "Being beaten with a baseball bat is no big deal, I'd do it for charity," would Olbermann volunteer to beat him with a baseball bat? Would he follow through? --Benp 18:54, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

Minor proposed change to left toolbar

Given that not all images are in the "All images" category, I would propose that we simply link to Special:AllPages/File: and change the wording to be "All files" (or keep the "All images", since I believe all (or mostly all) of our files are images). I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I think do think the change would make sense.--IDuan 15:29, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Actually one downside to doing this would be that you wouldn't see previews of the images, and it might be slightly harder to navigate. I would stand by the proposal, but again, not a huge deal.--IDuan 15:31, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Jeb Bush,

While no one should live in the past, especially the Republican Party, I think Jeb Bush is misinterpreting the tea leafs and is missing what is the real problem; Republicans lost the voter's trust because they turned their back on the principles of Ronald Reagan, not because they were living in the Reagan past. Jeb's brother, George, lost his way, mainly because he was, like Lyndon Johnson, consumed with the important task of keeping the country safe, and getting bogged down with the War on Terror, attending to details better left to the military, and in seeking the Democrats support, the support of the entire Congress, he allowed spending of such a huge magnitude, and ignored needed oversight of the financial sector. Similarly, Johnson (no slouch in mastering politics) did the same, lost the broad picture and concentrated on the too narrow conduct of the Vietnam War, to the point where he lost his own party's support. Brian Summers is absolutely correct. While the Republican Party needs to reach out to its base, more importantly it needs to acknowledge to the voters it went off the tracks, and does indeed stand for exactly those principles Reagan is known for. Jack Kemp literally dragged Ronald Reagan to supply-side economics, when Reagan had never made it an issue or embraced it. It was a popular idea with the voters, and produced a robust economy. For anyone to ignore that Ronald Reagan did all that he did with a popular, optimistic message of America being the last, best hope for the world is idiocy. Ronald Reagan was always the personification of optimism in America's bright and ordained future, and the eventual freedom of those enslaved throughout the world! --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:20, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Overall, Americans are more conservative today than when Reagan was president. The course of history is a slow but steady movement to the right, as logic and the lessons of history have their positive effects. If Jeb Bush means the GOP needs to get beyond Reagan by moving forward-right, then he'd be correct!--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
I agree with TK on two big points. First, conservatives must continue to fight for fiscal responsibility. We must win back the libertarian-leaning moderates to regain political control and expand the base of the Republican party. Second, I think optimism is something Bush was not able to convey after 9/11. People don't want to be afraid of terrorists, we want to know how to fight back! And thanks to this site, we can do just that by winning the War of Ideas. God Bless. JeffC 19:04, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
Agreed, JeffC. Is there doubt in anyone's mind that had Reagan been President on 9/11 how swift and devistating his response would have been? I hardly think we would have needed an expeditionary force of hundreds of thousands to oust Sadam, or find Bin Laden. Given all the treasure spent on finding one moron, why haven't we offered a 1 or even $5 Billion reward for him? Surely at that level more than one committed Islamo-Terrorist would have sold him out! --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:11, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
I think Jeb Bush's credentials are beyond dispute. He just needs to mind his language a bit. Jdixon 10:32, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Minor grammar issue

President Obama has said he end the 16-year-old military ban on homosexuals would sound nicer with a "will" in there Psl1089 15:35, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Another minor grammar issue

The future of Conservapedia's evolution article appears to be very bullish! A creationist just unexpectedly told Conservapedia that he is going to inform tens of thousands of people about the Conservapedia evolution article! A well known creationist is going to email 600 fellow creationist about the Conservapedia evolution article. Evolutionists, you can run from Conservapedia's evolution article, but you cannot hide! Creationists of the world, spread the news about Conservapedia's evolution article far and wide and quickly! Faster, stronger, higher!
This should read "600 fellow creationists". It might also read a bit more clearly if it said "Another well known creationist", assuming that the item refers to two different creationists. Is there a reason we are not naming these people? --Hsmom 22:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

"'NY Times' Chairman Asked About Spiked Obama-ACORN Story," claims he didn't know about it.[19]
I think there is an extra single quote mark at the beginning. (The single quote after "Times" is to indicate that "Times" is possessive - the Times' Chairman - and thus it doesn't need a matching one at the beginning.) In addition, the comma should be a semi-colon. Thus it should read
"NY Times' Chairman Asked About Spiked Obama-ACORN Story;" claims he didn't know about it.[7]


Do we have access to a picture where Rush doesn't look like the bad guy out of a Chuck Norris movie? I know that black is slimming and he is concerned about his weight, but we should just do a head shot rather than making him look like a creep. --MrEmerson 01:25, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I so agree! However the photo was given for us to use, and done by his producer. Since he's the most listened to talk-radio personality in the world, they must be doing something right, I guess. Wikimedia's pickings are blurry, so I used that one. If you can find a better one, just let me know! --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:47, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Merging Content

The article on the Main Page about the merger of Mainstream Media and Blogs may be an example of 'too little, too late' fact reporting. It's been known for a while that news stations take from online sources. MSNBC has been using Huffington Post for a while, CNN uses whatever it can get it's hands on, and Fox News uses whenever it can.

