Talk:Main Page/archive77

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Afghanistan Troop Surge

I'm surprised that you guys aren't giving Obama just a little credit for finally doing something good for America, even though he didn't send as many troops as they asked for, at least he finally came to his senses and is sending more troops to Afghanistan. I am not a big fan of Obama, but I do respect him for making this decision. Jvasile 19:09, 30 November 2009 (EST)

The summer that never was?

Sure WAS in Austin Wayne 15:37, 19 September 2009 (EDT).

and Vietnam. Wayne 15:38, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Oregon. Wayne 15:40, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Canada's northWayne 15:41, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and British Columbia (only 1/3 the amount of normal rainfall) Wayne 15:43, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
and Brownsville Wayne 15:48, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
And south-eastern Florida Wayne 15:50, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

It's a big planet Wayne. Somewhere on Earth it's the warmest summer ever, somewhere it's the coldest. In the planet's 5.4 billion year history, there have been periods when the Earth was warmer and cooler than today. Chippeterson September 19 2008

I thought the Earth was only around 6,000 years old. Am I wrong on this? KuonL 16:49, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Which is why calling this the "summer that never was" is at best a bit of a misnomer. Wayne 15:50, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Well it was certainly cooler then normal here in SE Wisconsin, one Ninety degree day in the two months of July and August combined. However such a summer does not disprove Global Warming anymore then if this had been a very warm summer would have proven Global Warming. One year is an indication of nothing, anyone in meteorology will tell you this. If there is a trend, it will have to be over multiple decades. --BMcP 16:19, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

And Minnesota Wayne 00:19, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

And you're an idiot. Honestly! One day does not an entire Summer make! Being a Minnesotan and a weather watcher, I can tell you straight up that this was one of the mildest Summers Minnesota has ever had. I have to note, too, that your own link disproves your assertions. Read the rest of it instead of just the headline. They had NEAR FREEZING temps in northern Minnesota that same day. That's the inconvenient truth you refuse to admit. Jinx McHue 13:44, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
And California Wayne 00:21, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
and Houston Wayne 00:22, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Australia Wayne 00:23, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Seattle Wayne 00:24, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
And Edmonton Wayne 00:26, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Viva Las Vegas! Wayne 00:27, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Alaska, too.

Just so you know, there is a trend in place. While this summer is unusually cool, the "cooling" trend began in 1998. I read the Global Koolaid alarmists counter claim is surface temps are cooler, naturally, sea temps still high. Still include no solar info to their man-made claims.--Jpatt 00:32, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

1. The "unusually cool" seems to depend on where you were. 2. I'm not making any argument re: global warming, cooling, or climate change, anthropomorphic, solar, natural or otherwise. But a claim that this was the "summer that never was" is suffering from a too-narrow viewpoint at best, and is deceitful at worst. Wayne 00:56, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
Wayne, your dispute is with the facts, not with us. And the fact is that the temperatures are cooling, not warming. I randomly checked two of your cites at the top of this entry and found, as I expected, that your citations merely deal with an isolated hot day or so. The Florida article, for example, discusses merely the first day of summer there. The article cited on our Main Page deals with the entire summer. I trust you can appreciate the difference.
Your denial that temperatures are cooling prove the central point. Global warming is a lie, but of course liberals won't admit it. Al Gore and other liberal hucksters will just keep hawking their falsehoods as long as close-minded suckers continue to believe and repeat it. If you're not getting at least a small piece of the $100 million that Al Gore is making for his deceit, then you're really being taken for a ride.--Andy Schlafly 09:30, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
2008 of course, is the last year we have complete data. According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, however it was the 12th warmest year overall since measurements first been taken back in 1880. Ten of the twelve warming years occurred in a period of 1997 to 2008.[[1]] What does this mean? Well the last decade was very warm. Does this mean the Earth is warming up over the long period, not necessarily. However there is no indication of a real worldwide Global cooling either, even if 2009 is even cooler then 2008. It is not long enough of a period to make that determination. --BMcP 19:44, 20 September 2009 (EDT)


Seeing as how the "first Thanksgiving" in America occurred more a century and a half before the Constitution came around (1619), one might want to clarify/insert a caveat that we're talking about the first federally-mandated Thanksgiving holiday, which Washington declared in 1789 in thanks for the way in which God had allowed the nation "to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted..." and not the "first Thanksgiving." Also, one might want to capitalize "Thanksgiving." Wayne 12:55, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

What are you talking about? I'm new here, so take that into account, but I can't seem to find the error you refer to. If it's there, why not fix it yourself instead of addressing it on the talk page? Also, I have sort of a despising feeling towards know-it-alls, but the first Thanksgiving was in 1621, since the Pilgrims arrived in 1620. RoyP 14:39, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
"If it's there, why not fix it yourself instead of addressing it on the talk page?" because only sysops can edit that page.Wayne 17:39, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
I've used Wikipedia before once or twice, so I thought everyone could edit anywhere. I just reviewed a lot of Conservapedia's rules and it seems you are correct this one time. And yes there is a factual error, and hopefully it will be corrected. RoyP 19:37, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
My understanding is that not everyone can edit everywhere on Wikipedia. I thought many pages are locked against editing, and anyone who inserts truthful but conservative information into certain atheistic or liberal entries (e.g., evolution, global warming) will be immediately reverted and blocked if he continues. So your comment about Wikipedia is baffling.--Andy Schlafly 15:06, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Public School Students Indoctrination Video

The link just goes to the Foxnews main page, just a FYI. --BMcP 16:20, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Anyone know why this video is getting attention now? I could swear that I first saw it months ago. Jinx McHue 11:46, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Today's (926/09) WP "Featured article"

A smear article about the Boy Scouts: Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Jinx McHue 12:36, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

How long does it take evolutionists to admit Darwin was wrong?

Wrong about what? The Appendix itself? Well of course he may have been wrong, but Darwin wasn't the first or final authority on the appendix and we are still not entirely sure that has a purpose. Some researchers propose it does a couple years back based on some of their findings which looks promising, however the jury may still be out on this. If the appendix does serve the purpose proposed, great, that is what makes science wonderful, discovering new things in light of new evidence, which allows the updates or new theories. Fortunately the appendix isn't essential in anyway since we all can live perfectly good lives after having it removed, which is just as well since the appendix is of such poor design. --BMcP 08:16, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, BMcP, for demonstrating how evolutionists never admit being wrong. This is why the Piltdown Man fraud was taught to two generations of students and it took about 40 years for that fraud to eradicated. It took 100 years for the Haeckel drawings fraud to be taken out of textbooks.
How long before the false claim about the appendix being a vestigial organ is taken out of textbooks promoting evolution???--Andy Schlafly 08:45, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Hmm, I already said he may have been wrong about the appendix. The article sited, correctly, that researchers may have discovered that the appendix has a purpose. I agree with the word "may", because further research is needed and other scientists need to be able to duplicate the findings before such can be accepted as "fact". It may be fact the appendix serves a purpose. What is fact is that we can live without it, we do know that, otherwise those of us who have Appendicitis and had it removed would not be able to go on living, but we do. It is also of poor design because it is so prone to infection and rupture.
Of course wither the Appendix has a purpose or not has little to do with evolution itself. Finding the Appendix indeed has a purpose would no more shake the theory then definitely discovering it had no purpose would somehow "prove" evolution. All that confirming through science the Appendix having a purpose would mean is that previous conclusions were in error, and that thanks to new efforts and new evidence by scientists, we know have more information on the organ and we can update our theories accordingly. This only shows me that the scientific method works. --BMcP 10:52, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you're now illustrating two characteristics of evolutionists: last wordism and refusal to admit errors. You avoid the undeniable fact about how long evolutionists taught the Piltdown Man and Haeckel drawings frauds, long after any open-minded review of them would have revealed their falsehoods. Now you persist in saying only that Darwin merely "may" have been wrong about the appendix. He was wrong, but evolutionists won't admit it.
Think it'll take another 150 years before diehard evolutionists admit Darwin was wrong??? Evolutionists have free will to cling to falsehoods, and it would not be surprising to see them do so.--Andy Schlafly 11:26, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
The issue I have is over how the post was worded in regards to the Appendix and evolution. I don't elect to talk about Piltdown Man and Haeckel drawings here because they not the subject at hand, and have their own talk pages. I already stated, twice, that indeed the century or so old conclusion the Appendix is a vestigial organ may indeed be in error. I use the word may, because the article cited in the original posting stated researchers may have discovered the Appendix serves a purpose. This view is collaborated by those at Duke University Medical School would conducted the research.[[2]] [[3]] Their research shows promise, may very well be true, but further research is needed for a more definite conclusion. If they are correct, then scientific journals and textbooks will need to be updated. It is also in all probability, these same researchers fully accept evolutionary theory.
I have stated my objection and will say no more here as endless debate should be avoided. Please, feel free to have the last word in response. --BMcP 12:52, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Hey, BMcP, you're missing the current evolutionist argument when it comes to the non-uselessness of the appendix. They move the goalposts by redefining the word "vestigial" and claim that the appendix's current use is different from its original use. Of course, there is absolutely zero evidence that the appendix was ever anything different in our alleged evolutionary ancestors and there never will be any evidence. Ever. It is something that evolutionists believe on... dare I say it?... faith. Jinx McHue 14:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Please inquire if I am or am not "missing" any argument on my personal talk page in regards to this. I don't want to continue lengthening this section of the main page, as I feel all I wanted to say here has been said. Thanks. --BMcP 14:50, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you're not fooling anyone here. Evolutionists always refuse to discuss and defend their beliefs when they might be outnumbered, as you now are on this page. Another example is how evolutionists never agree to robust public debates.
You've posted several times here but still won't admit that (1) Darwin was wrong about the appendix, (2) the Piltdown Man fraud was taught for 40 years, and the (3) Haeckel drawing fraud was taught for 100 years. Do yourself a big favor and revisit evolution with an open mind. Evolution was force-fed to all of us as teenagers, but those of us who reconsidered with an open mind are then able to move beyond it. You can too.--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I felt that if Jinx or anyone wants to discuss broader evolutionary concepts with me, they could on my personal page, which is viewable to all and wouldn't spam this page. I didn't want to continue here, because defending myself gets me accused of wanting the "last word", so I was going to sit back and let you who disagree have the final say. However now in doing that I am now being accused of not wanting to discuss my conclusions, which again is just about the subject of the article and the erroneous conclusion that 1)The appendix certainly has a use versus it may have a use 2)The idea that those who accept evolution thinks Darwin was perfect on ever point about every subject he held an opinion on, when we all acknowledge he certainly was not. Done. --BMcP 19:08, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, you've confirmed the three points: no evolutionist will admit that Darwin was specifically wrong about the appendix, that the Piltdown Man fraud was taught for 40 years, and that the Haeckel drawing fraud was taught for 100 years. You can dance around those three basic points all you want, but the facts remain: evolutionists won't admit the truth on those three key points.
Now do yourself a favor and realize that evolutionists aren't telling you the truth either, and reconsider with an open mind what you were force-fed. You'll then find the truth and it will set you free, just as it has done for many others.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I don't see what You're saying. The Piltdown Man is regarded as a hoax. There was even an episode about it on NOVA, and NOVA favors evolution. As for the Haeckel drawings, I don't really know much about them besides that they were old. Anyway, the researchers aren't saying that evolution is wrong- they still think it is right. I really don't see what the big deal is that Darwin was wrong about the appendix- it was a long time ago after all, and he is bound to be wrong about some things. That doesn't really weaken the modern evidence for evolution. JakeD
I am somewhat new here, but I've never met anyone who has believed in Evolution who hasn't said Piltdown Man or the Haeckel drawings are wrong. However, just because people would place in hoaxes to try to further their goals doesn't meant the entire theory is wrong, does it? About the appendix, I try to remember that in science all theories are incomplete, even those with a staggering amount of evidence behind them. Darwin's theory has been expanded upon, supported with evidence and, on occasion, pruned to work with the facts found or presented. It's how a theory becomes stronger. -- JBenson 11:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)
After 40 years of teaching the Piltdown Man, evolutionists were conclusively proven to be wrong. The Haeckel drawing fraud was taught by evolutionists in textbooks for 100 years until a (self-serving) New York Times article wanted to get credit for "exposing" that scandal. Evolutionists never admitted responsibility and still refuse to be accountable for the repeated frauds that they allow or encourage. Your approach is a bit like a student who is caught cheating to declare "it was wrong," but then refuse to change his ways.
For every proven evolution fraud there are ten more unproven ones. Unless and until evolutionists take meaningful steps to prevent recurrence of these frauds and hold those responsible who profit from them, the frauds continue unabated.--Andy Schlafly 11:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

I love Jesus Christ


Our good friend Terry is recovering from a six hour operation; prayers would be appreciated. --Joaquín Martínez 20:33, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure I speak for all of us at The Other Site when I say we wish him a speedy recovery. Wayne 20:39, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
>.> JacobB 18:21, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

G20 Protests

First, i want to say i really admire Conservapedia for standing up to the repression from the Obama administration. but i was just wondering why there was nothing in the news section about police repression at the G20 protests in Pittsburgh last week.

British girl's death shortly after vaccine.

Apparently, your front-page story needs updating. PeterF 20:18, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I think your critical thinking is what needs "updating", if you've really fallen for the cover up. Notice how the comments on the cover-up story are not so gullible.--Andy Schlafly 23:13, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
It would appear that her death was unrelated to the HPV vaccine after all.

"The deputy coroner, who opened and adjourned the hearing at Coventry Magistrates' Court, said: "It appears that Natalie died from a tumour in her chest involving her heart and her lungs."

The inquest was told that the tumour had "heavily infiltrated" her heart and extended into her left lung. [4]

BrianNTS 10:18, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it would seem that other sources are also citing that it was a malignant tumor in her chest that killed her. The headline in the news section should be withdrawn or updated with this new information.[[5]] [[6]] --BMcP 17:37, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Both of you sure are quick to believe the far-fetched government "explanation". Read further: "We understand that further tests are being carried out to discover the exact cause of Natalie's death."[7]

Further tests are being carried out, so it would be wrong to definitively not attribute her death to the vaccine. However, the lack of concrete evidence that the vaccine was to blame also means we shouldn't connect her death to that either. I believe it best not to mention the story on the front page until some firm conclusions are drawn. Talk of a cover up, I must opinion, is wrong; there's no evidence that the British government is trying to cover anything up. As for "Notice how the comments on the cover-up story are not so gullible", many people believe the American government covered up alien landings on Earth. Doesn't make it so. There's as much evidence for the British government covering up, as there is for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists' beliefs that Bush was responsible for those terrible events. Breithaupt 12:40, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

It is far-fetched a malignant tumor killed her? I wouldn't say that. The evidence is leaning that way though and through further tests are needed, the conclusions will likely validate that. What there is no evidence of though is that the vaccine killed her. Without evidence all people have is another tin hat conspiracy "theory". --BMcP 14:06, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
Does anyone really expect a the very pro-vaccine British government or their social health service to admit that this vaccine killed this poor young girl? I think some people need a reality check. TESvestad 14:01, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Most Recent News Article

The most recent news article posted, regarding the loss of interest in war caskets, is particularly interesting. However, I have reread it quite a few times and feel it is a bit poorly written, or perhaps just poorly organized. I can't figure out the message its trying to send. Maybe its just me.

Spend some time learning and contributing here and it will expand your mind.--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Support for abortion falling in America - news item?

From CNN, support for legalized abortion is falling in the United States. JacobB 18:19, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the news tip. I'll put this on the front page unless someone else beats me to it!--Andy Schlafly 13:12, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Kevin Jennings

Don't forget that he also founded GLSEN, a pro-homosexual advocacy group that targets underage children with propaganda and grotesque homosexual sex education. Jinx McHue 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Could someone rewrite this item so that it makes sense? AngusF 13:36, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

What's wrong with it? Karajou 14:06, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
For starters, it's not a sentence. AngusF 14:20, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Then what's wrong with it? Karajou 14:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
It does not make a clear point. And 'who's' should be 'whose'. AngusF 14:24, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

David Letterman's immorality

It's no surprise to hear of his behavior, but I think it would be a good story to feature as it shows just what liberals think of family values. TESvestad 13:55, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Google "Senator Ensign." I assume you think that shows what conservatives think of family values? Thecount 14:12, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Are you implying that affairs done by liberals are OK, but totally wrong when done by conservatives? I would wager they are totally wrong no matter who does it. Karajou 14:21, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Not at all. I'm saying that cherry-picking individual cases to draw conclusions about an entire group is erroneous. I don't think the Ensign situation says anything about conservatives as a whole, nor do I think the Letterman affair says anything about liberals as a whole. Thecount 14:24, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
The difference is that conservatives criticize this sort of behavior while liberals justify or defend it. Look no further than the Hollywood elite's continuing defense of Roman Polanski. DanielPulido 14:39, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying that no conservative has ever had an affair, but no conservative would ever defend such behavior. How typical of liberals like you to immediately jump to the defense of one of your own whilst trying to turn the subject to slandering conservatives.TESvestad 14:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension; at no point did I defend what Letterman did. I'm simply cautioning against slandering an entire political philosophy based on anecdotal evidence. After all, I could say that conservatives' continued embrace of Newt Gingrich, an adulterer and two-time divorcee, shows that conservatives don't value the institution of marriage. But I don't think that's legitimate. I wonder why you feel such an argument has merit. Thecount 14:53, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
If you don't think it's legitimate to bring up Gingrich, then why are you the one who brought him up in an effort to change the subject? Typical liberal style. DanielPulido 14:59, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
To illustrate my point. Same reason you brought up Roman Polanski. Thecount 15:00, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
And you've made my point for me. No conservatives are saying that Gingrich did nothing wrong. Hollywood liberals are bending over backwards to excuse Polanski, and have been for decades, just as they'll likely do for Letterman. Nice straw man. DanielPulido 20:05, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Adultery is adultery. A sin. My point to you was that in typical liberal fashion you tried to immediately get away from the current news story about Letterman and on to someone completely unrelated. TESvestad 15:03, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

And my point to you is that adultery is not unique to either liberalism or conservativism, which was what your initial post claimed. As Andy is fond of saying, the truth will set you free. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with this issue. Thecount (changed name re: Ed's request) DonnyB 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

It is telling that when discussing the story of a liberal celebrity committing adultery, rather than condemn him you try to condemn a completely unrelated conservative.TESvestad 15:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

It shouldn't be mentioned on the front page because, really, it is just tabloid TV material, nothing more. --BMcP 23:27, 2 October 2009 (EDT)


"Copenhagen" is spelled wrong in the news item on unemployment. Can someone fix it? --MarkGall 15:23, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Thousands of American Samoans died while Obama flied

Why is there no news mention of Obama's apathy for the American territory American Samoa? Instead, Obama sees fit to fly to Copenhagen. Brown25 21:55, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Thousands of American Samoans dead? The last death toll I saw for American Samoa was 32, plus a few people still unaccounted for. Perhaps you meant thousands left homeless? AdeleM 23:44, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
Good question. Let's not exaggerate. --Ed Poor Talk 00:46, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Michelle Obama's big fat lie to the International Olympic Committee

Narcissism trumps truth every time with these people.[8]

From Michelle Obama’s failed pitch to the International Olympic Committee:

“Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection.”

