Talk:Main Page/archive81

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberalism and atheism linked to intelligence

CNN has an interesting article on the subject here. AlanR 08:15, 28 February 2010 (EST)

The bigger story is that liberals think the data are significant. Intellectual wannabes tend to have slightly higher IQs and tend to be fooled most by liberal falsehoods, such as gun control or global warming. Those who are smarter and those who are dumber tend to be less fooled by the academic falsehoods.--Andy Schlafly 09:08, 28 February 2010 (EST)
I wonder, Andy, if the data were the other way round, suggesting that "Conservatism and Christianity linked to intelligence", would the story be mentioned on the front page? --LucyJ 10:38, 28 February 2010 (EST)
I may put it on the main page regardless ... because it shows how the intellectual wannabes selfishly migrate towards atheism ... and then achieve nothing. Figured out yet why there are no atheistic hospitals?--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 28 February 2010 (EST)
No atheistic hospitals? What do you exactly mean by that comment? I'm not familiar with this argument.

--Maquissar 11:17, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Conservatism and Christianity are linked to intelligence. However, they're linked to one of the many types of intelligence not measured by IQ tests. An IQ test will not spot a Mozart, or an Edison, or a Cezanne; it's not capable of measuring musical genius, or mechanical genius, or artistic genius. Likewise, an IQ test completely fails to measure insight, wisdom, open-mindedness, and common sense--areas in which conservatives typically excel. --Benp 12:08, 28 February 2010 (EST)
Well put, Benp. IQ tests certainly don't measure open-mindedness ... or charity. Maquissar, the statement "there are no atheistic hospitals" is crystal clear in meaning. If you've haven't heard "this argument" (it's a fact, not argument), then now's a good time to consider it with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 12:58, 28 February 2010 (EST)
There are plenty of atheistic hospitals. China, Russia, and Albania are all officially atheistic, so they would be "atheistic hospitals". There are surely many others, but no one keeps track because atheism is not a religion. You never see a stamp collector hospital or a Kurt Cobain Fans hospital because who really cares about the founder? Consider this as well: religious hospitals account for 13% in America, and much lower in many other countries. Unless you can find reliable statistics that prove the other 87% were founded on religious grounds, your claim doesn't hold water. Consider that with an "open mind". AlanR 13:05, 28 February 2010 (EST)
Atheism is a religious belief; it's a belief in the non-existence of God by people who cannot prove that position, and when man dictates the rules disaster always follows. As to which countries are officially atheistic, try looking at their human rights records with an "open mind". Russia and China both have more than 100,000,000 dead because of official government persecution; Cuba and Vietnam has had hundreds of thousands flee across the sea just to get away from their atheistic governments; nearly 200 individuals were shot dead because the government of atheistic East Germany didn't want them crossing the Berlin Wall. Why don't you try considering that with an open mind. Karajou 13:17, 28 February 2010 (EST)

You're confused, Alan. Although a hospital may not be named "St. Jude's," it may still be Christian because it was founded due to the Christian charity in the heart of its founder. This may be true of many hospitals in China, etc., founded by people who have to hide their faith. As for atheistic hospitals, the same rules apply: a hospital isn't necessarily atheistic just because it is named, oh, say, "San Francisco General." An atheistic hospital would be one which was founded because of atheism.

You'll find many people who said, "Because I believe in Christ, I will build this hospital." I doubt you can name anybody who said, "Because the Universe is a vast meaningless clockwork, and Darwin says only the fittest should survive, I will found a hospital."

PS: I don't think Russia has been "officially atheistic" for 19 years. JacobB 13:12, 28 February 2010 (EST)

I know that helping people in need and "loving thy neighbour" is one of the most important messages of Christianity, and I respect that. But I don't think that you must look for someone who said "The universe is a meaningless clockwork, so I will found a hospital" in order to call it an atheistic hospital. A Christian hospital would be a hospital built by someone who thought "I believe in Christ, Christ commanded me to love my neighbour, so I will build a hospital to save lives." An atheistic hospital would be a hospital built by someone who thought, "I don't believe in any religion, but I still want to help people in need, so I will build a hospital." Also, hospitals are built to make money, too, not just to save people... but don't think that only because someone is an atheist, then he NECESSARILY despises mankind and won't lift a finger to save an ailing man. Someone can build a hospital to save lives even if he does not believe in any religion. --Maquissar 19:56, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Maquissar, perhaps there is someone who smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and weighed 300 pounds who lived to be 100 years old. But the fact is that most fat smokers die sooner than they should. That's not a judgment, that's a fact. And it's also a fact that atheists don't build hospitals. Maybe you can find a rare atheist who wants to, but atheism pushes most people who get addicted on its ideology towards less charity, not more charity.--Andy Schlafly 20:51, 28 February 2010 (EST)
Real charity is performed not for the purpose of converting someone to your ideology or getting brownie points from your God. It's performed from a desire to improve the world, which is a trait atheists share universally. As Alan said, there are probably plenty of atheistic hospitals, but they weren't founded because of the philosophy of atheism. They were founded because an atheist felt the need to improve the world without exterior motivation. Rant all you want, Andy, you'll never get around that fact. You claim to have an open mind, but you only have an open mind to the things you want to hear.
I'm going to get banned and this comment will probably be deleted to keep other editors from thinking. That's just Conservapedia for you. HyglacQ 11:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)