Then again, let's take a look at the 'Fox Nation', in which many reporters from Fox use openly. Yes, the Daily Kos revels in it's liberal slant, but the conservative tone of Fox Nation is almost the same thing, just inside Rupert Murdoch's circle of businesses instead of outside [like Daily Kos].

It doesn't make it any better, however. Those who work in the news must remain neutral to ensure factual reporting. However, let us remember we are dealing with cable channels, looking for ratings. Factual reporting is up to the consumer these days, sadly. -- CodyH 11:14, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

  • You compare the "Fox Nation", which is dedicated to those who believe in the American Dream, to hate sites like Kos? The same Daily Kos who allowed content from their bloggers like the hope that Nancy Reagan would die from her fall last year, because of the "crimes" of her husband? The same Kos who regularly allowed the lowest, most vile hate speech against George Bush? Do you find the same type of hate content on Fox Nation, National Review or Conservapedia? How come major studies done by the Kennedy School and Harvard, along with several other prominent organizations continually show Fox News to actually be more balanced than the other cabelers and the MSM? I detect liberal relativism at work here. --₮K/Admin/Talk 13:30, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, or that the Fox Nation is a 'hate site' with a conservative view. However, both are the same 'type' of site, if you will. Which is to say both are sites that tend to 'pander' to a base with their news. Of course, the Daily Kos with articles like Poll & Worst VP in History endorses Fat drug addict over former Chair of the JCS is insane, but I think no more insane than MSNBC, The Place for ... Changemakers! Big Re-Brand as 'Obama Network'.
Which brings me back to my point. Both sides of the spectrum lean heavily on these clearly biased resources with no regard to their objectivity. It tarnishes their image and jeopardizes their journalistic integrity, making them harder to trust and in turn harder to believe.
One last thing to point out is that Fox forums are filled with the same hate and unbelievable slander that the Kos is attributed to. For an example, go to 'opinion' on Fox News, and check some of the posts. There is just as much vitrol in the people in these places as there is at the Daily Kos. But they allow it because it is an opinion, regardless of how insane that opinion really is. I don't have a problem with opinions, I have a problem with them being used as 'news'. -- CodyH 19:04, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
You have to be very careful about posts on such sites. A great deal of such "hate and unbelievable slander" comes from liberals pretending to be conservatives...or, more precisely, pretending to be a demonized and exaggerated stereotype of conservatives. Conservatives can and will condemn immoral behavior, or behavior that violates their principles, in strong terms. Generally, though, when you see someone who claims to be a conservative saying something truly vile, it's a liberal behind the keyboard. --Benp 21:43, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I agree, Benp, the truth of that is demonstrated here weekly, and Cody is flat out a liar, about the content at "Fox Nation". Here he is once again using liberal relativism to excuse one place, while attacking another. It won't work here, CodyH. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:31, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
Alright, first I would wish to address TK on something I find disturbing. You say that I am a liar, and accuse me of using 'liberal relativism' to excuse one and demean the other. What I said, up above, is that both sides are currently taking an untenable approach to news. Both Sides. How, if I may ask, is it liberal relativism to say that the Daily Kos is insane? How did you come to that conclusion when I said that both sides [Note, liberals as well as conservatives] take from far-wing internet sites and hurt their objectivity? I am not here to 'push' a liberal agenda. I simply gave my opinion on a subject that I noted on the front page. My Opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
As for the remark "Generally, though, when you see someone who claims to be a conservative saying something truly vile, it's a liberal behind the keyboard" as stated by Benp, I ask to present proof. It should not matter if it is a liberal or conservative behind the keyboard at any rate, but why do you suppose that only a liberal masquerading as a conservative can make rude remarks as a conservative? Can we not agree that no matter the political bent, there are people out there who simply wish to spread slander and hate speech? I'm not saying that liberals never do so, because they do. But to say conservatives never do so falls into the same 'no true scotsman' argument, and is easily discredited.
I have never disguised my dislike for neo-political thinking, and as I stated above it is my opinion that neo-cons and neo-libs, in their unending war with one another, are tearing this country's media, social and moral grounds apart. -- CodyH 18:36, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
I don't believe I ever said "only a liberal masquerading as a conservative." I said that a great deal of such vitriol comes from such liberals, and that generally, when you see a supposed conservative saying something truly vile, it's not really a conservative.
I don't think that either of those are unreasonable statements. I certainly can't prove it, in that I can't tell you the identities of all the posters, but if you think about it logically, I think you'll see the validity of the observation. Most conservatives have no particular reason to say really vile things. On the other hand, someone pretending to be a conservative does have such a motive--he wants to make conservatives look bad.
It's not that different from people who attempt to ridicule Creationists by pretending to be Creationists and insisting that the world is flat because "the Bible says so." (Yes, I've seen that on numerous occasions.)
Seriously--all you have to do is take a look at the number of supposed "conservatives" who log on here for no other reason than to sabotage the site to recognize that it's not a rare tactic. --Benp 15:48, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
I still find it untenable that 'a great deal' would just be liberals in disguise. I would say a fair amount of those harmful posts are just people who believe their opponents are wrong in their beliefs, and therefor attack the person directly. Or, in more extreme cases, people pushed too far by the opposition's evidence with no logical counter. I am not going to say that everyone does this, becuase i've had thoughtful debate with conservatives before. Usually, however, it's broken up by someone preaching to impeach Obama or telling me that I am an evil man for not believing in Christ [In a non-religious discussion, at that].
But now we're just arguing a moot point, it seems. -- CodyH 08:59, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Afghanistan Commander

Can we get a reference that shows that Gates hired (or even recommended) McKiernan? As it stands, the news factoid makes it sound like the only Bush appointee Obama kept on, is having to deal with having made a poor choice before.