Um. Ew. Oof.

Mrs. Obama was 20 years old when Lewis first competed in the Olympics in 1984.

I wonder if the committee members saw right through the Obamas' self-serving horn-blowing and lies and that's why Chicago was booted out of contention in the first round. Jinx McHue 10:22, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the alert, posted appropriately.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

She was 8 when Olga Korbut debuted in the Olympics and 12 when Nadia Comaneci was competing. Perhaps you might read the sentence before rushing to judgement. JJBenitez 18:51, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Or perhaps you should. 8 years old is one thing; the ages of 12 and 20 are something else. He's got a record of lying; he's trying to force health care down our throats and penalize us if we refuse to pay; he's got a list of radical, socialist/communist cronies working around him in Washington, one of whom admires a proven NAMBLA child abuser; he's got ties to a pair of terrorists, one of whom murdered a cop. Then there's the recent video of a Chicago kid being beaten to death with a railroad tie; did Obama try to gloss that one over when he made his bid for the Olympics in his "safe, crime-free" hometown? We have a Messiah, JJ, and no, it's not the one at the church of Obama; I strongly suggest you follow Him. Karajou 19:10, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Well stated. Thank you. Rob Smith 14:37, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Uhm. How do I say this? Eh, the quote is from Michele Obama, the section header, main page item, recent changes notes and discussion clearly specify this issue is to do with Michele Obama. Methinks your obsessions are showing. JJBenitez 19:18, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, the quote is from Michelle, who is still a part of Barack, and both have a history of lying. And it's your obsessions that are showing here. Karajou 19:36, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Are you saying that it's probably a lie that as an 8 year old girl, she sat on her Father's lap and watched Olga Korbut at the Olympics? You're not even bothering to read the quote you're attacking her with. You might as well just make up things she said and attack her with that. JJBenitez 19:43, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Did she sit on his lap as a 20-year old? Karajou 19:50, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
I take it you're familiar with the use of the comma in punctuation, and what it does to the meaning of this sentence? JJBenitez 19:54, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Obviously, you can't or won't answer that. I leave you with a quote that countless many of you pushed in American's faces through the media: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt Karajou 19:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Please try sticking to the point we're debating. The accusation is that Michele Obama sat in her father's lap at age 20. Ignoring the hilariously literal interpretation of a transcribed speech for the moment, here is the Chicago Tribune transcript of the speech that Malkin cites in her article. You'll notice that Malkin added a comma that isn't in the original transcript. It makes the sentence clearer. It's a shame Malkin elected to edit the transcript to suit her story. JJBenitez 20:07, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
And you still didn't answer it. JJ, just what is your point for coming here? Do you sit at your keyboard and monitor the site, coming in whenever you feel like under assumed user names just to push your agenda? I feel you've been here before doing exactly that. Karajou 20:21, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
Michele Obama said she remembers sitting on her father's lap when she was 8. It is idiotic to accuse her of saying she was sitting on her father's lap when she was 20, unless you don't understand basic English grammar. Also, the quote is mis-transcribed, further rendering Malkin's original point farcically absurd. I like good grammar, and I enjoy a debate based on facts, not ludicrous assertions and blatant misquotations. Your argument is with the source of your news items, not with me. JJBenitez 20:30, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
No, JJ, it's your argument, and you chose to bring it here to argue with us about it, intead of arguing with the source: Michelle Malkin herself. You wanted to bring in a grammar and punctuation problem with us instead of bringing it to Malkin. Karajou 20:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
No, it's on your Main Page as a lead "News Item", with the mis-transcribed quotation and false interpretation. That is Conservapedia's responsibility to fix, not Malkin's. JJBenitez 20:36, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
I leave it to the reader. The quote here on the main page is transcribed exactly from the source, which anyone can see, and which contradicts you, JJ. You like a good debate based on facts, but between the posting and the source it is you who twisted them. Take your problem up with Malkin. Perhaps you feel you can correct her? Karajou 20:42, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
JJ, you really worked overtime to defend what is obviously another Obama lie. No one is fooled here, that's for sure.--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
They sure come out of the woodwork, don't they? Jinx McHue 14:42, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
re: punctuation: Exactly what is the difference in meaning between "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection" and "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection?" There is no more difference than there is between "I'm going to the game with Bob and Carol, Mike and John" and "I'm going to the game with Bob and Carol, Mike, and John." Michelle Malkin is not dishonest in adding the comma as its inclusion changes nothing. Jinx McHue 14:56, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

"Efforts to restrict schoolchildren from reciting..."

This doesn't seem to accurately portray the case. According to the linked story in the Christian Scientist Monitor, a student didn't want to recite the pledge, and the school forced him to. So it seems the case was the opposite of what the headline claims. No one wanted to restrict schoolchildrens' rights to recite the creed; they wanted to force schoolchildren to do something against their will. Do we have this story wrong? Isn't this a case of big government forcing citizens to stand and recite a government-approved creed? What if students were forced to sing Obama's praises, and they didn't want to comply? Would the headline be "Efforts to restrict schoolchildren from singing Obama's praises were struck down by the Supreme Court"?

The student challenged the Florida law that states that students must stand and recite the Pledge unless excused by a parent. Why didn't the kid just get a parent to excuse him instead of challenging the teacher over the recitation and then challenging the state law? Two reasons: (1) he obviously wanted to draw attention and controversy to himself and (2) he wanted to challenge the recitation of the Pledge. Had he won, what do you think the outcome would've been? Do you honestly think other kids would not have been restricted in reciting the Pledge? And how is this any different from, say, government mandated sex-ed classes where they allow students to opt out. Do you think you'd have the same attitude if some Christian student had stomped into a sex-ed classroom and made a big stink about not wanting to participate without first getting a parental excuse? Jinx McHue 17:09, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Well put. If the student had won the right to sit down during the Pledge, then before long other students would be engaging in similar disruption and the school would next avoid the "divisive" issue by not having the Pledge at all. The Pledge has enemies, and this time the court system sided with the Pledge.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
I think that the news item is a tad misleading. Would the case have eventually led to the restriction of the recitation of the Pledge? Probably. However, the case itself did not deal directly with restrictions. Seeing as how the case will never be heard, we'll never know the outcome. I would like to see the wording of the news item tweaked slightly, though. Honestly I think an analogue of Andy's last sentence "the court sided with the Pledge" or something along those lines. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:56, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Did the case give a reason for the student's refusal? Where I went to school, there were a significant number of Quaker students, who as a religious matter do not Pledge. School authorities were respectful of any students who chose not to Pledge, so long as the students were respectful of those who did Pledge and weren't disruptive. Students knew they could decide not to Pledge, but that it would not be treated as any kind of a big deal political statement by anyone. Now and again someone who wasn't Quaker chose not to Pledge, but it usually didn't last long as no one made a fuss over it. It was seen as a matter of individual conscience. It did not become divisive at all, and the vast majority of students Pledged every day. --Hsmom 00:16, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Football player penalized for his faith

Here is a story from local news in my area:,194364

Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:16 pm EDT

An Oakland Raiders cornerback claims he was penalized on Sunday for making a religious display while celebrating an interception.

After picking off a pass in the end zone, Oakland Raiders cornerback Chris Johnson celebrated by dropping to his knees and raising his arms in triumph. He was instantly flagged for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration.

Johnson later complained that he was whistled for thanking God:

"I'm just getting on my knees giving my respect to God. I don't see how that's a personal foul or anything like that."

It's not OK for Johnson to go to the ground in celebration/prayer after an interception, but Jared Allen can fall to his knees during his lame sack dance? And the Lambeau Leap is fine, but players can't coordinate a touchdown high five? And what's the difference if a player raises his arms in triumph while on a knee but not while standing on two feet?

Taj 19:06, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

No, he just got caught being excessive in the endzone after a touchdown. Now he wants to cry persecution? Bull, the ref isn't out the crush people's beliefs, he is there to enforce the rules. Chris Johnson needs to act like the professional he is suppose to be. --BMcP 07:57, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, am I right in inferring that you're an atheist? Your comment displays a common atheistic hostility to public displays of Christian worship.--Andy Schlafly 11:00, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Good news! "Update: Over at Yardbaker, Alana G dug up an old video clip featuring the NFL's vice-president of officiating explaining that a player is allowed to drop to his knees if it's in prayer. Mike Pereira told the NFL Network last year that there would be an exception to the "going to the ground" rule for players who did so to "praise the lord". He said he'd allowed this because he didn't want to be "struck by lightning".
So much for those who are trying to remove our right to give thanks to our Creator and keep our faith in our daily lives. Taj 11:43, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Well since you asked, not that my personal beliefs on the supernatural is anyone's business, no I wouldn't call myself an atheist. If I had to call myself anything, I suppose it would be agnostic deist, although that is more of a description then any sort of title.
People can worship whatever god or gods they like in public, as long as they are not disrupting the rights of others. However when you are playing for the NFL, you are an employee of a private organization (the Raiders specifically, and the NLF by extension). Therefore you have to follow their rules, and one rule is no excessive public displays or celebrations after a touchdown. As the great Vince Lombardi once said "Act Like You Been There Before". --BMcP 13:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, I guess you missed the entry above yours "Update" (follow the original link for the whole news story) - He didn't break any rules. The organization's own stated rule is that players are allowed to give thanks to God. Increasingly these days, there are those who seek to censor any public show of faith - but it's a personal belief that should not be restricted. And, I repeat, the football player did not break any rules, and should not have been penalized in any way (read the update above, thanks). Taj 15:28, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Or here, to make it easy to find:,194364 "NFL's vice-president of officiating explained that a player is allowed to drop to his knees if it's in prayer. Mike Pereira told the NFL Network last year that there would be an exception to the "going to the ground" rule for players who did so to "praise the lord"." Taj 15:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Well if the NFL sees it that way (not a violation), then case closed. The referee and I were mistaken, fortunately such issues can be and are addressed, as the vice president of officiating demonstrated. --BMcP 15:43, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

He was fined for excessive celebration. This is by no means a new penalty. The penalty is also not incurred for the CONTENT of the celebration. That he was praising God (whether he was being sincere or not, and he probably wasn't) is neither here nor there. The call would have been made had he praised a bologna sandwich. Jros83 13:56, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
You are incorrect. The organization's own rules state that what he did was acceptable. As it clearly says in the update above. It sure would be nice if you actually read the news story and comments before adding your own opinion. Taj 22:31, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Within the article

In the external link ("Praising the Lord Is a 15-Yard Penalty" -- Back Porch Fanhouse), the embedded YouTube video has one swear word dubbed a repeated number of times. Perhaps we can find another article on the same subject and post another clip of the video without said word? EricaC 22:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

The link I posted:,194364 does not have a video. ? it is just a news story. Taj 09:25, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

ACORN wins second grant for "fire prevention and safety"


Firefighters lose large U.S. grant to ACORN

Nearly $1 million in Homeland Security funding typically earmarked for fire departments has been awarded to ACORN, despite a clear signal from Congress that it intends to cut off federal funding to the embattled group.

If anyone can explain to me what ACORN has to do with Homeland Security/fire prevention and safety, I'd welcome it. Jinx McHue 15:07, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

FEMA awarded $997,402 to ACORN in New Orleans on Sept. 4 as part of its Fire Prevention and Safety Grants program. The group plans to use the money to assess fire safety in the homes of low and moderate-income families and hand out smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other fire prevention gear... [9] This link also states the grant was rescinded.
The FEMA grants for 2008 are listed here. [10]
There is a precedent for awarding ACORN grants, the Bush administration had no problem with them a short time ago. [11] --MichaelJB 21:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

By "a short time ago," you must be referring to a time before the massive voter registration fraud and documented tax evasion advice for confessed felons. If you're willing to defend an organization like ACORN, then why are you even here? JacobB 22:08, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

By 'a short time ago', I meant exactly what the reference stated, 2007, the year the Bush administration gave them the grant through FEMA. A person asked a legitimate question and I posted factual references that were devoid of opinion, or as you put it, 'defending ACORN'. Please stop misrepresenting my contributions. --MichaelJB 00:58, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

You're right, I overreacted. I have a sort of knee-jerk when I see anybody saying saying anything positive about that group, or even something which contradicts a negative thing. I have re-read what you said, and visited your links, and I owe you an apology. JacobB 01:08, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Who are the "confessed felons"? Rob Smith 16:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

When I say "documented tax evasion advice for confessed felons," I'm referring to the video which shows two undercover agents posing as a prostitute and her manager (confessed, as far as ACORN knew, felons) received tax evasion advice from ACORN. JacobB 19:21, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Presidential Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize

The article states "Obama follows in footsteps of former presidents Wilson, Roosevelt with Nobel Peace Prize — but historians say his win is an 'embarrassment' to the process." Carter should also be listed among the past presidential winners, as he also won a Nobel Peace prize in 2002. --BMcP 22:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Or distinguish between sitting- and former- Presidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterF (talk)
Why? The article is talking about following sitting Presidents, not former ones. However this might make a good "Affirmative Action" entry, being since it is pretty much agreed Obama was awarded, as were Carter and Gore, to spite George W. Bush. Once again, Obama is merely benefiting from Affirmative Action rather than any accomplishments or talent of his own. Pitiful, I think. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

I respect the beliefs of those who find comfort in some version God (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.), but I find it very disingenuous for those people to find fault in those who have differing opinions. Above all, I am appalled by those who so easily denounce science, since that is the the only mode that we humans have for discovering what is really going on in this world/universe. Whatever anyone "believes," sciences is the only realm of human endeavor that actually tells us how this society/world/universe actually works. The fact that every religion we know has either died off or suffered continuous strife because its believers have splintered off into various microcosms of belief should be evidence enough that most of what we "believe" is man-made. If there was an ultimate truth and/or creator, it would be a universally acknowledged fact built into our very being, and most of the tensions of the world would have never have occurred.

We should distinguish between sitting and former presidents. Stclaire 08:18, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Obama and the Heisman

In case people don't know, it may be "funny" to write in Obama's name for the Heisman trophy, but there is zero chance he will win it, even if the headline hints otherwise. The "public vote", that Nissan is sponsoring will equate only one vote out of the 924 total cast, so at best Obama might appear as the candidate with the least votes, as the other 923 actual voters won't be so farcical in their decision. --BMcP 11:04, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

But many of the other "actual voters" may, like the Nobel Prize committee, also think Obama should win the award. It will be "historic"!!!!--Andy Schlafly 11:13, 13 October 2009 (EDT)


"Liberal hatred for First Amendment rights began this year with actions against talk show host Michael Savage by linking his name to a list of murderers and terrorists - "for balance" - in the United Kingdom."

I believe this needs to be reworded. How can the First Amendment be linked with a country which does not fall under the First Amendment nor has any influence over it? Breithaupt 08:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Health Reform:

I am curious as to why there hasn't been a story on Health reform yet. This is rather confusing.

Good suggestion. I'll put one up now.--Andy Schlafly 09:11, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
As it stands, the entry wont be re-worded, but the explanation from the Savage show is that he intercepted emails from one or several Obama Administration officials asking Britain to add him to the list. These emails are collected in his up-coming book Banned in Britain. As soon as I see the book I'll post them in his article. Karajou 14:09, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Volunteerism highest in conservative areas

This is not the least bit surprising:

Volunteering in America Research Highlights

Highest volunteer rate: Since 1989, the Midwest region of the United States has had the highest volunteer rate among U.S. regions for all adults, with a rate of 23.9 percent in 1989, and 30.2 in 2008. This is a shift from 1974 when the West had the highest volunteer rate.