Morality itself is divine, thus all acts of charity are Christian. If you opened your mind and ignored the liberal deceit, you would see this. There are no hospitals founded due to atheism, as they are all immoral liberals. Here, educate yourself: Atheism Myrobi 11:45, 1 March 2010 (EST)
If liberals are so intelligent, then why are the liberal States of New York and California in economic tatters, while the conseravtive Dakotas have low unemployment numbers? Furthermore, if liberals and atheists are so intelligent, then why did they often pick and stubbornly stick with the economic system of communism and drive their societies into economic death spirals? Secondly, intelligent people are more likely to get into college, where they are often indoctrinated in atheistic ideologies at secular colleges. Do these alleged scientific studies take this into account? I would also point out that there is a difference between academic intelligence and wisdom. Someone with academic intelligence might be able to parrot back atheistic ideology he learned in public high schools or secular colleges with a high degree of retention. However, this certainly does not mean that atheistic claptrap he "learned" has any real legitimacy in terms of its validity. conservative 00:16, 4 March 2010 (EST)conservative 00:16, 4 March 2010 (EST)
I doubt it. Typically, they only measure stuff like spatial perception and word analogies, stuff which has, I don't know, no application to economics or theology or moral truth? I have a suspicion that there was a lot of impartial selection in these studies. DouglasA 00:20, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Bunning second most conservative senator

Andy, just out of curiousity, which ranking showed Senator Bunning as the second most conservative senator? The ones I've seen label him 6th (National Journal), 12th (Voteview), and 12th (American Conservative Union)--Whizkid 11:27, 1 March 2010 (EST)

I think I saw in that in our entry here about Jim Bunning, albeit only for one year. I admit it surprised me also. But even being the 12th most conservative isn't bad!--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 1 March 2010 (EST)
It's not bad at all! That's one of the problems with the vote rankings. They can make legislators seem farther apart than they are. Somebody can look at it and say, "Oh, he's only the 12th most conservative", when really it's only one vote that keeps him from a 100% conservative rating. Also, how did I manage to make this section 36.1 in the menu instead of 37?--Whizkid 11:41, 1 March 2010 (EST)
2009 stats at National Journal rank him 3rd--Jpatt 11:44, 1 March 2010 (EST)
You're right. I was looking at the 2007 and 2008 ratings, because I couldn't find the 2009 ones and didn't realize they were out. Sorry.--Whizkid 12:13, 1 March 2010 (EST)

About time!

If we can find a better source for this, it's an important news story. I'm ready for the court to settle the debate once and for all. I don't quite know how to word it into a front page item (assuming it deserves it) but I do think the notion is pretty important. [1]

Thanks, but we already have the item on the main page! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:27, 3 March 2010 (EST)
Great; I'm happy to see that it went up. In Christ, Tzoran 15:41, 3 March 2010 (EST)

New Mainpage story?

I just saw this [2], which is a story about how some Atheist group the University of Texas at San Antonio is running a trade in program where students can turn in their bibles in exchange for pornography. Even other atheists and agnostics are criticizing them for "fostering hate".--Whizkid 13:44, 4 March 2010 (EST)

That's disgusting, just another example of how atheists have no morals. I don't know that it's something we want on the mainpage. DMorris 11:52, 5 March 2010 (EST)
Mmmm...while I agree that the story is absolutely horrific, I disagree with the above poster when he or she uses the article in question to claim that 'Atheists have no morals'. Regardless of the truth of that statement, I would remind the above user that many horrific acts take place daily due to the actions of many radical theists. And I think we both know that it would be erroneous to use these events as evidence to try and undermine religion. I would expect that, for the sake of intellectual honesty, we could refrain from using flawed arguments to combat atheism when we ourselves object to those arguments, when they are used against us. JPope 21:50, 13 March 2010 (EST)

State-owned banks

Hello - I've been following Conservapedia for a few weeks now, and I've been enjoying your many insightful articles and headlines, but have a question about a main-page story that struck me as unusual. It's the one about states starting their own banks to "combat Obama's socialism." I'm all for combating Obama's policies, but I don't understand how a "state-owned" bank isn't socialistic itself. Can someone please help me understand this? Thanks! --DanielF 13:23, 6 March 2010 (EST)

I agree with DanielF. Government trying to seize control of the financial sector from private hands is typical socialist practice, regardless of which branch of the government is involved. We should be calling attention to this and stand up for the free market, no cheer the forces statism and socialism as they undermine the free market. It was over-burdensome regulation and state interference that created this mess in the first place, and this will only slow recovery in the long run. --BishoiH 15:04, 6 March 2010 (EST)

DanielF, we don't look kindly upon editors who create an account just to bicker on talk pages. When a user's first edit is to a talk page, and that edit is to provoke and confront, nine times out of ten that user doesn't stick around to contribute constructively. As to BishoiH, who HAS contributed, I can only say I don't know much about the matter, at all, and on further consideration I may change my mind, but it seems to me a system of state banks would reduce the power of the Fed and and aid a banking system more able to adapt to a changing market. JacobB 15:10, 6 March 2010 (EST)

In response to DanielF and BishoiH, it's an open question whether a state-owned bank (like what North Dakota has operated successfully for decades) is a conservative innovation or not. The headline says that both Democrats and Republicans support it, probably for the same reason given by JacobB: it limits the power of the Federal Reserve. Note that both Dems and Repubs favor auditing the Fed.
I find the development particularly interesting because it suggests a long-overlooked check and balance on Obama's socialism: local control. This approach may sweep the nation.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Comment on Blood Donation News Story