Or is it that Obama's idea about war strategy is different from Bush? If so, our readers would like to know what the difference is.

A friend of mine, an officer in army intelligence, is a big fan of Petraeus, who recommended McKiernan's replacement. Petraeus has a good track record on counter-insurgency in Iraq. Perhaps the story is less that someone had to be fired than, "US changes strategy in Afghanistan". --Ed Poor Talk 12:53, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

I'll go you one better--can we get a reference that Gates is the Secretary of State, as the front-page story claims? DavidZ 13:56, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Pointing out discrepancies could have been done a lot better than your comment here, DavidZ. Needless to say, it has been corrected. Karajou 14:06, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
DavidZ, do you think Hillary will be upset that I gave her credit? I've never known her to mind receiving attention and credit before ....--Andy Schlafly 14:46, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Careful. Her conflicting commandments of "Take credit for everything" and "Never believe anything a conservative says" might cause a short-circuit!  :) --Benp 17:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Windmill news item correction

"The Windmill Ministries theory of evolutionary" should be "evolution" not evolutionary JimP 22:55, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

New Gallup poll

I know I've gotten in trouble for using the talk pages too much, and I do sincerely apologize for that, but I found this link and I definitely think it deserves mentioning: Gallup poll on pro-life vs. pro-choice. For the first time in history, more Americans identify as pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, with almost all demographics (men, women, conservatives, liberals) shifting support significantly. -Countryforchrist 13:30, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm returning your apology unused. This is a good use of talk pages: alerting us to important news that we and our readers care about. Thank you! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 19:52, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Both of you should check the Main Page, as there was a new item added a few hours ago on the topic!  ;-) The story linked to has even better news, that it is the middle of road people changing their minds about the murder of babies. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:26, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Hi TK. In all fairness, I posted at 13:30, 20 minutes before the news story went up. I agree that the news post is better, but I think it's still important to link to the original source (which the story does not do) so that people can look at all the raw data themselves. -Countryforchrist 01:15, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Wow. Feeling picked on much? The link provided, BTW, includes a link to Gallup, but perhaps you didn't check... --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

More Conservative?

I stumbled across your site and I notice that aschlafly makes the interesting assertion above that, "Overall, Americans are more conservative today than when Reagan was president. The course of history is a slow but steady movement to the right, as logic and the lessons of history have their positive effects."

I would be interested to hear how he--or any others--reconcile that statement with the following:

1. Conservatives seem to have been on the losing side of most of the "big" debates in American history. It was conservatives who opposed rebelling against England, who denounced the Constitution, who favored the maintenance of slavery, who argued for segregation, who preferred to remain isolationist rather than enter into WWI/WWII, and who opposed civil rights. Viewed through this lens, it would seem that the course of history is a pretty steady movement to the left, not the right.

2. The above is, I would say, a reflection of the more general truth that conservatives--as their name suggests--generally resist change. As Calvin Coolidge said, "Conservatism means 'change nothing' and if you're not sure, ask your grandmother." It would seem to me that if the nation is growing increasingly conservative over time, that the pace of political/social/economic change would slow or even grind to a halt. Is this what you feel has happened?

3. Finally, if America has grown more conservative since Reagan, how come that is not reflected in the political system? The number of registered Democrats has grown since then, and it's not like we've had a president since him--even G. W. Bush--that was as conservative as he was.

I look forward to your response. Best regards.--Cdavis 09:24, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