• Largest number of volunteers: Since 1974, the number of volunteers in the South has almost doubled from 10.5 to 20.7 million, giving the South the largest number of volunteers of all the regions. Just between 2006 and 2008, the South has gained almost 300,000 volunteers. The Midwest comes in at a distant second in volunteer numbers at about 15.6 million.

The conservative areas represent the majority in both the top ten states as well as the top ten metropolitan areas. Liberal areas like California and New York City are tops on sheer numbers alone due to higher populations, but those higher populations did not translate to equal or higher percentages rates. Why volunteer when the government does it for you? Jinx McHue 10:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Jinx, thanks for the superb info. This is just the kind of substance that makes our site so informative.--Andy Schlafly 10:57, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

National Science Foundation's porn problem

Maybe the NSF should be renamed the NSFW!

EXCLUSIVE: Porn surfing rampant at U.S. science foundation

Summary of article (source):

  • One senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography and chatting online with partially clad or nude women (his “humanitarian” defense was that he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women). This cost tax payers anywhere from $13,800 to $58,000.
  • One worker perused hundreds of pornographic Web sites during work hours in a three week time frame in June 2008. That employee received a 10-day suspension.
  • Another employee was caught with hundreds of pictures, videos and even PowerPoint slide shows containing pornography.
  • Another employee stored nude images of herself on her computer.
  • In 2007, there were seven employee misconduct investigations closed by the inspector general. In 2008, there were 10 investigations, and seven involved online pornography.
  • Deputy Inspector General Tim Cross said, “We were consumed with a lot of these cases.”
  • Overall, investigative recoveries totaled more than $2 million for the year.
  • The names of all of the employees targeted in the pornography cases were redacted from the more than 120 pages of investigative documents released to The Times.

I'm sure the NSF's support of evolution and the liberal attitudes of its employees are completely unrelated. Jinx McHue 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Superb observation, Jinx. Deceit begets deceit, and you can bet these "scientists" have no problem at all lying about science and in funding deceitful science.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

No shocking news regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

No, I suppose it's not shocking at all that a lawyer-cum-politician, a documentary filmmaker or a man who does not hold a doctorate in economics and who has never worked as an economic theorist/academic did not win the Nobel Prize in economics. Your headline is entirely accurate. PeterF 19:57, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm surprised the committee didn't find a way to give its award to a liberal who pushes leftist ideas without accomplishing anything.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Maybe that says more about you and your preconceptions than it does about the committee. Besides, you of course know that the econ. prize is given out by a completely different body (in a completely different country) than, say, the Nobel Peace Prize (if you're trying to make an association with Mr. Obama's recent award....) PeterF 21:50, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
No, I'm not convinced the process for the two prizes is significantly different. Perhaps you can notice that they use the same name and are announced in a coordinated manner. If you think there are significant differences in process (and safeguards against the travesty just witnessed in connection with Obama's "award"), then it's up to you to prove your case.--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Here. Let me Google that for you. PeterF 22:04, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Better yet, you made a claim about the Nobels and why you were shocked. Why not you back it up--but can you back it up without using the words/phrases "oppose school prayer/gun control," "logic dictates," "2+2=4," "the Bible," "open your mind," or "liberal" ?
Sorry, Peter, you haven't proven your case. Both prizes have the same name and coordinated announcements for a reason: they are awarded using similar processes. If that upsets you, it should.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Wrong. The Norwegian Parliament selects a committee which chooses the peace prize winner from a list submitted by members of national assemblies and governments and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, members of Institut de Droit Internationale, university professors of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, university presidents and directors of peace research and international affairs institute, former recipients, including board members of organisations that have previously won the prize, present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute. The Econ. prize is selected by are selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Very different procedures in different countries. PeterF 22:26, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Norway and Sweden are similar countries in the same area of the world, and neither would be considered diverse in any meaningful way. A similar process of selection by a small group of the educated elite is used for both prizes. You're protesting too much in trying to distinguish between two prizes that share the same name, use coordinated announcements, and are issued by similar processes by like-minded elites from the same area of the world.
The better question is this: why does it bother you so much that the Nobel Prize is plainly politicized and virtually meaningless? Would it bother you so much if, for example, you learned that the outcome of a sports contest were fixed beforehand?--Andy Schlafly 22:44, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, it seems as if conservatives are the ones bothered by it. It doesn't bother me because as you said, it's been politicized to the point of irrelevance. The conservative anger over the award only lends it undeserved credence and publicity. DonnyB 16:48, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
There is no "conservative anger over the award." Quite the contrary, the award is humorous confirmation of what conservatives (including entries on this site) had been saying previously. The liberal denial is exactly that.--Andy Schlafly 17:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
This is Conservative Denial at an epic level. If Bush had been awarded the Nobel Prize, you would have been crowing about it and claiming it demonstrated worldwide support for his policies. It's as clear as 2+2=4 that you don't accept this logical conclusion and that you are only castigating the Nobel Committee for awarding Obama the Peace Prize because you disagree with the award. RobertE 17:51, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
There is no logic to your statement because we debunked the Nobel Prize before it recently discredited itself. Just look at the time stamps for our entry. And, of course, the Nobel Prize would never be given to a conservative president, and never has, so your "if ... then" statement is preposterous.--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm not an economist, so I'm not really bothered "to no end" about who gets the prize. I am, however, bemused to no end at the idea of a man with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, the son of a prominent attorney and political commentator/activist, a man who has dined with Supreme Court justices and who rubbed shoulders with a future President while working for what is arguably the nation's most prestigious legal publication railing against "elites," be they intellectual or otherwise. What are the heating bills like for that glass house? PeterF 11:26, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

After you struck out with logic, Peter, you've resorted to a personal rant. The answer to your silly question is this: "elitism" is an attitude, not a credential.--Andy Schlafly 11:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Even though I am not a member of any educated elite, I am aware that there is a difference between "elite" and "elitism." But I never said "elitism," and, more to the point, neither did you: "A similar process of selection by a small group of the educated elite..." was your original statement. And it is, you must admit, amusing to see someone who is clearly a member of the elite rail against it--and then try to backpedal by pulling a grammatical fast one. PeterF 17:55, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Well said Andrew


Rant against Bible Project

Just thought that bit was slightly offensive as Canada is notItalic text becoming increasinly atheist!

Democratic study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

Racism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama, according to the results of focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps, a Democratic organization, released on Friday.

Democrats proving Democrats wrong. The meme is officially dead, but don't expect any apologies from Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, Maureen Dowd or any other lying liberal playing the race card ("Racers?" "Carders?"). Jinx McHue 16:43, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Great catch, thanks, posted!--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Finally! I thought they'd never fess up. Good work! --Cidd11 12:12, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Response to anti-global warming film: website attacked

Last night was the premiere of the Not Evil, Just Wrong film debunking the claims of global warming advocates like Al Gore. Apparently someone didn't like it.

Not Evil, Just Wrong website message:

We have been attacked. A spammer has attacked our site and caused our transactions to be shut down. We apologize for the inconvenience and will be glad to process your order if you would simply shoot us an email at elizabeth.a.terrell [at] . Thank you for your email, support, and patience.

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. Jinx McHue 18:07, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

And in related news, an atheist website is experiencing similar problems. PeterF 21:29, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

WNOX Radio Interview

Andy, do you have any podcast/recording of the show? I looked over the website really quick and I couldn't find anything. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:39, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Chairman Obama wanted to bail out GM and let Chrysler fail so GM would not have to compete and would have domestic monopoly

Reuters Obama hates competition, quality cars (Chrysler cars are better than GM cars, IMHO), and American drivers. Brown25 12:41, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Interesting claim, but do you any cite to back it up?--Andy Schlafly 14:35, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Reuters changed the link, sorry. Try this link to the same story from the International Business Times.
Rattner said the decision to offer Chrysler $12 billion in emergency financing to restructure under the management control of Fiat SpA (FIA.MI) had been "a close call," adding that the administration was ultimately swayed by the view that allowing the automaker to liquidate would cost 300,000 jobs.
"The group was torn," Rattner said, noting that at one point key members of the autos task force had been split 4-to-4 on whether to offer Chrysler financing.
Rattner said when pressed by White House economic adviser Larry Summers, he had estimated the odds of Chrysler surviving for two years at 51 percent.
Scroll to 3:48 in the video that is part of the original CNN/Fortune article detailing the Rattner interview. Rattner claims that if Chrysler bit the bullet, then GM and Ford would have one less competitor.
It seems as if some in the administration, including both Obama and Summers were willing to pick winners and losers by propping up GM while letting Chrysler fail so GM would have less competition, as Rattner says in the video. IMHO, this is worse than propping up an entire industry equally, but I'll save that discussion for another day. Several other articles I read today back up these same claims; I'm currently trying to compile them. Brown25 16:57, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

News item - important freedom of speech victory in Britain

The right-leaning BNP are going to be on a nationally-aired political question program tomorrow, despite months of strenuous and vocal protests of the left-wing. The left will no longer be able to hide by censoring their opponents in the UK. DerickC 14:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Swine flu

I have been getting the flu shot every year since I started high school but because I ended up getting flu a week and a half ago my doctor said it was possibly swine flu. What's weird is that he couldn't diagnose it any more specifically because the symptoms are more or less the same as regular flu and not a big deal for a teenager. Someone should say on the news page that the reason people should be concerned about swine flu even though it's not necessarily worse is that it skips over our immunity to regular flu from vaccine and being sick in prior years. So just like a regular flu could really do a number on an elder or someone who was already sick the swine flu could affect anyone who has no immunity. That could be a lot of people. At my school they recommended the shot which they're giving to kids and old people and health workers now and they're telling us to keep an eye out for people in our neighborhoods who might get sick. Cambrian 17:02, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

There's also the (low) possibility of cytokine storm in bodies with healthy immune systems, so overwhelming the lungs that artificial respirators are required. Luckily, this has only happened to a few people, unlike the spanish flu. DouglasA 22:22, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Another icon of evolution goes down in flames

‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all

No surprise there for those of us familiar with the old evolutionist song and dance. Ken Ham, the American Family Association, and even Rush Limbaugh, as well as many other Creationistss, have all been vindicated in their skepticism. Jinx McHue 08:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this article does not vindicate creationism. This article states that the fossil is indeed millions of years old, and while it is not a missing link between man and monkey, it is a missing link between a species that once existed and species that exist today (including the lemur). Please read the article before jumping to conclusions.--Claypool 16:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

That's the primary point about it, a jumping to conclusions. A scientist says it's the missing link; he says it happened, and we are to sit here and believe what he said about it; he offered absolutely no proof whatsoever that this specimen was a direct ancestor other than his word. Just where was the investigation and determining of such proof according to the Scientific method? Karajou 16:51, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, evolutionists never, ever admit to misleading people, even when it is proven. They just move to another unfounded claim. Thanks for helping confirm this point.--Andy Schlafly 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
For the purposes of full disclosure, I am an evolutionist. But I have no particular stake in this claim one way or the other, nor do I think it is a pillar upon which evolution stands. But if you are using this article to prove your claim, that there is no link between this fossil and modern man, then you must also grant that the fossil is 47 million years old, as the article claims. I don't believe that's something you're ready to admit, nor would you likely agree that it is a link between an older species and a modern one.--Claypool 17:25, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, we do not have to accept that the fossil is 47 million years old. Just because we agree with one point in the article doesn't mean we have to agree with flawed use of Carbon dating. JohnFraiser 17:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Carbon dating wasn't used to date Ida. Carbon dating can only date back up to 50,000 years, not 47 million due to the short half life of C14 --BMcP 22:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, there's no logic in your statement, and there's no logic in evolution. Evolutionists misled the public with a false claim, yet evolutionists refuse to admit it and accept responsibility. I'm happy to discuss the separate issue of false claims about the age of specimens, but not with someone who responds to proof that one claim is false by running to another false claim.--Andy Schlafly 17:55, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Claypool, you are indeed correct. The "problem" with Ida was twofold: One, some of the scientists behind the discover over-hyped it's importance and what it meant for primate linage. The second was that the media embellished the event even further, making false or exaggerated claims. The worst claim that Ida is some sort of "missing link". there is no "missing link" when it comes to human evolution[[12]], that is a quaint 19th century notion that has long gone into the dustbin of science, but is still popular in pop culture. When the sensation media storm hit, many scientists came out, stating while Ida is spectacular in it's own way, all the sensation about the discovery being some sort of "silver bullet" of evolutionary discovery is erroneous and specious.[13][14] [15] [16]
You are also correct that this most recent article (which only garnished attention because it was published online by a major news outlet) does not vindicate creationism, it doesn't even cast doubt on evolutionary theory.
This is really more of a media issue then a science or an evolutionary biology issue. It shows what happens when a fantastic discovery hits our sensationalist press, Knowing most people do not understand biological evolution in real detail or concept, and eager to play up a story to full their 24 hour time slots, and get an edge on their competitors, the meida made a mess out of the whole event. It also says a great deal about our society, most who accept these media news bytes as fact without doing the research or even knowing what the story is really about. By the way, anyone can read the paper on Ida itself here: [17] Make your own choice. --BMcP 22:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, BMcP, for further illustrating the basic point: evolutionists misled the public, were proven wrong, but never, ever admit what they did. BMcP, would you agree that evolutionists should give the money back that they made from misleading others, and should publicly apologize?
In response to your general comments pushing evolution, there are about 40 Counterexamples to Evolution. If merely one of those is correct, then evolution is false. Feel free to try to push evolution on its talk page if you want to continue to cling to the theory.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
You didn't read one link I placed up there, did you? All of those were people in the scientific community pointing out the media hype of claiming some sort of missing link was wrong. It was the media who took the initial story and ran away with it, making all sorts of outlandish claims. If you want to cast blame, cast it over-enthusiastic and sensationalists reporters. Why should we give them a pass? The initial MSNBC article above even stated:
"Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction" -- Those expects being evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. Also the new findings "confirms what most scientists think" -- Again, the scientific (evolutionary, biology, paleontology) community was not convinced. There was no "big lie" here by science.
Now there are findings that cast doubt on where in the evolutionary tree of life Ida sits, they are not doubting that it sits *somewhere* in that tree of life and they are certainly not doubting evolution. This sort of thing happens all the time in science. An initial discovery believed to mean one thing and further study revealing that may not be true, it may mean something else. Science is a self-correcting and learning process. --BMcP 12:25, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, the original article clearly states that "scientists" (in this case, evolutionists) "formally announced the finding" which was later proven false. I asked you a simple question: "would you agree that evolutionists should give the money back that they made from misleading others, and should publicly apologize?" You didn't answer it. Will you answer it now?
There is a more general point. Do you notice how evolutionists like yourself never, ever spend any time learning about the Bible? It's the most logical and influential book ever written, and evolutionists claim to be well-read. Yet they completely, even awkwardly, avoid it. You avoid it here. Can you explain that? Please don't duck that question also.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
No, the scientists who discovered and initially studied Ida shouldn't have to give back the money. Because despite later findings showing Ida is most likely a species in the adapoid family of primates that lead to the lemur family instead of those earliest primates that led to us, or some kind of "direct link", it is still a discovery. It is a species never found before, and it still adds to our biological, paleontological, and anthropological sum of knowledge. It was the skepticism of other scientists (those same evolutionists) who researched further, providing these new findings.
I avoid the Bible here? The Bible is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about Ida. Why would I bring up the Bible? You may as well ask me why I didn't mention about the Odyssey, the Vedas, or Elvis. This is a Red Herring. --BMcP 12:26, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
No, the article is very clear up-front that scientists knew that the claims of some evolutionists were false at the time. Wouldn't you agree that those evolutionists should at least apologize for misleading the public like that? If not, then I can only include that misleading the public is acceptable to the evolution belief system, perhaps a means to an end.
As to the Bible, there's no denying that is the most influential work in history, and even now it outsells evolutionary books by at a least a 100-to-1 ratio. Why do you and other evolutionists never, ever read it??? It would take you only a few minutes to read and translate a verse here on this site, amid your evolutionary edits. Yet the evolution belief system won't allow you to do that.--Andy Schlafly 12:52, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
Oh I see.. You believe they were purposely lying instead of simply being mistaken. I again point out that initial discoveries are often misinterpreted and later evidence updates, changes or causes a hypothesis to be overturned. Scientists (who are also "evolutionists") are skeptical of any new discovery, as they should. Because of the original researchers initial discovery, we now know about the species Darwinius masillae, even if it wasn't what people originally claimed. Knowledge is still increased, science still progressed.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I have and I do read the Bible, I own four (NIV, KVJ, NKVJ, and NASB), all gifts from various religious folks in my life over time. I love history, and the Bible is a book of major historical importance if nothing else. It sounds like you want me to participate in the Conservative Bible Project. I have elected not to, but it has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolutionary theory. --BMcP 14:59, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
BMcP, people other than evolutionists often apologize for mistakes. I'm looking for some agreement by you for some modicum of accountability when evolutionists mislead the public. If you want other examples, there are plenty to choose from. But so far your answer has been this: no accountability, no apology, no return of monies obtained from misleading the public. If that's not your position, then please describe what accountability you would support.
On the Bible, there is no evidence in any of your edits here to support your statement. I've never known an evolutionist who read the Bible. In fact, the main practical significance of the someone believing in evolution seems to be this: he doesn't read the Bible again. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
You list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based. What percentage of your time do you spend reading a Bible, if I may ask?--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't believe they purposely mislead the public, I think they were overly excited about the find and allowed that to get the better of them. A common human flaw we all have. Despite this, they expanded our knowledge, we now know of a new species. Now if someone created a fraud, in some attempt to trick the scientific community for their own personal gain, then that individual (or individuals) should be sued for the grant money back and blackballed by the scientific community at large.