I can certainly understand the concerns reasonable people have about safety controls for donated blood - that is something that should NEVER be changed over political pressure or ideology - only sound medicine and science. However, when screening rules are unnecessarily strict based on policy versus medicine, it is in the public interest to re-examine them with an open mind.
The reason I bring this up is that since my high school days I was a frequent blood donor, giving about 4 times a year. I'm B-positive, which is on the rare side, so my frequent donations were really appreciated and I was even on the "on call" list for emergency shortages. Then, in my late 20's, I donated about three weeks after getting over a case of the flu. I felt fine at the time, but a couple of weeks later I got a registered letter that said I had tested positive in an HIV test on that donation. I was shocked at reading those words, because nothing in my past lifestyle put me at risk for this. The very next paragraph of the letter then stated that these initial tests are highly sensitive and can produce false positives, and that a subsequent test showed only a higher level of antibodies (from having the flu a few weeks back), and that I was, as expected, HIV-negative.
The letter concluded, though, by stating that as a safety precaution anyone who ever tests positive, even on the initial, over-sensitive screenings, is automatically put on a permanent list banning them from donating in the NY/NJ/CT area again. There is no appeal, no chance to be re-tested, and in the 18 years since then, no change in policy. I've accepted that it's better to be safe than sorry where the public health is concerned, but it's frustrating to hear the seasonal appeals to the public for donations in the summer, at the holidays, and after 9/11 and know that there was no medical reason I couldn't donate, only a policy one.
So I'd like to suggest that while appeals to allow donations from people acknowledge high-risk lifestyles are, in fact, baseless and even selfish, we should encourage the people running our blood supplies to revisit some of their "lifetime-ban" policies. It's cost them almost 80 units of a rare blood type in my case alone - I can only wonder how many units have been lost to false-positive bans of people who are not in high-risk lifestyles. --ChrisY 11:30, 7 March 2010 (EST)

This story is not believable, since you are an anonymous poster. Not only must we avoid caving in to political pressure, but to emotional appeals such as this one. Unless you are prepared to discard your anonymity, kindly refrain from exposing us to emotional appeals such as the above in the future. --Ed Poor Talk 22:13, 10 March 2010 (EST)

The end of the road for Barack Obama

This was a great article from the Telegraph, I feel. "Barack Obama seems unable to face up to America's problems"[3]Sol1221 16:38, 8 March 2010 (EST)

CBS Poll

Small error on the news - the 79.64% figure is for Bipartisanship, 63.63% is the Overall result for F. AndrewJay 20:46, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Oops! Thanks. I'll update.--Andy Schlafly 20:59, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Now that is a stunning headline!

If we had a "headline of the week" (and maybe we should), the just-posted story about the comments by Chief Justice John Roberts would be the runaway winner.--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Typically the MSM has already pretty much consigned Robert's comments to the "non-news" category, inasmuch as it concerns taking Obama and Congress to task. I think most people only see the SCOTUS as a liberal-conservative split and don't realize the collegiality of the place (like Justice Ginsberg dining often with Justice Thomas and his wife), and how Obama's attack on the court might influence decisions. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:16, 10 March 2010 (EST)

"Call to action" video?

Why the prominent link to an anti-Israel screed? EMcCay 15:52, 10 March 2010 (EST)

We feature many editors, including senior editors, with many views. By contributing together, we reach consensus. Please don't create accounts to pick fights on our main page - we would much rather have your help with our Easter Project 2010! JacobB 15:59, 10 March 2010 (EST)
I don't know why either. I will look into it.--Jpatt 16:11, 10 March 2010 (EST)
I see it was merely a matter of dealing with two languages, on my dear friend Joaquin's part. As an artist his heart is particularly troubled by the ongoing violence of the middle east, as we all should. I echo Jacob's sentiments, and rabble-rouser's will be dealt with quickly and without explanation. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:41, 10 March 2010 (EST)
It's important to be able to see, discuss, and reason through what may be considered as demagoguery. All Administrators have the power to post to the front page, and reason should ultimately prevail for all of us. The alternative -- censorship -- is not the answer.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 10 March 2010 (EST)

"Obama Incompetence" story

I'm not quite sure what the meaning of the story that "Obama incompetence" gains 900,000 results on Google is. If it is that this number is constantly growing at a fast rate, I think that the wording of the item should be changed slightly, perhaps by adding "now" to reflect this. If the item is showing that the number is remarkably large, I must point something out. 900,000 may seem to be a large number, but must be seen in context. A search for "Obama success" gains 245 million results. To what is the 900,000 large compared to? --LucyJ 12:35, 12 March 2010 (EST)

I agree entirely. Plus it's just as easy to verify that "Obama awesome" has 31 million hits, so this is hardly newsworthy (unless that is as well, and I don't think it is). Although if you search for "Obama competence" you only get 541,000 results ("Obama competent" has over a million, and "Obama incompentent" has only 873,000, which funnily enough is almost his margin of the popular vote in 2008). DanieleGiusto 15:11, 12 March 2010 (EST)
It's clear that this is not an effective way to convey the views of this site about Obama or any other topic. Search results like that are not meaningful, and it's all too easy to find counter-examples that are just as meaningless. As an example, I just tried googling "obama penguin" and got 1,700,000 results. It would be better to focus on stories that reference polls or surveys to back up the views of this site instead. --ChrisY 15:14, 12 March 2010 (EST)
News items are not encyclopedic. They are intended to convey to our audience thoughtful, often provoking, interesting news items not typically conveyed in the liberal MSM. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:48, 12 March 2010 (EST)
Please try to argue your point looking at the first 50-100 Google results as a whole. Please, no cherry picking.conservative 19:21, 12 March 2010 (EST)

This is a provocative headline and, as TK points out, that's what good news headlines do: provoke debate. We don't accept the liberal view of using news as way to control, and to filter news in gatekeeper fashion as the NY Times does. We inform, and let the readers decide. The internet provides a welcome antidote to liberal gatekeeping attempts to control and limit news in order to praise/worship liberals and demonize conservatives.--Andy Schlafly 19:27, 12 March 2010 (EST)