You got your facts warped, Cdavis. Not a single conservative-minded individual opposed the rebellion against Great Britain; it was the Tories, as they were called back then, who favored big government, who favored heavy taxation on the colonists, who favored putting down protests against it. The statements written by Jefferson himself into the Declaration of Independence reflect that. The writings of the Founding Fathers reflect that. As to your accusations of slavery support, it was the Democratic Party who supported it fully, who supported and enforced the Jim Crow laws, who enforced segregation, and who tried to prevent civil rights from happening in the South. Those are historical facts you cannot get away from. For an example, see Clement L. Vallandigham, whose behavior in Lincoln's time was exactly like anti-war liberals are doing today.
As far as I'm concerned, all you are trying to do is to look at all of that bad history through your own kind of lens, one that has the word "conservative" pasted to it; you've taken some of the worst racism and bigotry in history and placed the blame for it where it never belonged in an effort to steer it away from your beloved Democrats. I believe that you have never read much - if anything - regarding original source material except that which you've twisted to support your point. If anything, all you've done is to prove just how much liberals will lie in order to push their agenda. Regards. Karajou 09:56, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
In addition to Karajou's response, Cdavis illustrates how some fall for the public-school demonization of conservatism. It's obvious, basic American history that the Democrats promoted and defended slavery, not the conservatives or Republicans. Indeed, it was a Christian "fundamentalist" who finally end the British slave trade.
Cdavis, open your mind a bit and spend some time here. If you're willing to recognize that you may have been misled in the past, you'll grow tremendously here and your life will immensely improve.--Andy Schlafly 11:25, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Well, you are right, Cdavis, in several respects with your history, and I agree with your conclusion, but you do make several historical generalizations that aren't entirely accurate. This post is also for Aschlafly and Karajou, so that you can understand the context in which these issues occurred, and understand Cdavis' point.
I just want to say, first, that it is extremely difficult to put history into our current historical context (especially with our flawed and over simplified one dimensional spectrum), but barring that, lets move on. You claim that it was Conservatives who were against the American revolution; in this case, you are both right and wrong, depending on how you define conservatives. I shall use my crude definitions which I just use as a personal definition that I made in an attempt to synthesis Conservativism into one governing philosophy. The first, is social conservativism, which I describe as being a philosophy focused on Societal Stability. This is the reason that Conservativism tends to be interrelated with Religion, Tradition, and "Family Values", since all are bedrocks to a Stable and organized Society. This is also why many wealthy people are Conservatives, since a Stable society provides no threat to their wealth.
The second definition is more in a Libertarian view, "Conservative" also means "against Excess". So, a Conservative in this view is against large Government, and whatnot. These are how I would define "Conservative", so I apologize if I made some mis-characterizations or generalizations. However, using these definitions, we can answer your point about Conservatives and "Historic" debates.
In the American revolution, the Tories were mostly wealthy, and aristocratic, thus, they would probably be Conservatives under the First definition, because they feared that the Revolution would cause 1) Anarchy, which would 2) Threaten their wealth. However, if you go by the Second, then the Revolutionaries are Conservative, due to their dislike of powerful government. So, in this case, you are both correct and incorrect. This is similiar for several other things you mentioned: Slavery, The democrats were for it, however, at the time, they were the more Conservative party (though, as mentioned before, it is difficult to put history into modern historical context), since the Republicans were for things such as; Progressive Taxation, Railroad construction, and more tarriffs. It could be argued that Both Libertarian and Social Conservatives could be either for it or against it; Libertarians because they were for States rights, Social because it was part of the longstanding social order. Likewise, Libertarians could be against it due to the infringing of Social Liberties, and Social, due to the anarchy caused by a split up nation.
With Isolationism, Conservatives were mostly for it, although not entirely, Teddy Roosevelt was for interventionism, and Isolationism dated back to Washington.
Civil Rights is something else that could be viewed through a Social/ Libertarian divide. Socials were for Segregation because it was a longstanding Social order that should not be upset (also, the social upheaval caused by it was disliked by Social Conservatives, bringing out the "Law and Order" type that got Nixon elected), but Libertarians were against it due to Overreaching government intervention.
Barring this, you were fairly accurate with your assessment, and Aschafly should take note. Though, I should remind you again, it is difficult to judge historic politics out of Context and have it in present terms, so everything I say about it should be taken with a bucket of salt. have fun --MichaelJamesF 15:18, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm glad that this debate popped up, because it gave me a chance to read Conservapedia's article on Conservatism, which is very well-written and brings up some interesting points I hadn't encountered before in history classes.
However, it also highlighted a few conundrums which strike to the heart of what Cdavis and Karajou's response pose. I have a few questions, for Karajou or Andy or anyone else who wants to weigh in:
  • If the Loyalists in the Revolutionary War were "mostly politically conservative," (as CP's article on Conservatism states), how can Karajou claim that "not a single conservative-minded individual opposed the rebellion against Great Britain"?
  • To what extent was the Republican party of the 1860's conservative, seeing as it developed from the Whig party, which according to CP's article was a big supporter of government intervention in business, and was represented by several anti-abolitionists?
  • The CP article also claims that most conservatives supported the Civil Rights Movement, but the movement's most vocal opponent was Barry Goldwater, the day's most prominent Republican. It's clear that Southern Democrats switched over to the Republican party purely because of Goldwater, Nixon, and the so-called "Southern strategy." How then can conservatives claim Civil Rights as their own? What prominent conservatives did support Civil Rights, and to what extent can the role of the Southern Strategy be ignored?
I'm willing to admit that I've been misled by my public school education (though it was in solidly conservative rural East Texas), but I'm just curious to hear a perspective from a conservative who understands the historical dynamics better than I do. God Bless. JDWpianist 16:42, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

A Thank You to Conservative

A Christian creationist evangelist, who travels across the United States spreading the creationist message, has just expressed interest in sharing with people the Conservapedia evolution article. From California, to the New York Island, from the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters, the Conservapedia evolution article is spreading across the United States!
Conservative, I enjoyed the way you wove the words of a classic American song into this item. It made me smile. Thank you. --Hsmom 23:33, 16 May 2009 (EDT)


Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, often liquor-induced, may have finally outdone himself... The article cited does not mention liquor. I did not watch the video cited - does it contain a statement about the gaffes being "liquor-induced"? If not, then we need to either remove the claim or find a credible source for it. --Hsmom 16:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