As for people who believe in evolution and subsequently never again read the Bible. I believe that is in error, there are many theistic evolutionists who are Christian. OEC (Old Earth Creationists), some who believe evolution, also tend to be practicing Christians. They no doubt read the Bible to some regular degree as part of their religious practice.

I am not sure what you mean by my posts being "atheistic in nature", I mostly write about astronomical subjects, and I approach those with a scientific point of view with the best information I find available through research. You say an agnostic should write with a 50/50 Biblical and Atheistic bent. However that is a false dichotomy, because we all know the two choices isn't Atheism and Christianity. There are numerous other religions, each with their own beliefs in the divine. As well as concepts such as Deism.

You ask what percentage of time do I read the Bible, I don't have a percentage per se. I would say I suppose I read the Bible irregularly, probably averaging one or twice a month, give or take. Dependent on my interests at the time. --BMcP 16:47, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Harm does not have to be intentional to require an apology and refund. Are you saying that if someone accidentally hits your car, then he doesn't have to pay for the damage? Evolutionists running the British Museum took tourists' money for decades to see the fraudulent Piltdown Man. Shouldn't they apologize and offer refunds?
You didn't give a percentage on Bible reading, and your claim of a "false dichotomy" has no application unless you're actually spending time studying other choices like Deism. What's your percentage time spent reading the Bible, less than 5%? Less than 1%? An approximation is fine. Your percentage of contributions here that have touched on the faith side has been 0%.--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Entry to the British Museum is free. --Eoinc 20:25, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
The British Museum started charging the taxpayers more instead of visitors in 2001.[18] I trust you can confirm for yourself that the fraudulent Piltdown Man was featured before 2001.--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, the British Museum has always been free to entry since its founding in 1753 according to their website. (This is also confirmed in the BBC story you linked to, which states "The scheme has also provided new competition to those museums and galleries that never charged an admission fee...these include the British Museum in London."). OurMike 07:31, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the additional info about the unusual policy of the British Museum. I apologize for my error. That said, there is no free lunch. If the visitors are not paying, someone else is. Taxpayers, perhaps? The underlying issue remains the same.--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The BM is mostly funded by donations, either large ones by wealthy benefactors or a few coins slipped into a box by a visitor, though doubtless the government contributes some money as well. But what if it does? The British Museum is one of the greatest museums on Earth, and I daresay many (including myself) would be willing to pay more so that it could be properly maintained. DerickC 11:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Ah, the visitors are probably asked to give a donation, rather than being charged a fixed fee of admission. I'm sure there are some big donations also, but I'm also sure that does not cover everything.
The basic point remains unchanged: the British Museum raised or took money for decades by claiming that the Piltdown Man was real. In fact, it was a fraud. Do evolutionists support some level of accountability for that (and many similar evolutionary frauds and hoaxes), or not?--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The BM does indeed ask visitors for a donation, but only by putting boxes in the foyer - you can wander in without ever being verbally asked for one. I have heard that they are much less coercive than free US museums in this respect - at least, visitors to America have mentioned this to me before now (any Americans reading are most welcome to enlighten me on this point).
As for raising money through claims about Piltdown Man, that may be technically true, but it was only ever a small part of the museum's appeal. To my mind, it pales into insignificance next to the Egyptian treasures, the Elgin Marbles, etc etc.--CPalmer 12:19, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
All I can do here is echo CPalmer. Donations from visitors are received via discreet boxes placed around the site - you can simply waltz in and out of the museum without ever talking to a staff member, and who really cares about a single exhibit when you consider some of the amazing things they have there from all around the world (including China and Japan), such as the relics from Mesopotamia or, of course, the Egyptian exhibition? DerickC 12:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
"I've never known an evolutionist who read the Bible." Andy Schlafly. Funnily enough, of all the Christians I know who regularly read the Bible, all are "evolutionists". I don't know any Young Earth Creationists personally, so that probably explains it. But my experience is the rule rather than the exception where I come from.
But back to the question as to whether the British Museum should refund monies because of their advocacy of Piltdown Man, I wonder how many other displays they have presented which have since proved to be wrong. Surely the question of refunds should only be raised if the museum was shown to have been fraudulent. Ajkgordon 15:11, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
No, they don't need to refund Piltdown-related monies. I think an admittence that they were wrong about it is enough. Karajou 16:07, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
The British Museum was just as much of a victim of the Piltdown man hoax as those who visited the museum. So, no I wouldn't demand the museum give back the money that funded it until 1953 (when the hoax was thoroughly debunked). Beside, what percentage would they give back? The Piltdown man certainly wasn't the only exhibit there. Compensation for Piltdown Man will never be recovered, even if quantified, because we still don't know who did it. Even if we discover the creator(s) of the hoax, they have long since passed away.
Agnosticism doesn't mean you give every possible point of view on a subject. Not all beliefs or points of view have equal merit. I write about scientific subjects in astronomy. It would be silly if say, talking about the Milky Way, I give equal credence to the Ancient Greek belief the stars are drops of milk spilled by the gods. As for percentages in my reading of the Bible, I don't see the relevance, however I am courteous and will answer your question, and say in a course of a month, I would say ~.1% is spent on Biblical reading, somewhat better then attention I give other religious books. --BMcP 15:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Piltdown Man is a prime example of what science should never be about: saying and insisting that it's a fact without proving it's a fact. Piltdown existed because someone said it was real; a lot of scientists got their doctorates on Piltdown because they said and believed it was real; for fifty years the scientific community said it was real, and insisted that the public accept their opinion as fact. Yet Piltdown was totally debunked when an actual scientific test was done on it to get decisive results. The same thing happened just a few years ago with a "bird" called Archaeorapter, which for a time hoodwinked National Geographic...and all because someone said it was the first bird. Karajou 16:00, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Failed Chairman Bernanke to impose socialistic maximum wage at 1000s of banks that recceived NO bailout.

As if government intervention hasn't messed up our economic climate enough yet, Bush-Obama appointee Bernanke thinks setting a socialistic maximum wage is the ticket to prevent innovation risky behavior. Instead of setting a maximum wage for 1000s of companies, how about letting the 7 government owned companies just fail and thus giving those executives a maximum wage of well $0 without punishing 1000s of other companies that were responsible? In fairness to the Democrats, the Bush administration were the ones that acquired ownership in these 7 companies (Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.) and thus it is fair not to only call the Obama administration socialist but also the Bush administration socialist based upon their actions in 2008. That being said, this is not an excuse to continue on a path of socialistic self-destruction where failures are rewarded and successes are penalized with a socialistic maximum wage (and socialistic minimum wage for the government owned zombie companies). Link to Yahoo! Brown25 16:37, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Pearl Jam, R.E.M admit that their music is torture, demand investigation

I think they might be on to something. Nobody, not even a mass terrorist, should have to listen to R.E.M or Pearl Jam. Independent (UK) Brown25 23:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Organized crime's new target: Medicare and Medicaid

Organized crime's new target: Medicare and Medicaid - CNN Brown25 00:35, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims

Heritage - The Foundry Brown25 00:55, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia Bible Project in the news again

Joseph Farah wrote a commentary on the project. CarletonS 10:20, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

While I normally appreciate Mr. Farah's work, he seems to have a rather profound misunderstanding of the CBP. He writes, "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible. The 'conservative' thing to do would be to preserve, or conserve, the Scriptures as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." That's exactly what the CBP is doing! It sounds like the name threw him off and he immediately had a closed mind about the project, thinking that it aims to insert conservatism, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm wondering if it might be worth preparing a more comprehensive response to this article, given the source. --MarkGall 11:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
The article plainly misunderstand CBP and is so far "over the top" that I doubt a serious response is even necessary. Suffice it to say that Mr. Farah should be criticizing the liberal rewrites of the Bible rather than a conservative preservation of it.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

NephilimFree and his anti-Catholic hate speech

This is, I know, none of my business, but should Conservapedia really be promoting somebody who holds the hateful views that NephilimFree frequently expounds about Catholicism? As an Irish Roman Catholic myself I find his attitudes utterly loathsome. Here is a direct quote from a comment he made on the very page recommended by Conservapedia. "Catholicism is not Christianity. I'te [sic] a pagan religion which includes encorporates [sic] Jesus as one of it's dieties [sic]." There are many more such comments elsewhere. I do not appreciate being called a pagan by this "gentlemen" and I shall be staying well clear of his horrible videos. Perhaps Catholics are not welcome on Conservapedia either. --Jdixon 15:35, 25 October 2009 (GMT)

I agree. I am also a practicing Catholic and find it offensive that Conservapedia should support an anti-Christian bigot like this man. Aroth 12:32, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Have you proposed expanding the hate speech law to include this??? Aroth, religious wars between Catholics and Protestants occurred in England ... over 300 years ago. You're in the wrong century.--Andy Schlafly 16:05, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Catholics and Protestants continue to have disagreements about theology. If they didn't have any differences the two different groups would not exist and they would be merely one group. I would love to see the differences ironed out where truth is respected and it seems to me as if a legitimate way of doing this is through spirited debate at forums like YouTube. I have not seen NephilimFree's videos on Catholicism, but I am certainly for responsible free speech at YouTube (I am certainly not for vulgarity in the public forum). conservative 16:33, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Teacher's unions

I'm glad that article is up on this site about teachers not wanting to work as much because state budgets need to make some cuts. I always thought that most teachers were overpaid anyway, because they get a full year of salary but they don't even work the summers! We shouldn't be surprised, unions always do this kind of thing. Taking money just to whine and complain until people get to work less. --ThomasGret 22:24, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if it is possible for some public teachers to work less! How does someone work less than zero??--Andy Schlafly 22:30, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
I used to be a high school teacher. It's a very difficult job. Writing lesson plans, grading papers, meeting with parents, and continuing professional education take up a lot of time. I want to say thanks to the all the teachers out there that are making a difference. I was just not cut out for it. I am a CPA now. It's much easier than being a teacher. That being said, I never joined the union when I was a teacher. They didn't let me forget it either. I was hounded by those nuts. I didn't perceive any benefit from being in the union and they were way too political. I didn't want to pay a lobbyist's salary.--Wikidan81 09:14, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
You're fortunate you worked in a state where it was possible not to join the union. In many states it is mandatory.
The head of one of the teachers unions bragged about how good the union is by citing the large numbers of people who join. But he left out that many, perhaps most, of their membership is mandatory!
Public school teachers are government employees protected and fed by their Democratic politicians who hold power. Why do the teachers also need a union???--Andy Schlafly 09:18, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Obama's Hatred of America

There's no need for the apostrophe after the word "its." Just a heads up. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:15, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the good catch. I fixed the punctuation.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Who's sticking with Obama?

"If President Obama were a product, what would it mean to be loyal to him? His job approval rating went from 62% in the second quarter of 2009 to 53% in the third quarter, a 9-point drop that ranks as the steepest reported decline for a newly elected President." --Sol1221 15:03, 27 October 2009 (EDT)


The link in this story does not appear to support the proposition that "Best selling authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have Global Warming doomsayers scrambling to refute their new book". Indeed the extract in the link seems to assume that man made global warming is a fact. --VincentV 16:06, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

The book basically takes to task Al Gore. While it is all in the realm of global warming discussions and not anti-global warming, the fact that the "concerned" movement attacks the credibility of king gore makes it newsworthy. It's global warming deicide. --Jpatt 16:31, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Domestic Spying

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the report cited is dated 2007. Are we highlighting it as criticism of the G.W. Bush administration, or pointing out how Obama has not addressed the issue? AdeleM 16:34, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

You're right; it should have had a link to the news source describing the "dressing down", not to a report from the previous administration. Story was removed pending a proper link. Karajou 17:04, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Welcome to Conservapedia Banner

I'd like to make a recommendation for Conservapedia's home page. I think it would be a benefit to add a banner of some sort, welcoming students, readers, editors, and the likes. While I am in no way an expert Wiki editor, I have created a rough sample for some ideas. See template below.

There are few reasons for suggesting this be added, one is for SEO purposes designed to increase search engine ranking. To be honest, that aspect would be more of a test on my part, but one that could turn out worthy of trying in my opinion. For example, ideally, one modification I'd recommend is the home page URL (Main Page) as well for all other default URLs in Conservapedia; the site could potentially see an increase in Web traffic with this URL: versus the current one: This is primarily due to key words used when searching for any specific data on a wide range of topics. Many "Googlers," per say, will also type "Wiki" at the end of their first and/or second search term - knowing that a wiki encyclopedia will likely show up on the first page of results.

The other reason for adding a banner is for welcoming purposes. Obviously it makes it more personal to any and all outsiders, and can bring more potential experts to the site who might be interested in ....a more trustworthy wiki encyclopedia.

I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts about this idea! DerekE 00:24, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry about removing it from the main page, but it did interfere with normal posting here. The banner has been moved to New Welcome Banner proposal. Karajou 00:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Since when did Conservapedia start posting faulty polling data? Rasmussen has Christie up by 3.

I'm not encouraging emotional gambling over this election, but I'll go with Rasmussen any day of the week. Brown25 00:33, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

We're not fortune-tellers, but the Quinnipiac poll has been remarkably accurate for New York and New Jersey for over a decade. Rasmussen may not be as familiar with this territory.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Additionally, Public Policy Polling has Christie +4, Research 2000 has Christie +1, and SurveyUSA has Christie and Corzine tied. All this in a state that went for Obama by 15 points and hasn't elected a Republican statewide in 10 years. Chippeterson October 29, 2009

Additional note to 'green' new item

It might also be worth pointing out that the 'green' color the 'greens' wear so proudly is of course also the color of other enemies of America such as the Palestinians, the Pakistanis, and the Jihadi movement. CescF 17:24, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

And the Green Berets? Really, let's not make ourselves look foolish. AdeleM 16:47, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Anti-aging cream

Just a minor point on the posted new story, since it weakens any argument you are trying to make if the evidence you provide is inaccurate. As it says in the reference it was one foetus used, not plural as is currently stated. Please don't get me wrong, this is simply to point out the facts, it is certainly not an argument that the use of one is any better than of many, nor that the process as a whole is ethical. DWiggins 19:16, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Per the article: "What we don't know is how many other fetuses were involved before they perfected that one cell line," she surmised. "There's a possibility there were more." That said, I've altered the headline to state just one for now.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funding Cut by Obama Administration

Just came across this. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

White House Visitors

An online record of visitors to the White House is now public. [9] Notable guests include; "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me" [10] - Jeremiah Wright, "Just some guy from my neighborhood" - Bill Ayers, the man who bought Obama's election - George Soros has multiple visits. Conspicuously absent - General McCrystal.

This item's source is - the White House's web page. It is a very good idea to link directly to the original source of information, rather than an opinion piece or a secondary source - good work Conservapedia!

However, I noticed a problem with the item. If you follow the "read more" link on the site, you get this:

"This first release is only the latest in a series of unprecedented steps by the President to increase openness in government. They include putting up more government information than ever before... There’s an important lesson here as well. This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information. A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names."[1]

This information does not support the Conservapedia front-page item. Perhaps more research is needed. --Hsmom 20:45, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Excellent point. News item removed. I doubt that the real Jeremiah Wright visited. The Soros visits may well be by the real George, however, and that was the most telling revelation.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
My original source [19] --Jpatt 21:11, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
P.S. The names missing from the list are still newsworthy.--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

New York 23rd New Item

I don't really think this is a good example of the future being Conservative. While New York is a liberal state, no one could argue against that, the 23rd has been represented by a Republican (or equivelent party) for many years, one source said the area has been solidly conservative for 100 years source here but I don't know if that number is accurate, it seems a little hyperbolic. Tyrone 14:51, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Do you have a quotation to back up your claim? I looked through the article and did not see any claim that the District is overall conservative. It can't be very conservative if its Republican Party nominated someone so liberal.--Andy Schlafly 15:16, 3 November 2009 (EST)
My apologies for not being clear, The quote in question from the article is "the heavily Republican upstate New York district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years." While I understand that simply voting Republican does not indicate conservative politics, it seems that the bigger news story would be if the Democrat won the race and took over. Also, I don't really think Scozzafava really qualifies as a liberal. She supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent, received an endorsment from the NRA and pretty much toed the party line on everything by homosexuals and abortion. Tyrone 15:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Heavily Republican does not qualify as conservative. Vermont was heavily Republican for over 100 years, yet was a reliably liberal state. Scozzafava was not a conservative, she was endorsed by the DailyKos founder, she supported gay marriage and abortion, and she supported Obama's stimulus. To put that last statement in perspective, no House Republican, not even the current Secretary of the Army whose seat this used to be, supported the stimulus. Scozzafava was not nominated in a democratic process and when she voluntarily dropped out, she went ahead and endorsed the Democrat. Also bear in mind that the only current Republican from New York, or anywhere in New England and New York for that matter, is Peter King of Long Island, the same Peter King that declared in 1998 to Bill Clinton that he would vote against both impeachment and censure. To suggest that anywhere from the southern New York border going all the way to Maine is conservative is a ridiculous assertion. Brown25 16:19, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Energy Reserves

Table 4 on page 14 of the document linked as reference 6,, seems to indicate that drilling is not quite the answer. It is correct that the US has the largest reserves worldwide, but the majority, 69% is in Coal, some 903.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent, something that simply has to be mined, not drilled out. Oil, on the other hand is a much smaller percentage of the expressed reserves, 166.6 billion barrels. Someone who can edit should do something to address this.