By the way, could it be that Obama's only first year "achievements" were bailing out irresponsible fat cat Wall Street firms and passing a pork laden "stimulus" package that failed to keep U.S. unemployment down and greatly added to the U.S. government fiscal deficit? conservative 19:31, 12 March 2010 (EST)
Surely, Andy, if your aim is to inform, and let the readers decide, you must avoid all "gatekeeping", in any direction. The google results are used here to show one side of the argument. You say that lot of mainstream media, like the NY Times does the same thing, in that they show one side of the argument, that they "filter news in a gatekeeper fashion".If you were to only inform, and refrain from any filtering, must not the news story be along the lines of "A google search for this yields this many results, and the search for what is basically the opposite yields this many. Use those figures if you deem them relevant to forming your own opinion on the topic. Or form your opinion using whatever methods you think are best. We want you to decide yourself" --LucyJ 19:44, 12 March 2010 (EST)
Surely, LucyJ, you would be happier at Wikipedia, where they claim, pay lip-service to, no point of view, while systematically removing anything not leftist. Our job isn't to lie down and be run over by the liberal trucks, but to present an alternative to their strangle-hold on the news. To do what you suggest would maintain the status quo, and the liberal MSM doesn't need any extra help in perpetrating their deceit. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:54, 12 March 2010 (EST)
LucyJ, please list the Presidential accomplishments of Barack Obama's first year in office. In addition, please list Obama's failures as President. conservative 20:03, 12 March 2010 (EST)
I am not a fan of all of JFK's policies and things he did in his personal life, but I can tell you this: Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy! As President, he is incompetent through and through. Obama doesn't have Kennedy's toughness nor does he have his people skills. conservative 20:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)
I also wish to add that I think the only accomplishment that I have seen at the White House is the introduction of the White House vegetable garden. And that appears to have been his wife's idea and she appears to be doing most of the work! conservative 20:36, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Obama and Evil

Using google search results is one of the most idiotic ways of proving your point. For example googling for "God and evil" lists and mind numbing 105 million results. Thus God is almost three times as evil as Obama? On the other hand, "Obama and good" results in 140 million results. Is Obama the savior of mankind? Obviously not.

If you guys want to keep the tag of "trustworthy" encyclopedia I'd quit using google search results. You can prove almost anything with it.

Except when you liberals want to "prove" something, eh? And I would say if someone is going to come here to criticize they shouldn't just create a troll account if they want to be considered anything other than a deceitful vandal site member. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)
Please try to argue your point looking at the first 50-100 Google results as a whole. Please, no cherry picking.conservative 19:19, 12 March 2010 (EST)
By the way, do you think the idea to have the mass murderer Mao Zedong and a transvestite decorating the White House Christmas tree was a bad idea? What kind of people does Obama have working for him? [4] conservative 19:27, 12 March 2010 (EST)
"Except when you liberals want to "prove" something, eh?" - are you saying that this site is no better than a liberal site? It seems that you are excusing yourself by mimicking their tactics (as you see them). Tuffskin 20:16, 12 March 2010 (EST)
So far, it appears as if the liberals do not want to address the Christmas tree issue and I am not holding my breathe.conservative 20:07, 12 March 2010 (EST)


This user has already the nice figure of: more than 30,000 edits. --Joaquín Martínez 20:48, 12 March 2010 (EST)

That's phenomenal, Joaquin! We've all learned enormously from your edits. God bless you.--Andy Schlafly 21:02, 12 March 2010 (EST)
Agreed! My friend, Joaquín, without your religious and artistic contributions there would be a big hole here. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:21, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Thank you so much! --Joaquín Martínez 09:07, 13 March 2010 (EST)

Article of the Year

Shouldn't there be a new Article of the Year at this point? Unless the year is being determined by something else, which is perfectly understandable. I was just curious. I would suggest 'Jesus Christ' or 'Ronald Reagan' as new articles. JPope 21:36, 13 March 2010 (EST)

This matter is going to be discussed with the website's owner shortly. conservative 07:31, 14 March 2010 (EDT)
My two cents would be to suggest that an Article of the Year be a topic that is both current and relevant in focusing the reader on important values. "Ronald Reagan" is certainly values-focused, but it's still a look backwards. I'd like to suggest the articles on the Tea Party Movement or Best of the Public. The former is an active, influential force in contemporary politics, and the latter represents something new and original created from within Conservapedia, rather than simply being a summary of concepts reported elsewhere. --ChrisY 14:13, 14 March 2010 (EDT)
ChrisY, your comments continue to superb and you capture the forward-looking nature of this website. Ronald Reagan was a great leader but much of our audience had not even been born yet when he was president, and he fought battles (like communism in the Soviet Union) that we've won and moved beyond now. Let's look forward and not backwards.--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

I would suggest the Tea Party Movement because it has fundamentally realigned the political landscape back to what The Founders intended, and has the potential to bring about a shift away, if not an outright rejection of, the Liberal-Progressive's elitism. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:02, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

I would suggest Conservapedia's Law if not Best of the Public. The other suggestions are worthy topics, but people can read about them in many other places. Why not draw the reader in with something they'll never find anywhere else? DanielPulido 19:59, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

United Nation claim on climate change proved wrong

Another blow to the alarmists. I thought conservapedia editors would be interested. Regards, --TSpencer 12:48, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

I added a quote from that new report to our IPCC article. Thanks. --Ed Poor Talk 13:27, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

Are Liberals, Atheists More Evolved than Conservatives? See also CP article on education, under ideology section. [5] Daniel1212 23:31, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

Interesting cite. May post tomorrow morning (we've had lots of other great postings today). Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 14 March 2010 (EDT)
I like how the article is largely conservative, but it disturbs me that they used the BCE format. DMorris 21:56, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Trade Disputes

While I am distinctly concerned with the valuation of the Yuan, and have been since the early 2000s, the likelihood of them revaluing is low. US can complain as much as it wants, nothing will come of it, largely due to their knowledge of their necessary existence, both for capital markets, and goods/services markets. To be concerned about China and our trade situation with them approaches concern that there will be showers today--there will be a minor inconvenience, but there won't be a tornado descending upon unsuspecting townsfolk. In any case, this article about a trade dispute with Brazil that will have tangible impacts on April 9th or so seems to illustrate the significance of these trading disputes, most notably the notion that Brazil can take intellectual property from the US in their settling of the trade dispute. Maybe this could go mainpage to show a situation where Congress/to a lesser extent Obama will have to pony up and actually do something, or problems will develop. A warm-up match for likely disputes with China/EU/Japan in the future?