  • It is only your own good idea, Hsmom, that takes conjecture to new heights, that somehow "In the news" equates with encyclopedic articles. How do you manage to come up with that? If Jimbo Wales makes a statement of known fact to him, do you really believe his statement, if put on his Wikipedia page, needs sourcing? "In the news" is the electronic version of CP's take, like in a newspaper, the opposite page of the Editorials. It is quite obvious (to most people, anyway) what the news items are bring to the uninformed or under-informed conservative news, from conservatives, that the biased and deceitful MSM usually won't publish. That Biden has an occasional problem of putting his mouth in operation before engaging his brain, is common knowledge, a truism. That most "insiders", familiar with his intellect (which isn't small), attribute the instances of "Bidenism's" to his infrequent over-tippling, is also another truism, which a simple web search reveals. How would you, Hsmom, cite such common knowledge? Do you know many in high public office, or their staff members? Have you personally found many on the staff's of such officials willing to be attributed on such matters? Instead of being so prickly anal-retentive, perhaps your efforts here would be put to better use contributing sound conservative or Christian content (since you claim to be conservative) rather than your sporadic and picayune criticisms on this talk page? --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:22, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
"Senator Biden does not drink at all, and he is frank about the reason. “There are enough alcoholics in my family,” he said last month as he sipped cranberry juice on a train ride from Washington to Wilmington." [1] So Biden himself says he doesn't drink and the cite you provided doesn't say he does. Do you have any citation to anyone credible that says Biden drinks, much less to excess? I don't think you do. If I liked Biden's policies I'd say the same thing: your reflexive dig on him is obvious and inappropriate. You yourself recognize the argument is lost if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Move onto something productive like criticizing his policies for what they are instead of taking personal shots at the man. And as for your mistreatment of HSMom, your policy of burning through any of the remaining productive editors on this site until there's nobody left but you and Andy is transparent. I'm sure you will burn this edit and I'll be blocked infinitely as a vandal or paradist, but I sincerely hope people who are capable of taking action against your obvious usurpation will see it. GaryJ 17:44, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
What we can and will do, "GaryJ" is take action against liberal trolls, who sign up to argue and attack (obviously without comprehending what I said above, and having little knowledge of the contributions of editors, by using one IP from Germany, and yet another from Sweden, to insert their liberal/socialist deceit here. The fact that liberals cannot even reveal themselves shows how little they are willing to support their own biased POV. Bye. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Typo/quirk in headline

Hello, hi, everyone, I'd like to point out an odd little neologism that appears to be a typo on the news-feed.

Attention YouTube viewers: Three more... ...videos coming Christian YouTubbers!...

Should that be "YouTubers", or maybe less messily, "YouTube users"?--Woloct 23:38, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

In other news...

They found something... --Samjames 17:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm, they found something, though they're not yet sure exactly what its significance is. Interesting story anyhow, but I don't think its important enough for front page news. AddisonDM 17:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Uh, they found the Holy Grail of Evolution. Google is celebrating. Clearly something's going on. --Samjames 17:53, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Yes samjames lets all join in and believe the liberal media! No!! This is a joke, of course it isn't a link to humans and evolution. I'm sure we will find that this is all some elaborate Swedish hoax.--IScott 18:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Why is so important anyway? It is supposed to be 47 myo, and it's an early lemur. All it does it confirm in some scientists' minds that lemurs are the earliest primates. It is not the "missing link" connecting us to apes, in fact it holds little significance in the human evolution debate. AddisonDM 18:35, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
"Samjames" says "[c]learly something's going on," but all that is "going on" is that evolutionists are scamming those who fall for it. In the United States, the number fooled is less than 50%.--Andy Schlafly 19:08, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Clearly they're all lying, right? In the future, please note that the United States is not the world. "Statistics" such as those are quite different in most other first-world nations. --Samjames 19:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
So you beleive it because major media outlets tout it? Why not look into the science of it yourself, Sam? That's not an insult, I'm serious. AddisonDM 19:56, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Uh, because I am not six scientists with paleontology degrees? The original publication is here if you're interested. Of course, Andy, I'll be laughing at whatever interpretation of this data you choose to offer. We all know how qualified you are. --Samjames 20:05, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
"Samjames", your attempt to bully with degrees isn't going to intimidate anyone here. You just look foolish trying. There's nothing special about evolutionary theories that requires anything more than a good grade school education to understand (and reject). In fact, the theory appeals more to people who are intellectual underachievers than those who did well. Have you figured out what Richard Dawkins' academic credentials really are yet?--Andy Schlafly 20:31, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Andy, perhaps, if that is all that is needed, we could work on a project to disprove their new findings line by line. Perhaps you could even get them to release their findings to the public, so that we could see whether their findings are fraudulent (of course, if they have nothing to hide, they should have no qualms with releasing their information to the public) --MichaelJamesF 22:26, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Sam, I am interested in that publication and I will read it. I suggest you read it also. Also, perhaps you could have a discussion without mocking the other members. Let me say that I am not skeptical of evolution for religious reasons. It is for scientific reasons. Maybe you think that's funny, but think about how many assumptions, rather than facts, go into the claims of evolutionary theory. AddisonDM 20:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Would anyone else be in favor of writing an article on the "Eda" fossil based on this article:

--IScott 20:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Do you mean want to write it or want it to be written? I am busy but it should be written. Only it should not tout the claims surrounding the fossil as absolute facts. AddisonDM 21:09, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
A first step is to determine how the age of the fossil was estimated. Often evolutionists make claims of age that have no logical basis, such as testing things other than the fossil itself, or doing no testing at all. You may not even be able to determine what the basis of the age estimate is; it may simply be made up.--Andy Schlafly 21:18, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
It was found in the Middle Eocene. Eocene is estimated as 55-33 million years ago. The implication of course is that the fossil is the same age as the rock strata that it was found in. Accuracy of dating methods aside, the estimated date of 47 myo seems right. But I haven't read anything yet. AddisonDM 21:33, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Often the fine print is less compelling than the newspaper headlines:
The fossil was apparently unearthed in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part (herein plate B) was restored and in the process partly fabricated to make it look more complete. This was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of us who recognized the fabrication.[8] (emphasis added)
I've already wasted too much time on this "apparent" finding that is associated with a hoax.--Andy Schlafly 22:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Prove that it's a hoax, please. --Samjames 22:21, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
No, Sam, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim of validity. Ten years ago National Geographic claimed to have a fossil that proved that birds descended from dinosaurs. It was a hoax too. All it takes is full examination by an independent laboratory and dating of the material itself. But that could ruin the joy of deceit, couldn't it?--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
I noticed that the above quote, taken from the published article, is ended immediately before a rather important point:
The fossil was apparently unearthed in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part (herein plate B) was restored and in the process partly fabricated to make it look more complete. This was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of us who recognized the fabrication [1]. The more complete part (plate A; Figs. 1–2) has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). When made available for study, plate A was immediately recognizable as the complete complementary and unaltered counterpart of plate B. (emphasis mine)
Furthermore, radiographs effectively proving plate A is unaltered are shown directly below the paragraph this is mentioned. Often the fine print is less compelling than the quote mines.--Jack Murphy 23:35, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Your additional quote does not change mine in the slightest, and your additional quote is not persuasive. Two fossils were sold at an undisclosed, but presumably very high, price by someone who claimed they were authentic. The first of the pair is a proven fraud. The second of the pair is thus likely fraudulent also. The authors in your quote neither explain in detail how they concluded otherwise (no description of dating, no details about the "radiograph" techniques used) nor make the sample available for fully independent analysis by critics.--Andy Schlafly 09:41, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
I think Andy is right here. Notice Jack, how your quote is written in that passive voice: "When made available for study (by who and what methods?) plate A was immediately recognizable (by who?) as the complete complementary...." The paper does not specify who or what methods.
Now I am not saying it is a fake, just that Andy's original quote is more significant than yours. AddisonDM 11:35, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
I thought I should point out references# 20-21 of the paper for the dating description, the authors did not perform the dating and therefore did not include it in the paper. I believe that 40Ar/39Ar was used as a dating method. As for who determined the validity of the fossil, it was the authors of the paper. They explained that through the use of CT scans and some other methods they were able to validate the fossil, although no claim of to the age other than what they referenced above. A point, the paper specifies that the first fossil had part of it fabricated to enhance the existing fossil; the researchers did differentiate between the fabricated parts and the true fossil. Another point, details of the techniques used are in the methods section of the paper including the instrument models. Since no mention was made of deviation from standard use of the instruments then it is inferred that the researchers used the standard operating guidelines provided for by the instrument manufacture. This by the way is very common in scientific literature, there is no need to duplicate the instruction manual of the instrument unless you are using it outside of normal operating specs.--Able806 15:17, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
The Piltdown Man evolutionist fraud was promoted and taught for 40 years. That wasn't the last evolutionary fraud either.
All the "researchers" need do is provide the sample for full analysis by the other side before making grandiose claims. That apparently has not been done, and possible reasons why are obvious.--Andy Schlafly 07:08, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, thank you, Professor for your contribution, which only re-states the fallacies and self-serving nature of scientists. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:14, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

All scientists are self-serving now? Could you make it any more obvious that you're a parodist? GeorgC 18:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
Certainly not in the minds of liberal trolls, GeorgC, where anything not found on Kos, HuffPo or other hate sites is labeled as conservative parody. We just had a discussion about that, on Andy's page, by the way. None of us here have actually seen real parody, but we do see lots of liberal vandalism and lies, which isn't at all parody, even though your fellow vandal site members would like people to believe it is. Bye now, enjoy your summer and do try to play outside instead of sitting at the computer all need outdoor play! --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:59, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Democratic Congress considers honoring Bible "a waste of time"

[9] Notice that even though the bill's author is attempting to reach across the aisle on this one, he's being met with mockery and derision. --Benp 08:35, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

North Korean Nuke

I often come to this website to get a conservative perspective on recent news, and was surprised to discover today that there is still nothing on the main page "news" section about North Korea's nuclear test. I think this was a very important event that requires some thorough coverage - I can already see the main stream media is downplaying the seriousness of Kim Jong Il's recklessness. RichardA 22:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Problem creating new article

I wanted to create an article on Sonia Sotomayor (who may be Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, according to reports this morning), but I got an error.
Database Error: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "". MySQL returned error "145: Table './cpwiki_media/searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)".
Could someone look into it? Thanks. --Hsmom 09:25, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Did you retry it? Often when I get errors, it is merely a temporary error, so to speak. --₮K/Admin/Talk 13:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
Thanks ₮K/Admin/Talk! I did re-try, but it wasn't working and I had to run to a homeschooling event. Looks like someone else has taken care of it, though, so it's all good. --Hsmom 22:12, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
There is a link on Webmaster's page to email him, if you run into future problems. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:28, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
Thanks! I've made a note of it on my user page so I'll remember it if I have the problem again. --Hsmom 23:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Car Dealerships