Poll closing times

7 PM ET - Virginia 8 PM ET - New Jersey 8 PM ET - Maine 9 PM ET - New York

I would advocate putting a news item about Mike Bloomberg's election as well. While not a registered Republican anymore, and definitely not a conservative, he is the Republican nominee and his victory today will mark 20 years of Republican control of Gracie Mansion ... no small feat. Brown25 18:37, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Republican sweep statewide races in Virginia, Republicans retain Virginia House. Since the Virginia Senate is not up for election, control of that chamber will remain nominally Democratic. [20] Brown25 19:08, 3 November 2009 (EST)
New Jersey exit polls It's looking good for Christie, but I wouldn't call it just yet. You can also watch live coverage on public television NJN. [21] Brown25 20:18, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Over 90% of Lonnegan supporters stuck with Chris Christie. 20% of the vote was against Obama. 19% of the vote was for Obama. Brown25 20:23, 3 November 2009 (EST)
In New York 23, Owens is barely leading Hoffman with 38% of the precincts in. [22] The caveat is out of the 4 of 11 counties that have not reported any poll results, 3 of those counties went for John McCain. [23] Brown25 22:13, 3 November 2009 (EST)
NJN calls it for Christie. Forbes also calls it for Christie. Brown25 22:20, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Not so good news coming in NY-23 On Google News, liberal Air America is calling it for Owens, but obviously this is extremely premature. Brown25 23:47, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Michael Bloomberg wins third term. Brown25 23:51, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Looks bad for Hoffman in NY 23rd. 85% of vote is in and he trails by 4200; he needs 57% of the remaining vote to win--so far he is getting 45%. RJJensen 23:52, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Sad to see, and we shouldn't give up all hope, but he did remarkably well given that the conservative vote was split and the GOP candidate a turncoat. DouglasA 23:56, 3 November 2009 (EST)
After winning Virginia by 18 points and the heavily Democratic New Jersey (where Obama made 3 election-eve campaign appearances) by over 100,000 votes, let's not get greedy! A third party candidate who comes even close to winning a congressional seat in NY has achieved something big.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 4 November 2009 (EST)
There was a conservative third party candidate who did win in New York ... James Buckley. I wouldn't doubt if you knew Mr. Buckley personally, Andy. Mr. Buckley was running against a liberal Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell (his son, Roger, is now the NFL commissioner ... the same guy that reinstated Michael Vick). If Scozzafava had not strategically dropped out and endorsed Bill Owens, I'm sure we would have won NY-23. I will concede, however, that Obama is the master of manipulating special elections in the US House. Brown25 12:36, 4 November 2009 (EST)
IMHO, the reason conservatives lost NY-23 was not because Hoffman was too far out of the mainstream. In fact, the only position of Hoffman that could even be considered to the right of the Republican platform was that he supported a flat tax, which by the way is to the left of Mike Huckabee's position abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a VAT tax. Rather, the reason Hoffman lost was that you had two major political parties campaigning against him. The one lesson learned, for both Democrats and Republicans, is that ... let your party members vote for the nominee rather than some committee. The loss here was not Hoffman, Palin, or Pawlenty's fault ... it was the fault of the New York State Republican Party. Brown25 13:52, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Your analysis is sound. I have met the former U.S. Senator (and federal appellate judge) James Buckley many times. He was one of the few in Congress who initially voted against the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 5 November 2009 (EST)

More schools indoctrinating young children into the Cult of Obama

ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama

Big Hollywood has already posted a couple disturbing videos of young school children singing/speaking praises to President Obama, but when eleven more dropped in our email box it came as quite a shock. What seemed like an aberration now appears to be a troubling pattern.

Maybe “epidemic” is a better word.

Each one of the videos below is creepier than the last because the further down you go, the younger the children — brace yourself for kindergartners – except for the last and most disturbing video, which you have to see to believe.

Liberals never would've accepted or ignored stuff like this had it been done regarding George W. Bush. (Conservatives wouldn't have, either.) Jinx McHue 13:29, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Great stuff. Just posted it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Army Base Shooting

Will there be a headline of this anytime soon?

I assume we are waiting for more information, like their intentions and what not.

Obama gives "shout-outs" before addressing army base shootings

Fort Hood Tragedy -- Barack Obama Gives Odd "Shout-Out" Before He Comments on Massacre -- FOX News

Stay classy, B.O. Jinx McHue 11:05, 6 November 2009 (EST)


Hi Conservapedians,

As a fluent Arabic speaker, I have to tell you that your complaint about the British press is laughable. Do some preliminary research; Allah in Arabic means God. It doesn't refer to an "Islamic God," but merely God.

For example, my family comes from northern Iraq. We're Assyrian Christians. We speak Arabic, and when we refer to God, we call Him Allah. This headline is ignorant, and offensive.

Please change it. Mashallah (God bless). --Claypool 16:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

If they don't worship Jesus as God the Son, then they are not referring to the same God. Jinx McHue 00:05, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Is there a separate word for the Jewish God then? EJHall 00:07, 8 November 2009 (EST)
That's not the point. Jinx McHue 00:12, 8 November 2009 (EST)
My point is that I'm Christian, and I refer to God as Allah. In fact, millions of Christian Arabs refer to God as Allah.--Claypool 01:14, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Claypool, insisting that you're a healthy 95-year old smoker would not disprove how smoking causes cancer. You're arguing the fallacious liberal logic #10 (and 11) and you're not fooling anyone here.
The primary and overwhelming meaning of "Allahu" in Arabic is "Allah" in English. It doesn't matter if 1% of the time the term is used in a different way. The primary meaning, and the meaning in this case, is indisputable.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 8 November 2009 (EST)

There is no word "Allahu" as such the "-hu" suffix is a type of modifier to make the word work as a type of compounded noun/verb. "Allahu" means "Allah is." MichaelHWC 10:58, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Literally, Michael, it's "Allah, He is great." ASchlafly, you're missing the point. This isn't an exception. The word Allah existed in Arabic before Islam. It means God, and there are over 30 million Christian Arabs in the world who, when speaking Arabic, refer to God as Allah. You're wrong.--Claypool 12:13, 8 November 2009 (EST)

While I'm sure this game of semantics amuses you very much, it's undeniable that when people use the word 'Allah', particularly in the west, they are referring to the Islamic god, and it was utterly unnecessary for the liberal British press to translate it as 'God', unless of course they had an ulterior motive in doing so. SeanK 12:25, 8 November 2009 (EST)
That and the fact that both terms refer to the single Abrahamic deity. MichaelHWC 12:29, 8 November 2009 (EST)
The two terms techincally refer to the same thing, but you, I, and everyone else in the world know that they mostly refer to the Christian interpretation of the Abrahamic God (God) and the Islamic interpretation (Allah). It would have been much simpler for the British press to say that the shooter said 'Allah is great' - everyone knows that Allah basically refers to the Islamic interpretation - but they chose not to. But hey, we can carry on playing the semantics game if you want. SeanK 12:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)
That's very pragmatic of you. If this is your point, then, the translation "God is great" shouldn't offend you, because this is a religious expression almost always associated with Islam. It appears that you are the one playing with semantics to further prove your point.--Claypool 12:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Claypool, "Allah" has been an English word since the 16th century, precisely to capture the meaning of the Arabic word. If your argument were correct, then would be no need for the English word "Allah" to have been developed and used for over 400 years. But obviously you're wrong: the English word "Allah" is needed and used because it must not be identical to the English word "God".--Andy Schlafly 16:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Andy, the word Allah didn't enter the English language to capture the concept, but merely as a transliteration of the Arabic. Just because "Allah" shows up in the dictionary does not make it an English word. "Perestroika", "detente", and "hara-kiri" show up in the dictionary, but they are not English words either. When Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, or Muslims say "Allah" they are referring to the God of Abraham. They are referring to the same being. As an English speaking Muslim, when I refer to God in English, I say "God" not "Allah." ArabicLesson 17:01, 8 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)Why would there be a need for some sort of "transliteration" if there weren't some fundamental difference between the two deities? Allah would not have been incorporated into any English dictionary unless there were some reason to differentiate "Allah" from "God." -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:07, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Why does any word from a foreign language enter into English? Allah is the word that Arabic speakers use to express the concept of God, just as Perestroika is the word that Russian speakers use to express the concept of thawing relations between the US and Soviet Union at the end of the cold war. ArabicLesson 17:11, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Perestroika literally translates into "restructuring" if I'm not mistaken. Perestroika encompasses an entire policy overhaul within the Soviet Union that eventually led to its capitalization and dissolution. By using Perestroika in the English language, as opposed to "restructuring," (hoping that my translation is correct) proves my point more than disproves it. By including Perestroika in an English dictionary, one is showing the differentiation between the two terms is substantial enough that the inclusion of perestroika is a necessity. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

At the end of the day, the point is that when Arabic speakers want to refer to God (specifically, the God of Abraham), they say "Allah." It does not have a separate meaning for Arabic speakers, and just because the term is listed as a transliteration in the dictionary does not mean that it has a different meaning in English. The only two Arabic speakers in this discussion agree on this subject. ArabicLesson 17:29, 8 November 2009 (EST)

That seems like a cop-out. It's already been established that Allah has been incorporated into the English language for over 400 years. I also demonstrated—with my last post—that the only reason for incorporating a foreign word into the English language is to establish some fundamental difference between the literal translation of the word and the concepts surrounding it. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)
You know, I now realize that I meant Glasnost and not Perestroika. But it's not my intent to cop-out. Yes, the meaning of Perestroika is literally "restructuring" according to another online encyclopedia, but when Gorbachev named his political plan "Perestroika" he intended a particular meaning. The meanings have a direct translation in English (for example, the introduction of multi-party elections). We use the Russian term not because English is insufficient to describe the concepts, but because we intend to use the term as Russian speakers use it. When Arabic speakers use the term Allah, they mean "the God of Abraham" for which we use the term "God" in English. Allah doesn't have a different meaning from God, we simply use it in the English language in the same way that Arabic speakers use it. ArabicLesson 17:53, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Could be interesting to see: Allah --Joaquín Martínez 15:03, 8 November 2009 (EST)
After seeing carefully the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity I have to admit that Mr. Schlafly and others are right. Allah is not the same Christian God and deserves an special name . You may see: [24] --Joaquín Martínez 17:56, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Joaquin, there are differences in the practice of faith between Christians and Muslims, but there are likewise differences between Christians and Jews and I doubt you would claim that Jews believe in a God named Yahweh who is different from the Christian God. Muslims believe that Allah is the God of Abraham; the same God that Christians and Jews worship. ArabicLesson 18:05, 8 November 2009 (EST)
As a Catholic I believe in the mystery of the Trinity of God that is different from Yahweh or Allah. That is why Mr. Schlafly said: but theologically that is not precise [25] --Joaquín Martínez 18:20, 8 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I would argue that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship a different idea of God. I don't think that's a large stretch of the imagination. Different ways of worship, different evangelizing (the same God wants His word spread in 3 different ways?), and obviously different theologies behind all 3 religions. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:16, 8 November 2009 (EST) And I think I just opened a can of worms that I really didn't want to open ... -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:17, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Cambrian 18:19, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Cambrian, a statement about salvation is not the same as precise translation of a word. Would you like to complain to the dictionaries that list "Allah" as an English word, to The Economist (the leading British newsweekly) that uses in 71 English articles, and to the millions of English-speaking Muslims who use "Allah" in their writings and speech? Of course not. Allah in English is the precise translation of the corresponding term in Arabic. That can hardly be disputed.--Andy Schlafly 18:49, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Claypool and I speak Arabic and we both state that "Allah" is best translated as "God." But, Andy, as you're clearly more experienced with the Arabic language than either Claypool or myself, perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell us what the "precise translation of the corresponding term" is. ArabicLesson 18:54, 8 November 2009 (EST)
"ArabicLesson", this isn't Wikipedia. We don't allow anonymous claims of expertise here. Your put downs are misplaced. When you complain to the English dictionaries about their use of "Allah", complain to the English version of The Economist for its use of "Allah" in 71 other articles, and complain to millions of English-speaking Muslims for referring to "Allah", then let us know.--Andy Schlafly 19:01, 8 November 2009 (EST)
So, now that I'm no longer claiming expertise anonymously, but am in fact using my real name, let me continue. The problem here, Andy, isn't that The Economist or various dictionaries are using "Allah" incorrectly, but that you're using it incorrectly. You're claiming that "Allahu" translates to English as "Allah" which is wrong, and you're claiming that "Allah" does not translate to English as "God" which is also wrong. What are your thoughts on the matter? AmrM 22:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Anonymous claims of expertise? You're the one who claimed "Allahu" in Arabic roughly translates to "Allah" in English. This is in itself an incorrect translation by a non-Arabic speaker. "Allah" in Arabic can be translated as "God" or "Allah" in English. "Allah" has become an English word, yes. But look up the definition: it means God. My dictionary doesn't say anything about it referring to the Islamic God.--Claypool 19:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Even OneNewsNow agrees that that Allah Akbar is "the Arabic comment for "God is great!""--DanHutchin 14:03, 9 November 2009 (EST)

"Liberal" British newspaper

A quick factcheck, people. British readers of CP will be having a good laugh at the idea of the Daily Mail being "liberal". It's undoubtedly the most conservative of all national British newspapers. JosephMac 17:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Conservative in Britain is middle-of-the-road (at best) in the U.S. CP is written from an American perspective. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
JosephMac, nobody said the Daily Mail was "liberal". The "good laugh," I'm afraid, may be at your expense for not correctly reading simple text. England is liberal.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Andy, you wrote "The British press mistranslates for liberal England..." The Daily Mail rarely if ever writes anything just to please Liberal England. It gets its kicks from winding up Liberal England. JosephMac 18:47, 8 November 2009 (EST)
You seem to be saying that the Daily Mail is too conservative for you. But you admit that liberals read the Daily Mail, and the Daily Mail knows that. It has to try to be profitable. Whatever the reason, it refused to translate the Arabic phrase correctly in English.--Andy Schlafly 18:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Your 1st sentence: Uh? Where do you get that idea? I didn't say that.
Your 2nd sentence: Liberals see the headlines on the front page of the Daily Mail and move on to the Independent or Guardian.
Your last sentence: 'Allah' in Arabic means 'God' in English. The Mail's translation is OK. JosephMac 19:04, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The Economist

I think someone on CP is wasting his or her time picking pointless arguments. (1) The Economist is a British magazine with a highly educated readership. (2) We have a fairly large Muslim minority in Britain (you know that, surely?) so the huge majority of highly educated British people know what Allah-u-akbar means and don't need it to be translated any more than laissez-faire, dolce vita, tandoori or perestroika. Please save your energy for more significant targets! JosephMac 19:12, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The Economist.

So a liberal paper CAN do the right thing by not translating "Allah" into "God"? Good to know they're not all corrupted, then. Maybe there's hope after all. MichaelHWC 19:13, 8 November 2009 (EST)

"written for liberals, by liberals. Just look at how it passed; it passed 220 to 215"

In other words, the democratically-elected representatives of a majority of Americans. Liberals indeed. MichaelHWC 19:24, 8 November 2009 (EST)

only 11% out of 29,000 surveyed believed that freemarket capitalism is working well

I just thought this was in interesting study.

RobertG 20:52, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Economist/Daily Mail

You have seriously got to be kidding me:

"The leading British newsweekly, The Economist, refuses to translate the Fort Hood killer's last words. But that liberal publication had no trouble using the English term "Allah" in 71 other articles in its archives."

Liberal?! Even by American conservative standards, the Economist is recognized as a libertarian publication which espouses free markets and a reduction of the state. Even by American conservative standards, I will emphasize again.