Jesse Ventura Story

You do realize that the reason the Huffington Fraud took the story down was because they don't publish conspiracy theories? And that therefore you are promoting a story that claims that the administration of George W Bush was responsible for 9/11? Why would Conservapedia suggest such a thing? RobertE 21:01, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

Are you suggesting we support truthers? I think not. It's a story of liberal censorship. --Jpatt 21:58, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
Robert, one's defense of the importance of free speech does not mean that one agrees with everything said. Your comment suggests a need for me to add this to Liberal Inability To Abstract. I'll add it now.--Andy Schlafly 22:08, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
I read the related articles, and in Robert's defense the issue here was one of editorial policy versus censorship. The Huffington Post claims to have a policy against posting conspiracy-theory stories, and when I read what Gov. Ventura wrote it certainly qualifies as that. Despite opposing censorship, Conservapedia has clear policies regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable content here, and enforces that policy by removing such content when people try to insert it. I don't have to agree with the editorial views of The Huffington Post to respect their right to control their own content, just as I fully support the right of Conservapedia to weed out content that is offensive, untruthful, hostile to Christianity, etc. If The Huffington Post allows some conspiracy articles but removes others, then they can be called hypocrites, but as long as they publish their policies this is really a non-issue. --ChrisY 11:20, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
The Huffington Post policy is similar to Wikipedia policies: broadly written and used by liberals to censor content. I bet I could find examples of selective enforcement of the broad policy on the Huffington Post, just as there are many examples from Wikipedia. Shall we start an Examples of Bias on the Huffington Post entry?
We don't have overly broad policies of censorship here on Conservapedia. Our rules are specific and their application is clear and almost never disputable. We've had liberal editors and even Administrators since the beginning and I can't think of a single editor who was censored for his ideas, rather than violating specific and incontestable rules.--Andy Schlafly 11:30, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
I used to boast that I could "get any idea into any article" at Wikipedia, but when they started letting users game the system to censor unpopular ideas, I decided to spend more time here instead.
We have articles on every viewpoint, and I myself am particularly devoted to controversial ideas. I think it helps readers to see both sides of an issue. And, like Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, I think that the "Truth" profits immensely from any comparison with falsehood. In fact, the more clearly we explain the evidence and reasoning for both sides of a controversy, the more likely it is that our readers will correctly identify the right side.
That's why we have nothing to fear. --Ed Poor Talk 11:55, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
I'm a bit confused by some of these responses. I don't like the Huffington Post but it's clear they faced a binary choice here: publish or not. If they had published a "truther" article, I'd be critical of them for publishing lies and delusions. What would Conservapedia have done if the exact same article had been submitted here? Leave it or delete it? I'm sincerely interested. RobertE 14:17, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
Here's a theory: the Truther issue is dead. GW Bush is out of office. The Obama Justice Department will not prosecute Bush et al for blowing up the WTC. So, keeping the issue alive will only frustrate Truthers who then might think Obama, Holder & company are also in on the plot.
Just a theory.... Rob Smith 21:36, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Evidence of harmful mutations after the Fall

Scientists delete a gene, mice exhibit limb regeneration. This is another evidence that mutations are harmful and that 'evolution' is trumped by the second law of Thermodynamics. Regards, --TSpencer 08:50, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