Regarding the "Partisan Car Dealership Closing" news item. Car Dealers are overwhelmingly Republican anyway, so it isn't much of a suprise that most of those being closed down are Republican. You can read more about it here: . It is a primarily left-leaning website, but I don't see anything wrong with his analysis. Its something that is worth looking at before jumping to conclusions. --MichaelJamesF 09:22, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

You know what is a surprise? My next new car will not be with Chrysler nor GM. --Jpatt 22:16, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R - MI) says nobody knows the reasons why certain dealerships were targeted, no answer was given to them, speculation grew.--Jpatt 01:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Teenager Develops Simplified Bernoulli formula?

Does anyone have more details on this story? Would it be a worthwhile inclusion in the "achievements by teenagers" article? [10] --Benp 11:19, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

Government using Eminent Domain to steal man's land

Eminent Domain is one of the most hated of liberal Big Government vectors, and is being used again to steal a Pennsylvania man's land]. It's a complex 9/11-related issue, no doubt, but theft of property by the Government is unconstitutional and reeks of jackbooted henchmen - it's clearly inappropriate. BHaines 11:27, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

Drew Carey, has a great video on this from Eminent Domain used to be used by government only for direly needed projects like a school or police and fire stations, only when the property owners refused all reasonable offers to sell. Now since a SCOTUS ruling, supported by the retiring David Souter, government is allowed to take any property it wants to, provided they can show whatever project the land is needed for will return greater taxes! National City, California, is another place where the local government is taking Eminent Domain abuse to new lows. [11]
My own family is caught up in one such case, where our property (owned since 1940) was taken, then the government refused to pay for it, citing the costs of toxic contamination remediation they claimed we caused. $750,000 in legal fees, experts fees and three years later, after we and other property owners in the effected area proved the contamination was from the government's own land filling in 1944, during World War II, the government is still refusing to pay, disputing the facts that two judges said were correct.
The project the government took the land for? Well due to economic conditions, it still hasn't started. The demand for high end condos and retail isn't what it was five years ago when they started the process. More troubling is, the land they took, was literally given to the developer, in anticipation of the higher property and retail tax revenues. So it isn't just a matter of Eminent Domain, but also one of government taking the land and giving it away to others. Government, knowing that most property owners are unable to expend the huge sums needed to dispute their actions, knowingly delay all legal actions in the hope desperate property owners will capitulate, take bargain basement "final offers" because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Look for this to happen more and more often as government seeks "economic recovery" by putting citizens to work. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:47, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the link, TK. It was fascinating. Sorry to hear about your family's troubles. My family went through a similar ordeal when I was growing up, but not through Eminent Domain. In Texas, you can own land, but the mineral rights always belong to an oil company, which means that if they think oil is under your property, you have no right to keep them from bulldozing whatever's on the lot and drilling. My dad had saved up money to build a house outside of town, bought the tract of land, made up plans to start building, and then one day the entire lot was clear-cut by an oil company. Of course no one notified us; my dad just happened to drive by and noticed all of the trees gone and the soil all ripped up, burning carcasses of trees on the ground. We still own the land, but it's ugly and unusable, and we finally had to buy yet another lot to build on. JDWpianist 08:47, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Evolution Video

I noticed the link to the video on the news sidebar of the main page. Being a man of open mind, I thought that when I viewed the video, I would get a comprehensive and unbiased argument against evolution. After all, debate can serve to strengthen a belief, as well.

However, when I began to watch the video, I began to take notes. Afterwards, I went back and did some research into the claims, drafting the notes into a point-by-point analysis of the man's arguments: First point: Unable to re-create in lab.

Postulate: it has never been created or duplicated in a laboratory setting. Therefore, it cannot be real.

My analysis: Even ignoring the fact that evolution is a process that spans over multiple generations of genetic drift, selective mutation and natural selection and therefore negates any quick, meaningful testing; The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence. Not all processes must go through a lab test before they exist, and a lab test is not the same as creating. If you are using this logic, then the Black Plague would never have existed, because it was never shown in a lab until long after it took it's toll on Europe.

But we knew it existed, because of it's observance and affects on the world around it. Evolution, in the same way, has been observed and it's affects are still with us. for a good example, take modern viruses, like the swine flu, for organisms that rapidly change to adapt to new conditions.

Second Point: Frauds and Hoaxes

Postulate: Because men find it necessary to falsify their reports, they are obviously without proof to stand on.

My analysis: The quote from Gould is on a popular bit of debate concerning embryo drawings done by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who released a series of embryo drawings in 1874. As other scientists have claimed, the embryo drawings are riddled with Haeckel's own designs, making them insubstantial.

This does not disprove the theory, as it is one man in 1874, working on limited evidence, and trying to make something repudiated. If the false work of one man could demean the honest work of hundreds of men, then theories would simply boil down to 'nuh-uh' arguments, open to speculation and ridicule on the base of flimsy evidence.

As for Gould 'disproving' evolution, all the man seeks to do is to replace false data with real data, which is why he's quoting against the use of the drawings in school text. If you look at his choice of study, you would find Gould to be one of the most ardent supporters of evolution and it's place in the school curriculum.