And talk of the Daily Mail being liberal is also ridiculous. Has no-one hear heard about the controversy over one columnist suggesting the recent death of a popstar was due to his homosexuality? Breithaupt 20:54, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The Economist endorsed Obama. Therefore, their actual positions on policy don't matter. EJHall 21:10, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Whilst the Economist has been around, 42 presidential elections have occurred. Just because they endorsed a certain candidate for one such election, regardless of their general philosophy, they should be marked as liberal? Breithaupt 21:21, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Oh, you've got to be kidding. The Economist is ultra-pro-gun-control, ultra-pro-evolution, and about as atheistic as a magazine can be. Of course, that is partly due to how liberal and atheistic England has become.--Andy Schlafly 21:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Looking over the candidates that the Economist has supported for the last 30 years - I can see that they are quite Liberal. In 1980 they supported Reagan (a borrow and spend Liberal divorcee), George W Bush (a borrow and spend nationalising socialist), refused to endorse budget balancing Bill Clinton for a second term and would not play favourites between Liberal Reagan and ultra liberal Mondale in 1984. .--SpinnyDizzy 12:29, 9 November 2009 (GMT)

Reagan was a liberal? You have got to be kidding me. Modern conservatism is based entirely on him. I know that he was one of the greatest Presidents of all time, but that doesn't mean that liberals like you can "reclaim" him just because "President" Obama has been exposed as a fraud. MichaelZ 18:50, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Interesting that modern convervatism is based around someone who used Keynesian (i.e. Borrow and Spend) economic policies rather than true conservative 'Fiscal Responsibility'. By the way, I am not a liberal (and definately not a supporter of Barack Hussain Bush (no - that is not a typo - he is the same as his predecessor)). I am more of an Anarchist/Libertarian politically. I believe government, by it's very nature is repressive and acts in it's own self interest. --SpinnyDizzy 12:09, 11 November 2009 (GMT)

Obama's top general values "diversity" more than human lives

"What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here"

What is wrong with these people? Jinx McHue 23:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I think that is a very selective reading. His concern is that the actions of this person could result in a backlash against Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. All he is saying is that he doesn't want all the Muslim soldiers run of the Army (as some people are calling for). Tyrone 23:49, 8 November 2009 (EST):I take offense to the assertion that a priest or christian religious leader has the power to make legally binding orders in the same way as an imam
And if that happened, that would be a greater tragedy than the loss of lives? If he had said something like "It would add to the tragedy," I could accept that. But saying it would be a greater tragedy? Jinx McHue 23:53, 8 November 2009 (EST)
It's a hard question to answer... I personally think that running innocent people out of the Armed Forces simply because they follow the same religion as an insane killer would be a greater tragedy in the long run. America is a great country because we have so much diversity, it would be a shame if we let this tragic act scare us into a purge of people who don't follow the right religion. Tyrone 23:56, 8 November 2009 (EST)
How can anything be a greater tragedy than the loss of human life? A loss of diversity, if it happens (which it won't), is not permanent. Diversity can be regained. The lives lost in Fort Hood can never be regained. Jinx McHue 23:59, 8 November 2009 (EST)
You're right, the loss of human life is the biggest tragedy of all. However, it is simply unfair and discriminatory to tell Muslims they cannot be in the military because a radical betrayed us (which still hasn't been proven as the motive, as far as I know). HarryG 08:17, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Islam is a violent 13th 7th-Century based religion which is incompatiable with the American way of life, I am afraid. Without a central administration to enforce its precepts, it remains open to the whims and ideas of individual Imam's, which often conflict with each other. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:47, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Heh. Islam is a 7th century religion.--Claypool 15:54, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Until we know what Islam is truly about, does it really make sense to look the other way at tragedies like these? MichaelZ 17:44, 9 November 2009 (EST)
"Without a central administration to enforce its precepts..." Like, say, Protestantism? MichaelHWC 18:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)
The Bible is the central pillar of Christianity. Try reading it. MichaelZ 20:06, 9 November 2009 (EST)
I do. And yet nobody could argue that that equals a "central administration" that creates a unity of viewpoints and policies among all Protestants, never mind among all Christians. Leaving the fundamental gaps between Catholic and Protestant practice aside, the huge spectrum of non-Catholic approaches to understanding and enacting Biblical precepts belies any idea that there's a "central administration to enforce its precepts." For a few examples, differing positions on ordaining women or homosexuals speak to huge gaps that would not happen with a centralized approach. Some churches militate against the death penalty and take a pragmatic approach to abortion. Others militate against abortion and believe the Bible justifies capital punishment; both believe they are enacting God's Word, and no centralization could explain the difference. MichaelHWC 20:28, 9 November 2009 (EST)
But these Christians still all find harmony with each other. The Catholic Church is allowing ordained Anglicans in it. MichaelZ 20:33, 9 November 2009 (EST)
I don't know about "harmony." Anglican churches have split off over the ordainment question. Some people will argue that "no true Christian" would ever take a pragmatic approach to abortion. Or that no real Christian would ever support the death penalty. How harmonious is it when people attack the very existence of one's faith because of a political issue? The Catholic Church is allowing ordained Anglicans in it as of LAST WEEK. And that's ONE Protestant wing: I don't see the Catholic Church letting Baptists etc. into the fold anytime soon. Besides, you're overlooking a pretty long history of far less harmonious relationships. Refusing to marry a Protestant to a Catholic unless he/she converts doesn't seem like "harmony" at work, MichaelHWC 20:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Michael, I find many of your points interesting although I disagree with you on the similarities between Islam and Christianity. I don't dispute that within the Islamic faith, there are many well meaning individuals who don't hold to the garbage emanating from the Middle East. However, I take offense to the assertion that a priest or christian religious leader has the power to make legally binding orders in the same way as an imam. That is a key difference that illustrates the danger of Islam, its parasitic grip on governance. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:54, 9 November 2009 (EST)

"I take offense to the assertion that a priest or christian religious leader has the power to make legally binding orders in the same way as an imam." I made no such assertion. I was merely arguing against TK's assertion that Islam was somehow unique in its lack of a centralized structure of guidance--with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church in and of itself, Christianity lacks such a mechanism as well. MichaelHWC 22:03, 9 November 2009 (EST)

  • The fact is, Michael, that all of the major Christian denominations have ruling bodies, and unlike Islam, they don't pass on death warrants, or allow their ministers or clergy to do likewise. What about my statement do you wish to misconstrue further? It is a Liberal trait to mix Apples with Oranges in spurious comparisons to hide the facts. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:54, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Right--the individual denominations have their governing bodies--but Christianity as such does not, and as a result, those denominations are often at odds with each other. MichaelHWC 22:59, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Potential news story?

The American dollar worth less and less as the free market moves away from a increasingly weak commodity. MichaelHWC 18:08, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Is this a surprise? Pump a trillion dollars in a "stimulus" and guess what happens. MichaelZ 18:11, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Or another trillion into a pointless couple of wars, but the result is the same. MichaelHWC 18:18, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Money spent fighting terrorists doesn't go into the economy, but is spent on the war. It's not simply tossed out everywhere, unlike the "stimulus" money. MichaelZ 18:28, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Either way you're digging a pit and shoveling money in it, possibly the only thing our government does consistently well. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 00:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Amen. P.S. Your name is spelled wrong. ;-) -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Christian alternative to Twitter shut down by cyber attack last Thursday

Christian Twitter Shut Down

Christian Chirp was shut down on Thursday due to a cyber attack. The site was launched just a week ago by James L. Paris, also the founder of Christian "I do not understand why some people are so upset about us starting a Christian alternative to Twitter. I was warned in an e mail earlier this week that my site would be hit with a cyber attack. I did not think anyone was really serious about that, I guess I was wrong. All I wanted to do was to create a social media space for Christians. I truly don't see why this has caused such a controversy", said Paris on Friday morning.

Another example of liberal tolerance, I bet. Jinx McHue 18:48, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Liberals cannot tolerate diversity of thought. For proof look at the websites dedicated to vandalizing and disrupting this one. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:47, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Do such sites exist? Liberals must have way too much free time. MichaelZ 21:53, 9 November 2009 (EST)
He shouldn't be surprised, cyberattacks happen regularly, Twitter itself has been a victim in the past. It most likely has nothing to do with liberals per se, or any real attempt to end diversity of though, but instead probably the result of script kiddies launching the attack for no better reason then for the "lutz". Truthfully, there is no evidence either way, but the latter is the more likely scenario, giving the history of such things.
What I don't understand personally is why Christians commonly feel the need to create rather exclusive clones of common popular social networking tools and sites such as Youtube and Twitter? It comes off with the appearance of voluntary segregation to the rest of us. As far as I can tell, there is no restrictions on Christians using Twitter whatsoever. --BMcP 10:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Sounds like you don't like Christian alternatives either, BMcP. Is it safe to assume that you support censoring all classroom prayer in public schools, even when everyone in the class wants to say one?--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Liberals don't like sites like Christian Chirp because they show just how strong Christianity is, despite the liberal "media's" attempt to downplay it everyday. MichaelZ 19:20, 10 November 2009 (EST)
After my initial face palm, I decide to reply. First off in regard to the classroom prayer bit, I offer this link[26], which is my only response in this section in regard to that. As for Christian alternatives, I have no objections to people starting such services. My question, which remains unanswered is "why"? Christians after all are completely free to use Twitter and suffer no barriers there. Also if Christianity is so strong, as claimed above, then logically Christians should be able to dominate in Twitter, hence no need of an alternative. --BMcP 10:37, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Christians could not have "E-Harmony" either, which was set up that way, until the gay community forced them to change via the lawsuit[27]. If it's Christian, you will always see examples of liberal "tolerance" for it, which explains perfectly the cyber attack against well as the repeated church fires, attacks on the Bible, attacks on the war memorial cross near San Diego, any mention of prayer in the schools, ad infinitum. Karajou 10:47, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Thank you. The underlying point is that Christian Chirp is required because Twitter has no pro-God policy. As long as there are sites like Twitter, liberals will continue their censorship policies in the name of "political correctness", which incidentally, brings us back to school prayer, another censorship attempt by liberals. MichaelZ 18:40, 11 November 2009 (EST)
So in essence, what you are saying is that Christian Chirp is needed because Twitter doesn't censor people's tweets in such a way as to disallow or censor statements that may go against a "pro God policy"? In other words, Twitter is too free. --BMcP 21:31, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Like I said, I'm against censorship. My point was that the liberals on Twitter attempt to censor people, and they are not stopped in their efforts to create a "nice" environment. They erroneously believe that they can somehow wipe Christianity off the face of the Earth, forgetting that God's will will completely destroy their futile "efforts". Christian Chirp is free, and therefore Christian. MichaelZ 21:35, 11 November 2009 (EST)

How, exactly, is God censored on Twitter? MichaelHWC 21:37, 11 November 2009 (EST) ety

There doesn't have to be "official" censorship. remember, the society in Orwell's 1984 had no "official" laws either. MichaelZ 21:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)
So, in other words, He isn't. (You DO understand that 1984 was a novel, and not a work of historical scholarship, yes?) MichaelHWC 21:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)
No offense to MichaelZ, but I don't think it's a censorship issue. It seems to me that it's more a matter of a like-minded group of people socially networking. Many social groups, online and offline, have been founded the same way: a group of like-minded individuals keeping in contact with one another and discussing issues that are important to them. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 22:10, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Thank you Jeff! Finally a rational, reasonable explanation. That makes a great deal more sense. Although I believe a diversity of opinion is best, I can at least understand the desire of people to seek or create a social network of like-minded people with similar interests. That is what really Christian Chirp and Godtube is all about. I see claims of censorship on Twitter above but no evidence is offered whatsoever, most likely because there is none. I also find it terrible that somehow people were making it out to be that liberal and Christian are exclusive of each other, when that is simply not true. --BMcP 08:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)

There is perhaps an even more fundamental point to be made regarding this discussion. It is based entirely on the idea that those response for attacking the website in question were 'liberals'. This is an assumption without any evidence to back it up. There may well be other examples more suited for such a discussion. DWiggins 20:32, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Really, DWiggins? Come on, no one seriously denies that Liberals are the only ones who would do this. Christian Chirp was obviously specifically targeted because it was a Christian website. To say otherwise is denialism. HarryG 22:54, 12 November 2009 (EST)

That's still purely speculation. Who knows, perhaps they will get caught, perhaps it will turn out that they are 'liberals', but since absolutely none of this information is available to us we cannot draw any conclusion along those lines. DWiggins 22:59, 12 November 2009 (EST)

The simple fact is that the odds point at 4chan having launched the attack and, as has been discussed on this site before, the only political tab that can be applied to 4chan is a hate group who do what they do for "the lulz". They wouldn't have targeted Chirp because it was Christian, instead they would have targeted it because it was a new site that was vulnerable to attack, set up by people who probably didn't realize before the attack just how much protection you need to provide to a site to stop something like a 4chan attack.--DanHutchin 11:27, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Glenn Beck claims health care bill includes insurance for dogs

Please include this for the "In the News" section.

Thank you, Bob Bevill

nonsense--it covers education of vets -- humans-- who are important in disease control (ranging from rabies to swine flu). RJJensen 20:52, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Europe Didn't Ban Crucifixes

|Europe bans crucifixes!" was your headline for a story about how european courts (which have no actual power) have said it's unfair for public schools to have crucifixes. This is far from "banning" crucifixes. A little intellectual honesty would be nice.

This user is right. It created a big media firestorm here in Austria, but the crucifixes don't appear to be going anywhere. JDWpianist 09:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Besides the question of whether they are being banned or not, the article makes clear that the ruling open applies to Italy. Therefore, saying "Europe bans crucifixes!" is incorrect. Breithaupt 12:53, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Fort Hood hero

If you're simply correcting the news story then fine, but I find it rather odd that you're simply going to blame the apparent error on the 'liberal media' when as far as I can tell every single media outlet, 'liberal' or 'conservative' was reporting the same thing, which according to the article cited was what the military had been saying. Correct the story by all means, I just don't see the need to try and score political points off it when there are none to be had. DWiggins 07:36, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Larry Johnson

Again, the story on the main page has rather twisted the facts of the matter. Larry Johnson was not banned through any criticism of homosexuality. He was essentially sacked from the team because he made demeaning remarks about his coach, and then a fan on twitter by mocking him for the amount of money he made. The matter you refer to is when Johnson used a 'gay slur' [2] on his twitter account. He was not criticising homosexuality, he was simply insulting someone else. And this is all just the tip of the iceberg when you look at the previous problems he's caused. DWiggins 09:41, 16 November 2009 (EST)

DWiggins, nobody has ever been banned from the NFL for any of the stuff that mention ... except the gay slur. It's obvious that it was the slur against homosexuality that caused this unusual mid-season ban. Of course one can expect liberal denial about the reason, but it's undeniable.--Andy Schlafly 09:47, 16 November 2009 (EST)
I think the most obvious reason for the ban is the fact that he insulted both his coach and a fan in public. As a high-profile player for an organisation that depends upon its fan base for its existence it's probably not recommended to insult a fan, and as any sort of employee it's probably best not to insult your boss. Do you not think the most obvious reason is that his coach was just a little bit angry with what was said about him? And let's not forget, this is on top of Larry Johnson's previous 'problems' which have included 4 arrests on various assault charges against women. He was also dropped from a previous team. I think it's fair to say that using a homosexual slur was the least of his concerns when it came to his career prospects. DWiggins 09:56, 16 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, your comment is a good example of liberal denial, but it's not fooling anyone here. Many players have insulted their coaches, fans, etc., without being banned from the NFL. But no one can say a slur against homosexuality and expect to play in the NFL again.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 16 November 2009 (EST)
Isn't it a good thing that we hold people responsible for saying hateful things against particular groups? Is this any different than when CBS let Jimmy the Greek go for his racial slurs? People are gay--that's no reason to say hurtful or hateful things about them. Miroslav 10:21, 16 November 2009 (EST)
No, such censorship is not a good thing. People should be able to speak their mind on their own time without fearing losing their entire career. Jimmy the Greek's comments were different: he was being paid for what he said. A player is not, and once you support taking away his free speech to speak his mind, then you've hurt freedom of speech for all. Note that liberals claim to defend free speech ... unless it is criticizing a liberal sacred cow.--Andy Schlafly 10:32, 16 November 2009 (EST)
This is ridiculous, Larry Johnson isn't barred from the NFL! He was released by the Kansas City Chiefs for poor conduct, especially off the field. He didn't make any commentary on homosexuality either, it was a gay slur against someone on Twitter, just an insult. The issue was his insulting remarks towards his team and his coach, not to mention his poor on-field play.
That being said, he can play for any team next year that is willing to pick him up, as he is not banned, in fact he is officially an unrestricted free agent. However it is unlikely any team will, not because of anything to do with gays, but because he is an aging running back, prone to frequent injury, and has poor sportsmanship and team skills. His performance, when he actually played for the Chiefs, was abysmal. For the other NFL teams, he simply likely doesn't have what it takes to compete, at least as any sort of starter (someone may pick him up as a second or third stringer). --BMcP 10:40, 16 November 2009 (EST)
BMcP, you have free will. You can duck issues and obvious examples of infringement of free speech by liberals if you like. But you're not persuading anyone here by ducking the issue. If Larry Johnson were banned from the NFL for making a gay slur, would you defend his right to free speech? A one-word answer will suffice.--Andy Schlafly 11:57, 16 November 2009 (EST)
Aschlafly, If Larry Johnson were banned from the NFL for making an anti-Christian slur, would you defend his right to free speech? A one-word answer will suffice.Miroslav 12:02, 16 November 2009 (EST)
Being fired from your job for making slurs, and insulting your co-workers and boss, (and for poor job performance) isn't a free speech issue. Try doing any of that as a representative of the company you work for and see how long it is before HR asks you for a visit and hands you a pink slip. --BMcP 12:18, 16 November 2009 (EST)

I'm sure other players have insulted their coach and fans, but they would still have been reprimanded for it. But on the basis of Johnson's past it was just the last straw. And we seem to be getting mixed up here. Johnson was not criticising homosexuality, he was simply insulting someone. That's just abusing his right to free speech. You've picked out one indcident when there are in fact many which contributed to him being sacked. He has had legal problems, he has not performed well on the pitch, and then this sort of behaviour is not really going to help him much either. This is a sporting issue, not a free speech one. DWiggins 10:44, 16 November 2009 (EST)