You seem to misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics, which merely states that entropy is nondecreasing. There is no connection between this physical law and the theory of evolution. And if you insist that this law applies to (discrediting) evolution, I fail to see your argument. To the contrary, it would seem that the nondecreasing entropy would only be prone to add more chaotic evolutions to the mix, which would run counter to your claim. I would like to repeat, for what it's worth, that I see no connection between this basic physical law and evolution.
On another note, how is it that "limb regeneration" is harmful? DanieleGiusto 13:39, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
I believe TSpencer's point is that it's the lack of regeneration that is harmful; the loss of this ability is an example of a harmful mutation. I don't know whether the study proves what he says it does, but I think that's his point. DanielPulido 14:02, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
That is my point indeed. Thanks for clarifying. --TSpencer 16:52, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
Many genes that prevent regenerative action also prevent cancer. --JimPT 15:11, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
The article specifically addresses this issue:
"In these mice without p21, we do see the expected increase in DNA damage, but surprisingly no increase in cancer has been reported."
This is in direct contradiction with the theory of Evolution, which states that such a beneficial trait should have been preserved. On the other hand, the Bible tells us the Fall is responsible for the imperfect state of this decaying world. Evolutionists falsely claim that Creationism makes no predictions, and this is a direct counter-example to that claim. Regards, --TSpencer 16:41, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
Correct me if I am wrong but the second article also states that they showed an increase in apoptosis. It isn't surprising not to see cancer if your cells are self-destructing. A trait could potentially be "overwritten" if a newer more beneficial one comes along. Specifically, the halts in the cell cycle due to p21 and p53 regulation to protect against damaged DNA during mitosis and meiosis. This sort of thing always seemed to me to be a bit of a tautology but lets at least be clear about what evolution states. And to correct you on your last point, the fall accounting for the damaged state of the world is a hypothesis about an observation, not a prediction. ameda 17:17, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
Thank you for your comments. Could you provide me a link to the second article? I can not find it by myself. Maybe you are right about an increase in apoptosis, but I believe the argument still stands: p51 mice were "readily available", so the change does not seem to be too great a setback for the organism. At the very least, these findings are surprising under the evolutionary paradigm (as illustrated in the comments section of the article, presumably by evolutionists). As for my last point, I would like to clarify my meaning: under the hypothesis of a Fall having occurred, as described in the Bible, we can predict the observation of mutations damaging DNA in animals. The p51 mice fit the bill nicely. As a result, this article describes an observation unexpected by Evolution proponents, but easily explainable and predicted under the Creationist paradigm. Regards, --TSpencer 19:09, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
If the gene can be deleted can't the gene be broken in such a way that it wouldn't function? I mean that sort of thing happens all the time doesn't it? So why hasn't microevolution gotten rid of this gene? I think it must be doing something good, otherwise it wouldn't be in there if taking it out gives us suck a huge benefit. I don't think we should put any eggs into this basket until we test it out to see what shape it takes. --JimPT 19:19, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
Dear JimPT, you are assuming that Evolution is happening to make your point, and therefore, it is not surprising that you come to that conclusion. Let's consider an hypothetical scenario: God created all animals with a natural ability to regenerate. After the Fall, mutations progressively damaged the DNA code for that ability, to the point that it was lost in most animals. The DNA was damaged in many ways, most of them lethal, to the point that only organisms with the most advantageous damaged structure survived (the p51 gene). Is there any evidence for this scenario? First of all, the Bible tells us of early humans with very long lifespans, corroborating the hypothesis of a natural ability to regenerate. Such an ability would necessitate a very intricate and complex mechanism, one that would be very affected by mutations. As expected, the ability to regenerate has been lost, except in simple animals whose limbs are a lot simpler and the DNA code more robust. Finally, we should expect to observe what the article describes. In conclusion, I believe the p51 is a gene selected because of the progressive breaking down of the DNA for the ability to regenerate, given by God. Please keep in mind that this scenario is not evidence for Evolution, as the complexity of the structures involved is ever decreasing. Regards, --TSpencer 07:43, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
TSpencer, none of what you just said has any bearing on what I wrote. Natural decay could have knocked out P21 on its own with out creating more information. If mice with out p21 did better than mice with p21 eventually the W/O mice would overtake the W/ mice in the rat race called life and there wouldn't be any more mice W/ p21. Try and abstract a little.--JimPT 17:08, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
I can see how you tried to come back around to an entropy sort of argument, but this is not valid for these rats with a deliberately removed gene. First of all, the second law of thermodynamics can be stated as "In a closed system, entropy is nondecreasing." You are somehow interpreting this as a law that order will emerge out of chaotic systems. While it is true that the second law can be viewed as a principle of equilibrium (Entropy has a maximum under a uniform source distribution, so nondecreasing entropy cannot exceed this bound of statistical homogeneity), this is not ordered but an euilibrium of a random system (still random). This statistical homogeneity is not evidence of order; rather, it is evidence of uncertainty (entropy can be viewed as uncertainty). Also, a single occurrence of more order (I'm assuming that this is the form your argument is taking) is not evidence of decreasing entropy, except within a local system that is not closed. Nature allows for local decreases in entropy, but on average for a closed system, it is nondecreasing. Regards. DanieleGiusto 19:59, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Dear JimPT, I understand your frustration at failing to see my point. Please bear with me and try to remain civil. I am specifically addressing the issue you raise in my previous post, but clarification may be needed. You say that under my hypothesis, p21 should have been knocked out. This is only the case if a knocked-out mouse has some kind of advantage over a p21 mouse. My point is that, originally, regenerative ability was a huge advantage, but has been lost due to mutations that progressively broke down the complex mechanism. As a result, the p21 gene emerged and is now more advantageous that the remains of the regenerative ability. The 'fossil' regenerative ability is thus evidence for the progressive lost of information to which the genome is subject. I'd like to elaborate on my use of the term "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Contrarily to what has been said, I do understand the physical meaning of the Second Law and its implications, and helpful contributors are perfectly right when they explain that the Second Law, by itself, says nothing for or against Evolution. When I used the term, I was trying to convey the impression of inexorable decay associated with the Second Law, that mirrors the Biblical account of the Fall. It it is a metaphorical, and not literal, use of the term, and I am sorry if that led to any misunderstanding. I firmly believe that comparisons between Science and the Bible can generate valuable insights. Regards, --TSpencer 07:47, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Alarmist "Global Warming" adverts banned in the UK

I wondered whether you might consider this story for the front page? RobertE 09:33, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

It is an excellent example of Socialism, RobertE! I will tuck it away for when one of the U.K. trolls claims they are still a Democracy. It clearly shows one arm of the government telling the other what it can or cannot do....pretty much a sham. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:15, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
I think you misunderstand what Socialism is, TK. This is an example of one arm of government doing its job to prevent another breaking the law. The Advertising Standards Authority has a statutory duty to ensure that advertising is legal, decent and honest. It has decided that the adverts on "Global Warming" were dishonest and, in the sense that they could cause undue distress, indecent. I'm surprised that this isn't deemed worthy news at a Conservative encyclopedia. RobertE 08:58, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
Terry, you might want to rethink this one. Robert might have a point here. In a previous triumph of British Democracy, the separation of powers was applied when a British court said that public schools could not present Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as true but had to point out a dozen or more falsehoods contained in the film. --Ed Poor Talk 16:50, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
One arm of the government telling the other what it cannot do does not indicate socialism. Our conservative founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances for the United States so that no branch of government would have too much power. DMorris 17:03, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
Nothing to re-think, gentlemen. It is clearly demonstrable that the U.K. has long ago crossed over from Democracy to a European Socialist state. The fact that in the U.K. there are competing boards and commissions issuing obfuscating "rulings" isn't checks and balances as we know them here.....but government by bureaucratic fiat...which is essentially socialism. Ed's example is correct, because that was truly a judicial review, the result of a legal action. I was speaking of nameless, faceless appointed government functionaries, never elected, never approved by the citizenry, issuing broad sweeping policy edicts. In the United States, DMorris, our Judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is appointed by another branch and confirmed by the third....quite different than the monolithic bureaucracy deciding. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:13, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
Again, I don't understand this point of view. As with the Jesse Ventura story, this is a clear binary decision. Where that one was publish/don't publish, this one is allow/don't allow. A board, appointed for one particular task, did its job: in this case, it prevented the government (or rather, unelected advertising officials appointed by the government, TK) from lying to the public. What should they have done? Are you saying that the lies about "Global Warming" should have been allowed to be broadcast?
I know I don't fully comprehend the American Conservative positions on all subjects. I'm British and we have far too much left-wing influence. In cases like this, I hope to learn from the insights of American Conservatives. So, TK, if you were on the ASA - what would you have done? Please help me understand your opinion. RobertE 17:45, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Taking the "big picture" POV, Robert, I am not arguing the specific decision but rather the process. Unlike Obama who yesterday argued (in spite of his continual statements about transparency) that one shouldn't be concerned with process it is very much important to American conservatives. For example, American liberals will argue our Constitution is an ever-changing and adapting document, and rightly so. Conservatives will point out that it is an inviolate document, a set of undeniable truths of God-given rights that should only be changed for very clear and present dangers. Me, I prefer accountability from our elected officials, not them handing off responsibility to a bureaucracy that is on the civil service and cannot be removed. See the difference? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:59, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