Third Point: Hitler and evolution.

Postulate: Hitler was bad. Hitler supported natural selection. Therefore, natural selection must be bad!

My analysis: The most slippery of arguments, because nearly every aspect of our life, culture, and beliefs can fall to this same fallacy. If a man supports using a theory to further his own ends, sadly, there is nothing we can do to stop that poisonous type of thinking.

However flawed his view on the matter, Hitler did believe in 'helping' natural selection along by being a decider on what genes were superior and what genes were inferior. Without a doubt, this line of thought led to one of the greatest atrocities the world has seen. But it does not mean natural selection is at fault. Even if someone were to correct him of his massive error, Hitler [and this is only my assumption] would find another way to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

People routinely use a good cause or scientific theory to advance some sort of self-serving agenda. People who try to sell chelation as a cure all, those who use 'quantum physics' to try to explain away fallacies in theories, Televangelists who ask for money in the name of the lord, and use it for their own benefit.

I do not doubt that evolution is flawed. There are still gaps, unseen evidence and other pitfalls throughout the broad theory. The evidence that is there, however, serves a higher purpose than simple disprovement.

Note that I did not deny any of the bad aspects. Yes, Haeckel's drawings were frauds. Yes, Hitler supported natural selection. But bad men do bad things with good causes, even the church. If we are to truly bring honesty into the debate, we must realize this and set it aside, leaving only the facts to speak the case.

I welcome any intelligent opposition to the claims above. -- CodyH 11:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Cody, you wrote: "The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence." It is also true that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. There is no reason to believe in the evolutionary paradigm. I suggest you read the historian David Hackett Fischer's work entitled Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought as he elaborates on using logic when weighing historical claims. [12] conservative 12:05, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
conservative, which parts of the 'evolutionary paradigm' do you see no reason to believe in? Do you not accept that life-forms adapt over time, in response to their surroundings? Do you prefer to deny that species which are well-suited to their environment slowly come to supersede those that are poorly adapted? You attack the statement that "The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence." Does this mean that you would also claim that, since there is no laboratory proof of an Intelligent Designer, there must be no reason to believe in the ID paradigm? In that case, which position do you take on this issue? In regard to the book linked to by your comment, could you elaborate upon how a critique of the methods used by historians is relevant to CodyH's discussion of a contemporary view on evolution? --TommyAtkins 19:46, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

George Tiller

Any comments on the death of George Tiller? --AdmiralNelson 16:42, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Evil at the hand of man is always heinous, whether shooter or whether abortionist. We Christians condemn all senseless murders including the innocent in the womb. --Jpatt 18:12, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

An interesting article to consider:,0,4777090,full.story?coll=la-homepage-calendar-widget. Specifically this quote, "Dr. George R. Tiller specializes in terminating late-term pregnancies after the fetus has been diagnosed with a birth defect: a deformed heart, missing kidneys, Down's syndrome, anencephaly. He calls his work a "reproductive ministry," and he offers his patients many of the same services as the hospice. Tiller encourages parents to hold, dress and photograph their aborted children, whom he delivers stillborn but intact. His staff takes ink-prints of tiny feet and hands; he brings in a chaplain for baptisms. Letters from grateful patients line the clinic's walls." PeterAS 01:26, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

birth defect: a deformed heart, missing kidneys, Down's syndrome, anencephaly is no justification for playing God, who lives and who dies. I don't think his craziness is wiki worthy.--Jpatt 01:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
Some people disagree about his "wikiworthiness." --AdmiralNelson 09:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
Most won't be surprised at the shopped item from the L.A. Times about Dr. Tiller. Most of his abortions were done under a loophole, he was investigated many times for telling women to claim they were "depressed". A undisputed fact is he performed over 60,000 (Sixty Thousand!) late-term abortions over the years. For that alone he was notable. [13] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:40, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Titanic survivor

The last titanic survivor, Millvina Dean, died, age 97.Cholchester1221 16:57, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

An American story, I'll look into it further. --Jpatt 18:13, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Um... she was born in Britain to British parents, grew up in Britain, survived the sinking of a British ship, left the US less than a month after arriving, and while only three months old, lived the rest of her life in Britain, and died in Britain. It is certainly a noteworthy story, and worthy of coverage by any encyclopedia, but it's hardly an American story.--TommyAtkins 08:45, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

GM filed for Chapter 11

Hate to use an AP story, but that's all I found JY23 10:14, 1 June 2009 (EDT)


I don't mean to offend anyone here, but don't you think it is a little hypocritical of you to Criticize Wikipedia for banning a group of people? I have seen several people banned on here for disagreeing with the sites official editorial policies. I am not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, I understand that if you don't want a "Mobocracy" like Wikipedia, you need to keep people who are here to cause trouble, or stir up controversy. But to criticize Wikipedia for doing it seems a bit hypocritical. Respectfully, --MichaelJamesF 17:35, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

We ban individuals for breaking clear rules. Your suggestion that we've banned people for "disagreeing with the site's official editorial policies" is nonsense.
Wikipedia just banned an entire category of contributors. Wikipedia shouldn't be claiming that it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. For years the Wikipedia mobocracy has been censoring and/or banning categories of contributors for ideological reasons, and now even the press is waking up to this.--Andy Schlafly 17:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)