I just find it rather frustrating that the front page is filled with stories like this. This is supposed to be a conservative website, and there are plenty of valid criticisms that you can make of government policy. The healthcare report cited there at the moment is one such example. But to me it undermines the aim of this site when we resort to these non-stories and try and make them have some political relevance. So what if Obama bowed? Who cares, it has no actual relevance to his policies, it's not going to have a material impact. All I'm saying is try to concentrate on more relevant stories. It also seems that this site has a rather negative outlook. Most of the news stories posted seem to be criticisms of apparent 'liberals'. If this is a conservative website then surely rather the main aim should be to promote conservatism in a positive manner. DWiggins 10:51, 16 November 2009 (EST)
The news section is commonly filled with material that is usually jumping the gun and emotionally based instead of factually based. I don't know if that is a result of trying to get the story out first or something else, but it does hurt creditability. --BMcP 11:05, 16 November 2009 (EST)
BMcP, that's "credibility", not "creditability". And in response to both comments above, it's clear you're uncomfortable with news exposing examples of liberal incoherence, injustices, and infringements on rights. We're not here to make liberals feel comfortable. We're here to expose these issues and we urge you to open your minds more to recognize the underlying causes.
The article is essentially a lie in its sensationalist attempt. It claims he was banned from the NFL, which is completely false, he was released by the Chiefs (any team is allowed to hire him). It also states because of his words regarding homosexuality, creating the false impression that it was because of some opinion he made in regards to that topic, but that wasn't what he did, he just insulted someone using a gay slur. Third, it was only one of many reasons he was let go, the Chiefs themselves made that clear. For the sake of the integrity of the front page's news section, the post on Larry Johnston should be withdrawn. --BMcP 12:18, 16 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not uncomfortable with the content of the news story in question, only with how it is being used. You are calling those responsible for his sacking 'liberals', having defined them as such because they sacked him. If you think they're worthy of criticism on some grounds then fine, but to simply characterise everything you oppose as liberal is leaving you with a very narrow definition of what conservative is. My point was that if you are to try and encourage people to see things your way, surely you need to spend more time pointing out the positives of it rather than the perceived negatives of the opposition. 'Open mindedness' here appears to be a euphemism for 'agree with us', as evidenced with the Noah's Ark essay whereby a user was banned for sticking to his argument as solidly as the admin did. I am open minded which is why I have looked at what has actually been written about this new story and can see that the 'homosexual slur' is but a minor issue amongst much larger ones. As such I do not think this exposes any underlying issue of any relevance to either liberals or conservatives, only to sportsmen with an attitude problem. DWiggins 12:11, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Looks like Larry Johnston will be signing with the Cincinnati Bengals[28]. Can we drop the silly news item on the front page now? --BMcP 14:13, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Bobbing his head like a "pidgin"

You mean "pigeon," I believe. Miroslav 10:06, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks much. I corrected it.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Liberals defend retaliating and ruining Larry Johnson's career

Google what he said. It is not fit to be posted on Conservapedia. This has nothing to do with homophobia or criticizing homosexuality. It has to do with professionalism, and actually doing what you were paid to do. Conservapedia should not get into the business of defending bad behavior by overpaid and spoiled professional athletes. Brown25 13:51, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Brown25, the right to free speech is not merely for people we like. To mean anything at all, it should be defended for people we do not like.--Andy Schlafly 18:07, 16 November 2009 (EST)
No one is arguing that we should infringe his right to free speech. The point is that he abused that right by using it to insult other people. We are arguing for some common sense on his part. We live in free countries, yet neither you nor I would expect to be able to go around aiming very personal and very public verbal attacks at others without expecting there to be consequences. Johnson, in my opinion, was deservedly fired for his actions, that is to say the insults coupled with the numerous other issues, irrespective of whether he used any specific slurs at all. DWiggins 18:14, 16 November 2009 (EST)
I agree with DWiggins on this; I don't think this is a matter of protecting free speech -- an organization has every right to break ties with someone who expresses views which they find offensive. If Larry Johnson were on CP, insulting the administrators (our analogue of coaches) and making comments we found offensive, he'd be blocked in short order as a "troublemaker / prevaricator". The Chiefs have basically done the same. --MarkGall 18:16, 16 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, you express the liberal view of censorship well: liberals don't support free speech for something they consider to be insulting, and liberals fully support retaliation against someone's job based on what he said on his own time. When I was in college, liberals would be appalled at such a view, but now they embrace it. Also, Larry Johnson was acting that way for a while, as many players do; what got him banned was a gay slur. And liberals now support retaliation for this ... "hate speech," as they define it.
Mark, the analogy with CP breaks down, because CP does not block anyone from using the entire internet, as Larry Johnson has been banned from all of professional football. Now football players might reasonably fear retaliation if they quote biblical verses against homosexuality. The logic of the comments above suggest that the NFL is entitled to ban them also. Perhaps people at universities already fear retaliation if they were to quote the Bible on this topic.--Andy Schlafly 19:31, 16 November 2009 (EST)
To correct one factual point, Johnson has not been banned from football, in fact if you'll look at someone else's post above you'll see he's in negotiations with another team. Do I think Johnson should have said what he said? No. But my point was simply that just because we have the right to free speech does not mean we should use it for such idiotic means as Johnson has done. I, and I'm willing to bet you or anyone else on here also, would not make very personal and very insulting comments about other people in public. Nor would I want anyone else to do the same to me. To defame someone is also to undermine their rights. It's a balancing act, and Johnson crossed the line. DWiggins 19:42, 16 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, you've simply reiterated your view. There's nothing new in your comments, except you think he might join another team, which is irrelevant to the issue. You're clear that if someone "crossed the line" in speech, then he should lose his job. And what is crossing the line? Quoting the Bible if it offends homosexual activists who want someone fired.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 16 November 2009 (EST)
He didn't quote any Bible verse, he said as follows: "think bout a clever diss then that wit ur [expletive] pic. Christopher street boy. Is what us east coast cats call u."[29] The bolded part is the slur, he called the other person a male prostitute in essence. How you can compare this to the Bible is beyond me. I also keep seeing the repeated falsehood of Johnson being barred from the NFL, which is completely untrue. He is a unrestricted free agent, one who is in fact in negotiations with another team to be hired.[30] Why do you hold onto this position when the evidence shows you are clearly in error. It isn't a bad thing to admit you were mistaken. --BMcP 20:15, 16 November 2009 (EST)

HAS joined another team. Signed with the Bengals this afternoon. Guess he wasn't "banned from football" after all. Miroslav 20:00, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Well as the above poster has pointed out, he was not banned so we can get that idea out of the discussion. Another thing, Johnson was most certainly not quoting the Bible, he was just being insulting. Do I think defaming your boss is a reason to be fired? Surprisingly enough I do, which is why I'm in the habit of not doing that. Crossing the line would be when you invoking your right to freedom of speech undermines the rights of others, as Johnson has done through his insults. Let's not get back to the argument that he was criticizing homosexuality, I think we've all seen that he was not, so that's an entirely separate issue. He was insulting people, that's all there is to this. DWiggins 20:06, 16 November 2009 (EST)
I do not know about speech "Crossing the line." Speech should be free. But also I do not know what Johnson said. Did he just quote the Bible? What did he say?--Wuhao1911 20:16, 16 November 2009 (EST)
Well put, Wuhao1911. It was a gay slur that caused the Chiefs to abruptly fire him, when he was on the verge of setting a team career record. Commentators said his career was finished. Perhaps the Bengals will let him play on kickoff teams, but time will tell. If gay activists complain to the Bengals, then you can bet they will drop him too. And apparently some liberals are just fine with that. 25 years ago, liberals would agree that free speech, even speech someone doesn't like, should be allowed without retaliation.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Well said? He has just said he doesn't actually know what Johnson said! Free speech is a right, but with rights come responsibilities. When exercising your right to free speech entails defaming someone else then you have crossed a line. Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom to undermine the rights of others, it is a balancing act. And as to your second point, it is completely irrelevant to this situation because a) we're talking about a guy who insulted someone, not a guy who criticised homosexuality. b) it hasn't happened and neither you nor I has anyway of knowing it will happen. DWiggins 20:41, 16 November 2009 (EST)

I'm confused. A boycott of Pepsi for supporting gays is ok but a threatened liberal boycott over Johnson's remarks is censorship? JoshuaZ 00:26, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Pepsi is taking money from people who oppose gay marriage and giving it to groups that push it. No, it's not censorship to object to that. It is censorship to cause the destruction of a star's career because he uttered a gay slur on Twitter.--Andy Schlafly 17:46, 17 November 2009 (EST)

I don't get why the drama. His performance wasn't great, he kept getting into trouble with the police, and finally, he bit the hand that fed him. *I'd* fire him. AdeleM 17:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

That's called liberal denial. The AP reported why he lost his star career and it said nothing about getting into trouble with the police (which, of course, many athletes do without retaliation).--Andy Schlafly 17:46, 17 November 2009 (EST)

I have no interest in this athlete, but it's sad that someone can be punished to the extent of finishing their career just for expressing a view that the liberal media don't like. TESvestad 19:31, 17 November 2009 (EST)

First of all, to the above poster, I do not think there can be any decent person who would consider the actual content of Johnson's comments to be acceptable. He was not criticising homosexuality or homosexuals, he was insulting individuals. This isn't a question of your view on homosexuality, nor is it really a question of free speech. It is a question of decency. Johnson made demeaning comments about his boss and fans. And secondly, to Mr Schlafly, may I ask why the title of this section has been changed to convey almost the exact opposite point to what the original poster was putting forward? DWiggins 19:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Thank you, TESvestad, for standing up for free speech! DWiggins, the AP story reported the primary cause as a "gay slur" and only an extreme form of liberal denial would pretend otherwise. As to your point about the prior heading, it was an inaccurate description of this discussion.--Andy Schlafly 19:59, 17 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, free speech is not free speech if you are only 'free' to say what the liberals want you to say. TESvestad 20:05, 17 November 2009 (EST)

To TESvestad. I don't particularly care about what 'liberals' think on the matter. It's not a question of ideology but of decency. Free speech does not give you the right to make unjustified personal attacks against others. When someone does that they are undermining the rights of that person.

To Mr Schlafly. The AP story ( I have seen says the following:

"The Chiefs confirmed Monday that they had run out of patience with his off-the-field problems and released Johnson the day he was due to come back from his second suspension in a year...

...But often angry and sullen, he was dogged by controversy and frequently at odds with coaches and fans. On Oct. 25, in what turned out to be his final episode with the Chiefs, he posted on his Twitter account several insults to fans, questioned coach Todd Haley's credentials and used a gay slur...

...Johnson was the subject of an online petition last week calling on the Chiefs not to let him break the team rushing record. He was never a fan favorite and his apology for the online comments came almost exactly one year after issuing a similar apology for alleged incidents involving women in Kansas City night clubs...

...In 2008, then-coach Herm Edwards benched him for three straight games for violating team rules. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell suspended him a fourth game for violating the league's player conduct policy...

...Johnson was later sentenced to two years' probation after pleading guilty to two counts of disturbing the peace. One woman accused him of throwing a drink on her and another said he had pushed her head at a Kansas City night spot...

...On the field, Johnson has not run with the quickness and strength that characterized his Pro Bowl years since setting an NFL record with 416 rushing attempts in 2006..."

The story indicates that the gay slur was but one of many things that had built up over the last few years, which included his off-field behaviour and his poor performances recently on the field. It does not seem to state that the gay slur was the "primary" reason. And just in case there are some rules I am not yet aware of, could I just ask again why the title of this section was changed to mean almost the opposite to what the original poster had intended it to mean? DWiggins 20:28, 17 November 2009 (EST)

A little off-topic (if it's too much so, please revert), but does anyone care to defend free speech similarly at Talk:Sedition Act of 1918, or by unprotecting Sedition Act (see history)? --EvanW 22:33, 17 November 2009 (EST)

I would also like to point out this very website's own article on free speech which I have just come across. The 'right' being referred to is actually "the doctrine that allows a citizen to speak freely without government restriction". The government is not involved in this case.

"You can be fired for criticizing your company's product in front of a customer, insulting your boss, etc."

"While the government may not intrude, private organizations may set their own speech policies, and every citizen has a duty to speak and act responsibly. The First Amendment addresses none of these concerns as protected" DWiggins 22:38, 17 November 2009 (EST)

A potential story about the march of liberal values?

Students at a religiously affiliated institution are attempting, with faculty support, to start a club for secularists at the school.

Do not mix up politics and religion. This article is about the latter, not the former. DWiggins 17:58, 16 November 2009 (EST)

== Liberals support a ban, but the Cincinnati Bengals may play him ... if the Bengals are not targeted to drop him. Miroslav 20:17, 16 November 2009 (EST)


I have to say I'm shocked that Conservapedia would use the word "quim" at all, much less on the main page in a cartoon. Shame on you. Stclaire 20:13, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Ditto-- Thanks for mentioning it; I really wasn't sure how to bring up the subject. AdeleM 20:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)
It's obviously being used either as a proper name, perhaps as a way of naming a producer of particularly vulgar material. Of course there is no intent to describe the producer of an imaginary program as, well, what the term means in your link. JacobB 20:41, 17 November 2009 (EST)
The intent may have been innocent, but it's still offensive. I'm sure there would be no disagreement about this if the character were called F****r or T*ts. AdeleM 21:06, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Yeah, you're right. The difference is that nobody would accidentally name a character either of those words. Nobody would need to look up their definitions. If you're going to look for controversy, you will find it - if you need proof of that, just look at liberals finding controversy in the word "Christmas" or in a cross in a park. Stop trying to make issues! JacobB 21:10, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Well, it's an obscenity, and more likely to be read by kids because it's in a cartoon. It also defames Quinn Martin who produced classic conservative shows like "Dragnet" and "The F.B.I" which championed crime doesn't pay. Should be removed. Stclaire 21:13, 17 November 2009 (EST)
The fact that *some* people need to look up the word doesn't make it inoffensive to the rest of us. I'm not "trying to make issues"-- I'm suggesting that the author of the cartoon do a little editing. Good Heavens, this *is* meant to be a family site! AdeleM 21:15, 17 November 2009 (EST)

OK, this will be my last post. This is absolutely ridiculous. It's obviously a proper name, it's obviously a parody of "Quinn Martin" and NOT a reference to anything vulgar, and you're making issues out of nothing, just like the war on Christmas or a thousand other examples of liberal oversensitivity. Nobody would even look it up if you hadn't made a thing out of it. End of discussion. JacobB 21:25, 17 November 2009 (EST)

I expected better. Stclaire 21:28, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Andy, please help us out here? AdeleM 21:37, 17 November 2009 (EST)
OK, I said end of discussion, but just to end this argument once and for all, I've looked it up and "quim" is actually a short form for Joaquim, a Portugese first name. Thus, the use of it as a proper name in the cartoon is not offensive and you are now a demonstrated trouble maker if you wish to continue the discussion. Satisfied? JacobB 21:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Shame on you! Stclaire 22:08, 17 November 2009 (EST)
I love liberal expressions of "Shame on you!", because they are awkward attempts to make a conservative argument. Liberals don't believe in "shame"! Try going to a liberal site and say "Shame on you! Shame on you!" and see the incredulous reaction. We don't fall for that stunt here.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)

If you can't or won't remove the cartoon, could you at least change the word? Thanks. Stclaire 22:40, 17 November 2009 (EST)

StClaire (see our naming conventions), I see you have two edits to the encyclopedia (both attacking young earth creationism) and seven (7) edits to talk pages, all crating controversies which didn't exist before and demanding removal of cartoons written by established and respected users. I encourage you to contribute constructively, or leave. JacobB 22:50, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Well put, Jacob. Stclaire, the answer to your demand for liberal censorship is this: "no". We don't cave in to demands for censorship, even when punctuated by repetitious "Shame on you!"--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Whilst I'm personally not particularly fussed by the use of the word, it does appear to fall foul of the third Conservapedia commandment: "Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language." I very much doubt that it was a deliberate use, but evidently there are some people who find it offensive. DWiggins 22:55, 17 November 2009 (EST)
It seems that using "Quim" in this context is the same as using "Dick" as one's first name. I don't think it has any vulgar connotation personally, and quite frankly it seems like a bunch of people trying to find reasons to get upset over something very trivial. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 22:58, 17 November 2009 (EST)
You are correct JLauttamus. This is a topic of great concern by liberal vandals at that rag site. We don't care what they think and neither should Stclaire. --Jpatt 23:03, 17 November 2009 (EST)

To everyone concerned, I am going to side with Stclaire here; we should not tolerate any form of word or phrase which constitutes foul language. I did look up the word "quim" myself, and it does reference a slang term for female anatomy. The intent here was to make a parody of 1970's police dramas (anyone ever see Barnaby Jones or Cannon, with that authoritative narrator doing the intro bumper?); it was certainly not an attempt to have an introduction to street talk. So, my apologies to anyone reading it. Karajou 23:55, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Karajou, I appreciate that. AdeleM 01:11, 18 November 2009 (EST)
Thank you. Stclaire 19:05, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Johnston "Demotion"

Larry Johnston was not "demoted" by the Bengals, they hired him for a specific purpose, one which is common for many NFL players that do not, or no longer posses the talent, to be a starter or an immediate backup. Whomever wrote the front page posting doesn't seem to know much about football. He wouldn't be close to their best running back, so why would anyone expect him on a starting lineup? His position on the team has zero to do with his insulting remarks on Twitter, it have to do with his capabilities. --BMcP 23:21, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Given what happened last week—Cinci was at #3 on their depth chart for RB—we may just see him sooner than we think. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:18, 18 November 2009 (EST)
True, but my basic point remains. He isn't demoted or humiliated. He was hired specifically as a stopgap in the running back position, to bolster depth in that position. You're right, he may see some playing time due to the injury to Cedric Benson. --BMcP 10:24, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Liberals worried "Psalm 109:8" bumper stickers and t-shirts a threat against Obama

Take your pick of articles pushing this accusation:

Google search

"Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

Yep. Real threatening, there. I wonder where these same people were when stuff like this was going on:

Incitement To Assassination?