I agree with you entirely, TK. So to ask my question again: what would you have done? As I said, I'm trying to understand US Conservatism in terms of British situations. I hope you can teach me to be a better Conservative. RobertE 18:23, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
Sometimes one doesn't need new law or a commission. Isn't there public funding involved with the University? Are there not laws already in place about fraud? Those who perpetrated fraud should have been sacked and thrown in jail. Having an advanced degree doesn't confer some exemption from the law. If any kind of government funding was used, those blokes don't have any "intellectual property" whatsoever. I hope that makes clear what I would have done. That said, the "Big Picture" dictates we should have more concern about the whole process and the integrity we look for when entrusting others to do research. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:37, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
What University? You aren't helping here - neither in the article linked to, nor in the discussion so far has there been a mention of a university. Where does "intellectual property" come into it? Are you sure you put this reply in the right place? RobertE 18:43, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
University of East Anglia, Robert. Follow the dots.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:47, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
I agree with TK in this. It's good that they did something about the alarmists, but the UK's government is indeed socialist; just look at their healthcare system for example. God I hope these liberals don't bring that kind of circus here. Why so many questions, RobertE? DMorris 21:40, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
This isn't about whether or not the government is socialist and never has been. We have an election approaching and any examples of venality by the current government should be highlighted wherever then can. You may not like all of the Conservative Party's policies - and I agree they are nowhere close to the great days of Thatcherism - but you would like the Labour Party even less. There's no point in this debate now anyway. The window for the story has closed. Congratulations on benefiting socialism in this small way. RobertE 03:59, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Political correctness to the extreme

Police officers banned from saying 'Christian name', 'My dear', or even 'businessman'!


This may seem like a silly request, however, the section on the front page, 'In the News', it reads,

A scandal of Watergate proportions is being hidden by the Lamestream Media. Thankfully, Fox News is there to ask the tough questions but the White House just wants to stonewall the issue. Did the Obama Administration knowingly commit a felony in what is now called JobsGate?
I'd like to request that a wiki link be added to "JobsGate," which I added in the above quote. The Main Page is obviously the most popular for Conservapedia, therefore the front page is the easiest for Web 'spiders' to begin crawling the site (for SEO purposes). Currently, a quick "JobsGate" Google search (or "JobsGate Conservapedia") will only find Conservapedia's front page quote that I referenced above. If an internal wiki-link were added to JobsGate, I'm confident it will help the search engines find the main article for JobsGate rather than Conservapedia's front page. It's an easy fix, so hopefully this makes sense. Thanks! DerekE 14:30, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Will do Derek and good job.--Jpatt 16:06, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Question about the Menendez recall movement

I've read through the link provided in the news story, and through more than a few of the related links on this story, but I'm still left trying to understand a fundamental point. This is an interesting case focusing on the rights of state citizens to remove an elected official of their own state from Federal office, but what I'm missing is why there's such a pressing need to remove him via recall in the first place. Obviously people are disappointed with his votes, some of which have gone against campaign promises, but barring a criminal conviction or evidence that he wasn't properly elected, isn't this something that many politicians routinely do?

Scott Brown, for example, has severely disappointed many of the people who elected him with some of his first few votes, leading his supporters to question whether he's really representing the platform he promised in return for their votes. I haven't seen a movement to recall Brown, and he's just one example of any number of politicians from both parties, like Menendez, who seem to have pulled a bait-and-switch on the voters. Jon Corzine did a poor job as Governor, and I helped vote him out of office. I can replace Lautenberg when his turn comes up, and do the same with Menendez - all it takes is patience and finding the right candidate to represent my interests.

What I'm asking is that since Menendez was elected fairly by the majority of voters, why not simply vote him out at the end of his term as we can do with any elected official who disappoints? The recall petition needs only 25% of the voters to sign before moving forward, and this would seem to set a dangerous precedent where a minority of voters (25%) can tie up valuable government resources and Lord know how many taxpayer dollars trying to prematurely remove someone fairly elected by the majority. If either party loses an election, then this opens the door to endless backwards-looking challenges from the losing side rather than focusing on forward-looking plans to the next election cycle. The Tea Party, for example, is not primarily focused on recalling Obama or other incumbents nationwide, but on voting in the kind of people they want representing them instead in the coming elections.

The other aspect of this movement I find hard to fathom is that NJ conservatives who'd support this are also likely to support approaches to improving healthcare that include tort reform, i.e. simplifying the system and lowering costs by cutting down on lawsuits that consume time and money beyond the benefit to society. Using the courts to try and overturn fair elections just because a politician is breaking promises or legally voting for things against the will of some constituents seems contradictory to the principles behind supporting tort reform.