I guess they have a problem with threats against the president only when the threats are imagined and against their guy. Jinx McHue 18:08, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Well, doesn't help Psalm 109:9, which is referring to the same person in the Bible as 109:8, talks about how he his children should be left fatherless, and his wife should become a widow. Breithaupt 15:39, 19 November 2009 (EST)
But no one is referencing that verse, just like liberals don't reference Matthew 7:2. Jinx McHue 00:43, 22 November 2009 (EST)


Well? How'd it go? JacobB 00:33, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Research grants

The graph on that article doesn't give the whole picture. Reading on it tells you that Alaska, a very conservative state, received by far the highest amount per capita. This was 3 times higher than the second placed state in terms of money per capita, Tennessee, also relatively conservative. In terms of political ideology it just seems like a non-story to me.DWiggins 01:11, 19 November 2009 (EST)

I agree with DWiggins. The article specifically points out the per capita spending brings out a totally different set of results. Also note states with highest overall research money allocations are also those with those which are most research intensive. --BishoiH 08:55, 19 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed, per capital is the way to measure this, as it shows the benefit in relation to population. The top ten using this is: Alaska, Tennessee, Delaware, Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wyoming --BMcP 11:30, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Hadley CRU

Just to point out that the last link appears to be broken. I would also suggest waiting to report on this until there is verification that the documents in question are genuine. DWiggins 09:05, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Liberal Style program

Just letting you guys know, I have gotten Mark's liberal style program working from the materials he sent me, and I'm going to run it shortly. I don't expect it to have any affect on server load, since for now it's just downloading the contributions of a few more prominent editors, but I thought I should let everybody know. JacobB 14:26, 20 November 2009 (EST)

You shouldn't just let us know, but rather ask for permission before you do and explain what it does. Please email explanation. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:58, 20 November 2009 (EST)
See my explanation on your talk page.JacobB 20:06, 20 November 2009 (EST)

I've just had a great idea! In addition to using this tool on Conservadia, why not turn its lens on other media? For example, a review of high-profile Wikipedia articles to quantify the liberal bias there, or major newspapers, or on transcripts of broadcasts from various news networks? The possibilites are really endless, and tomorrow I'm going to do just this - stay tuned for liberal style ratings of various major media personalities! JacobB 20:06, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Hosting Conservative Bible Project (CBP) Files

So while I intially planned to host these on a private FTP server, it occured to me that we may get MUCH more traffic on these files than I could handle. So I thought, why not host them on a public Google group?

I've started the group, here, we can link to it on this site, on the CBP main page and at the top of every translation page, and we can upload the PDFs of our completed books there. I've uploaded DouglasA's work already, and I'll send out invites to all the regular editors here if everybody likes this idea.

Keep in mind that getting an invite allows you to upload files yourself, but nobody needs an invite to download - I've set the group up so that anybody can visit the page and download the files, so all we'd have to do is link to it.JacobB 15:38, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Excellent plan. I'm surprised that there's no method of putting pdfs on conservapedia's file space, like images, though. However, the google group method may allow for better contribution from diverse members. DouglasA 15:42, 20 November 2009 (EST)
I've created a template at Template:ConservativeBible which can go at the top right of project pages. Right now it's just a link to the google group, but we can probably add links to the books along it, and other materials to help translators and/or readers. DouglasA 11:40, 21 November 2009 (EST)
Fantastic template!!!--Andy Schlafly 16:37, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Searching woes?

'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)".'

Is anyone else getting this error, whenever they use the 'search' feature for anything other than an article title? It's quite a problem for creating new pages. --AungSein

Looking into it. I've gotten that error recently also. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Judicial insanity at its worst

Judge hands custody of woman's child over to lesbian ex-partner

A Rutland Family Court judge ordered a first-of-its kind parent custody change Friday in a child-visitation dispute involving a Virginia woman and her former lesbian partner who lives in Fair Haven.

In a 21-page order, Judge William Cohen granted sole custody of 7-year-old Isabella Miller to her nonbiological but court-recognized parent, Janet Jenkins.

Consider if the lesbian ex-partner had been a male ex-boyfriend. There's no way in you-know-where that he would ever be given full custody! Jinx McHue 11:31, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia's Featured Article

Wikipedia has put it's article on On the Origin of Species on it's main page - no surprise that their article for Evolution: A Theory in Crisis has been listed as "start-class" and "mid-level importance." JacobB 20:35, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Looks like another example of evolution syndrome.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 23 November 2009 (EST)
Well tomorrow (November 24th) is the 150th anniversary of the book's first publishing. So it makes sense if you think about it. --BMcP 00:54, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Jinx shows a liberal troll logic


I'm not sure if anyone else has realized, but this fall season temperatures have been well above normal. All across Canada, temperatures this November have been well above seasonal for this time of year. So, because Conservapedia, particularly Andy, use the logic that below seasonal temperatures in the summer mean global warming is a hoax, do these above normal temperatures mean global warming is real? It is the same logic isn't it?--Jmccourt 13:51, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Our troll friend here is wrong, not surprisingly. There is no inconsistency here and I will prove it. First off, let's look at what global warming advocates claim will happen to winters if global warming were true:
Source #1

Warming could bring colder UK winters

Britain could be heading for a "big freeze" if global warming switches off an important ocean current in the Atlantic, some scientists say.

Source #2

Redirecting or slowing this "Atlantic heat pump" would mean colder winters in the northeast U.S. and Western Europe. But the heat gained from higher greenhouse gas concentrations is still in the climate system, just elsewhere. The result: a warmer earth, a colder North Atlantic.

Source #3

As Hong Kong shivers through its second-longest cold spell since 1885, scientists point to global warming to explain the abnormal cold weather phenomenon worldwide.

So we see that global warming, if true, actually means colder, harsher winters. Since the U.S and Canada are experiencing a milder end of November than what is typical, then that means the predictions of global warming causing worse winter weather are proven false, just like every other prediction based on the assumption of global warming. Thus, there is no inconsistency in Conservapedia's stance on global warming.
Harsh winters, mild winters, mild summers and sweltering summers are just an example of the randomness and unpredictability of nature instead of some vast global warming catastrophe. I swear, global warming advocates are worse at weather predictions than the Farmers' Almanac.
Next.Jinx McHue 14:52, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Exactly so, Jinx! The recent revelations of wide-spread conspiracy and fraud among the Global Warming alarmists (one such story is on our front page) proves many of their "facts" were simply made up, falsified, including submitting false reports of increased temperature. The reports also prove their was a conspiracy, on the part of the left, to discredit and deny publication to those highly qualified and reputable scientists who disagreed with their alarmism.
Some will say why did they do this? Their "gain" was mainly for enhancing their professional reputations, and in many cases, like with Al Gore, the reason was the simplest and oldest in the world: financial gain. Gore has profited from his alarmism to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and others have as well. Their goal is income redistribution on a grand scale, to fit their anti-U.S. leanings and socialistic goal of "equality" for the masses. Their "equality" is really about keeping the wealth for their fellow "elites" and creating a giant under class for them to continue to rule. This isn't too much different from the liberal's previous attempts to enslave blacks, hispanics and other minorities by their welfare-state creation. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Recently I watched Day After Tomorrow, or part of it at least, because, well, I love a good disaster movie and thought that was what this was. Not so: if you ever want to know what liberals want the future to be, this is it. For me, it throws into sharp relief why liberals believe in global warming: because they WANT it to be true. That movie is the liberals dream made manifest: America destroyed, Americans illegally immigrating into Mexico, global warming proved true, etc.
They don't believe in it because they're convinced by the "evidence," they believe it because they WANT the world to be ending as a result of industry, to validate the anti-industry stance they've held for a century before Gore was born. JacobB 16:18, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Quite right, JacobB. Al Gore, like most of the liberal elite, comes from a family made wealthy by American industry and politics. He has quite simply used his position to sell lies from which he personally has profited by over one hundred million dollars! All mostly done transparently, while the liberal minions failed to question his motives, mainly because of what you observed; their wish to have America proven wrong. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:26, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Mark Steyn sums up the "science" of "climate change"

The Dog Ate My Tree Rings

This first sentence alone is accurate, concise and just plain brilliant.

The most obvious thing that strikes anyone wading through the CRU documents is how easy it was for a small number of "experts" to propel their data-raped conclusions first into a "peer-reviewed" "consensus" and then up through western governments into the international fait accomplis of Kyoto, the IPCC and now Copenhagen.

Jinx McHue 22:04, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Its shocking how much deceit so-called "men & women of science" have displayed. Well over a year ago they savagely attacked another climate expert for pointing out many of their temperature stations were located near heater and air conditioning exhausts, thus obviously skewing their data. The exposure of this most recent scandal only further highlights their narcissism. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)
I half expect them to come out and say, "Oh, yes, the data we threw out were from those stations." Jinx McHue 06:52, 30 November 2009 (EST)

More Discrimination

I thought this story might be of interest for the news section. A Christian marriage counsellor is dismissed in the UK for refusing to counsel a gay couple. MattS 07:07, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks for letting us know. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Open Letter to Conservapedia

Dear Mr. Shlafly,

My name is Alex, and I am what you would call a liberal. I have been visiting Conservapedia for a few months out of curiosity, because I would like to know more about the right wing in America. I am fundamentally opposed to nearly all of your beliefs though, and rather than criticize, I would like to create a dialogue with you people. I have already been booted from Conservapedia twice: once for an inflammatory post that I sorely regret making, and the second time because a quick-witted administrator (or wikibot) knew who I was. Fortunately, it’s very easy to become a user long enough to post this message. In that vein, please read and respond, because to do otherwise would simply be an act of censorship towards the left wing, a reversal of the very act you claim renders Wikipedia useless. I feel a list will be the easiest format for debate. Please, if you are responding to one particular point, refer to that number (for simplicity’s sake). 1. You believe in God. I do not, at least not in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense. There is proof that the world started billions of years ago, not thousands. 2. Please explain the logic behind Young Earth Creationism. Dinosaurs were real. There is evidence humans existed more than 6000 years ago. 3. Intelligent design focuses on design detection, basically the idea that, “it looks like it was designed, so it had to have been designed.” Even you must be able to see the flaws in logic when it’s worded like that. You have to understand: just because something needs to exhibit certain qualities to survive does not mean that it couldn’t survive another way. Human knowledge is not infallible at this point, but creationists assume that it is, and has been, for millennia.

4. On to politics: do you actually believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim communist? Explain.

5. “Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word “Obamunism” to describe Barack Obama’s socialistic and “fascism light” economic planning policies.” Which is it? Socialism and communism are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from fascism.

6. If gun control is bad, then logically isn’t the regulation of nuclear weapons bad as well? They are the same, just on different scales.

7. Abortion is not “killing babies” any more than is a woman having her period. Reagan said, “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” I would like to say this: I’ve noticed that many who are anti-abortion are men and can’t carry children anyways.

8. Obamacare: I am aware of the financial difficulties involved with universal healthcare. Leave that aside; can we at least agree that every single taxpayer deserves to be healthy regardless of their monetary situation?

9. What does Obama’s lack of charity work have to do with the Oval Office? I am referring to the page, “Barack Obama and Uncharitableness” (which, by the way, is not a word. Perhaps try “Barack Obama’s Lack of Charity”).

10. Communism is not evil. Dictators are evil. Communism and socialism are actually good: they call for equality among individuals. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires the existence of classes, or inequality. Communism will be vindicated by a good leader.

11. Climategate: I have always been skeptical of global warming, but I am aware that greenhouse gases are not good. Whether or not the world will end from overheating is irrelevant; anything we can do to curb greenhouse gases is still a good thing.

12. “Homosexuality is not something you are, it’s something you do.” That may or may not be true, but the government has no place policing morality. Two gay people have just as much right to raise an adopted child as do two straight people, as long as they love each other. A man and a woman aren’t inherently good parents, and two men aren’t inherently bad ones.

Thank you for reading this far, anybody who has made it here. Please prove me wrong; I would like nothing more than to engage in a discussion with you people. That is all I want: discussion. I have not broken any of the Conservapedia Commandments, other than perhaps the eighth one, to not question the right (also the seventh, to edit pages as well as participate in talk pages, but I’ll work on that when I get unblocked). You claim that Wikipedia is biased towards liberals. Please be the bigger website, then, and allow liberals to voice their opinions too, and engage in a frank discussion with them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mluther (talk)

Dear MLuther...Our answers to your questions were posted many times previously, and are within the history files for you to look up; and yes, every one of your arguments were proven wrong. We are not going to go back into an argument infinitum because some people feel like it. Karajou 11:34, 1 December 2009 (EST)
if you have been "proven" right then you should have no problem rebutting me. By the way, I never tried to say who was right and who was wrong. I just want to better understand america's political right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mluther (talk)
Please sign your posts, using the signature button (above in the edit tools, next to the red circle and slash) when you finish posting, or use four ~ at the end. If this is for Mr. Schlafly, and you wish to dialog with him, perhaps you should have posted on his talk page? As for your questions, they would be best answered by your reading the articles along with the citations, wouldn't they? Please understand that since its inception some liberals have been attacking and vandalizing Conservapedia without end, so someone coming here to argue our POV usually ends up being part of a vandal site, intent on wasting our time or inciting controversy. Also remember this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum. It is not our responsibility to justify our POV to those who disagree. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:21, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Before I respond to #4, I just want to commend you on your attempt to learn more about the people who disagree with your views, not many people (both liberals and conservatives) would do that. That being said, I think that it is clear that Obama is not a Muslim, anyone who actually believes that is seriously misguided. As for the Communist part, it is a little confusing to me. I believe that it is clear that he doesn't want to convert the United States of America into a Communist country, but he does have some views that are closely aligned with the views of the Communist Party. Do I think that he's a card carrying commie? Absolutely not, but you can't deny that some of his policies (i.e. Health Care, Bailouts, Cap-and-Trade) have roots in Communist thinking. --Jvasile 15:34, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I am assuming it is addressed to one individual myself. As it would seem odd to think everyone here believes what he listed out in his twelve statements. I know I don't. --BMcP 16:21, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Is it ok if I write a new article?

Hi everyone! I'm a new user to Conservapedia, and I was just wondering if it is ok for me to write new articles right away or if I should first make some edits on existing articles. I found this site after having my article about attacks on Carrie Prejean removed from Wikipedia because it evidently was "not noteworthy" and I just wanted to make sure I could write a similar article here without it being deleted.

I'm also sorry if this isn't the right place to post, I know that there are rules about the main talk page but I wasn't sure where else to go...

Just to be clear I was thinking about trying to make Conservapedia more interesting to younger conservatives with some pop culture articles; I think a Christian take on issues like Britney Spears and her serial divorces or vulgar reality shows like the Real World might be worthwhile, especially since for so many young adults like myself that's all that is available on TV.

I also have a masters in mathematics (with a focus in agent based modeling) if there's any room for additional math/science articles...

I really am completely new and I'm just looking for ways to help. If you guys don't like the ideas I posted above please feel free to point me in a better direction.

A hearty welcome to you! Yes, please do start new articles and edit existing ones as you think best, and as it interests you. I look forward to learning from your insights, and I'm not surprised that Wikipedia censored your good work there.--Andy Schlafly 10:33, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the warm welcome, Mr. Schlafly! Are you the one who started this site? I think the Educational Index referred to you. Either way I appreciate it, and I'll get started right away.--UMichRepublican 10:42, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Is this an appropriate addition to the "bible" page?

I thought an appropriate first edit on conservapedia would be to the page on the bible. It's protected, though, so I'm not sure how to do so. Please tell me what you think!

Liberal Attacks on the Bible

Liberals, atheists, and secularists frequently attack the Bible and Christians by selectively taking certain passages out of context. Such attacks are excellent examples of liberal deceit and fall apart in the face of honest, thoughtful investigation.

Particular favorites of liberals include passages they claim are sexist, such as "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12). In reality, those passages reflect deliberate misunderstandings and mistranslations, often by liberals themselves. In the first example, for instance, the phrase "subordinate" would be more accurately translated from the Hebrew "לְהַכפִּיף" as "respectful and loving." Of course, even that might be a problem for liberal feminists.

Another group of passages liberals love to quote is those in which God appears to be violent or wrathful. For example, in Genesis 7:23 God causes a great flood which wipes the earth clean of sinners and evil by drowning the corrupt men who have perverted his vision for humanity. However, while liberals who believe in moral relativism may not understand, God was ensuring the future of humanity by destroying a 'false start' who betrayed his vision by engaging in all kinds of perversion and iniquity.

More importantly, since liberals do not accept that Jesus Christ came to redeem mankind for our sins, they do not understand that the perfection of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament and that the real Truth is His word. What this proves is that God is both stern and merciful; He punishes sinners for their crimes against Him, but also offers them a path to redemption through Christ.

--UMichRepublican 12:02, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  1. [31]