Sorry for the ramble, but if I'm confused about the need for this I'm sure many others are too. To that end, I'd like to request that an essay be created on Conservapedia by Andy to explain the issues driving this, and why pushing for a recall is needed as an intervention before the end of Menendez's term, since that opens the door for non-conservatives to challenge fairly-elected conservatives in the same manner. An essay like this would be helpful in getting the message out to a wider audience, and I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks. --ChrisY 15:09, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Fair enough. I'll start an entry now: Essay:Why Recall Elections Are Essential. If you think of a better name then I'll move it to your name. Feel free to comment on its talk page.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
ChrisY, while recalls should never be undertaken for little or frivolous reasons, it should be the right of the people to change their minds because of fraud, on the part of any elected official, who goes back on his word, because their word is what convinces people to elect them. In most areas intent to defraud, or just plain fraud, renders any contract null and void, no? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:34, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
You're right on most points, TK. I think the slippery slope in considering a recall is in arriving at a consistent, fair benchmark for what constitutes recall-worthy fraud. Call me a cynic, but I've yet to see the politician who doesn't eventually fail to deliver on one or more key promises pledged to help them get elected.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've had personal experience with contract disputes being settled in court based on what was explicitly put into writing and signed by the concerned parties, versus "what was intended" when the terms were drafted. Disputes over intent become a matter of sifting through conflicting opinions, while ruling on fraud based on formal, written contracts is more straightforward.
Regardless of what happens in the Menendez case, this could be seen as a call to demand that candidates sign formal, written pledges regarding what they will and will not do on behalf of their constituents if elected. "I will not vote for any program that causes a net increase in government spending", "I will not request earmarks of any sort", or "I will not vote for any bill that allows taxpayer dollars to fund abortions" are specific enough to judge a voting record against, and if a candidate refuses to make such pledges in writing as a contract, that says a lot as well. --ChrisY 21:18, 21 March 2010 (EDT)


The Politico link says Bart is a no vote and that nothing has changed. --Jpatt 16:06, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm aware that has changed its story (perhaps for tactical reasons), but I personally called Bart Stupak's office and it did not deny the earlier report. I'd like to see news that Stupak has rejected the Executive Order sell-out before removing it. I will take down the link, however.--Andy Schlafly 16:12, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
FOX News confirms what you said Andy--Jpatt 16:14, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
It is apparently a done-deal, John and Andy.....Stupak seems assured enough with Obama's word! Talk about a fool being blind. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:18, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
We'll see how bad Stupak's deal is almost instantly when pro-aborts, who threatened to vote no, will vote yes because they know Stupaks terms means zilch.--Jpatt 16:42, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Everyone already knows that Stupak's deal is a meaningless fig leaf. Perhaps he got a promise that the pro-aborts would not run against him the primary in exchange.--Andy Schlafly 16:46, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

If so, his entire argument that he claimed to be on moral grounds, is anything but. The Lord's judgment upon him will be far worse than anything the voters do to him. We should offer prayer for his soul! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:37, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Such a betrayal is sickening, frankly.--Andy Schlafly 17:46, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Yes, it is. But rejoice in your heart and let it not be troubled! Such examples are propelling the New Conservative Revolution, which will finally bring about real (and lasting) change. Every excess the liberals engage in, every vicious personal attack they launch against Palin and Christians in general, brings us closer by converting others who they make sick! Just wait until the Medicare cuts begin, the insurance rate increases and the new taxes start showing up in peoples paychecks.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:28, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Consider doing what my family has done today: Pray for the lawmakers that God would influence their minds and decisions. We can't abandon hope now, but have to trust His will will be done. DouglasA 18:34, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Excellent point Douglas. True hope is with God. The wicked will fail eventually and HCR is not a done deal by any means, even it it passes. We have the 10th amendment, the legal system and a motivated majority to right the wrongs.--Jpatt 22:40, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Hero Dad Killed While Rescuing Teen

A hardworking father of two, was stabbed to death trying to rescue a young family friend from a pack of bloodthirsty teenage thugs on a New York street, cops said. "For saving his life, we're going to take yours now," one of the teen attackers allegedly told Orlando Salgado, 26, before coldly plunging a knife into the good Samaritan's chest, said his heartbroken girlfriend, Reinalice Roman. [6]

These are the wages of a liberal, permissive society. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:11, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm confused - are you claiming a republican America is a crime free America or that God wanted him to die to illustrate that liberalism was bad?

He said that this is the result of a liberal, permissive society; it follows the liberal mantra "if it feels good, do it". The killers obviously felt good trying to beat the life out of some young kid; they felt good about taking the life of that kid's rescuer. To the first part of your question, the answer is NO; America won't be crime free no matter who's in charge. To the second part of your question, it's not God's will at all that anyone should die. But every time I pick up a newspaper or see the news on the web, there's always someone blaming the victim; there's always someone trying to let the killer get away with it; there's always someone stating the criminal is just a victim of society, and that someone is always the liberal. You can count on the liberal to do all of that, as well as portray those who complain about it and those who are continually victims of crime as racist or mean-spirited or bigoted or hateful. Karajou 13:05, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
No one blamed the killers for killing that man. And if you aren't claiming a conservative America is crime free then it's fair to criticize TK's statement as vindictive just for the purpose of being vindictive. There isn't any reason in that article or the scenario in general that would support the killing being a result of liberalism. Note that this isn't an argument pro or against stronger jail terms, more stringent criminal laws etc. It's simply an argument that there is little to no veracity to the statement that this is a liberal crime.
Don't be confused. Values matter, and anti-Christian attitudes have harmful consequences.--Andy Schlafly 12:56, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Are you implying that even though the majority of liberals are self-identified as Christian that they really aren't Christian and that their presence here precipitated the events that led up to the crime?
If the shoe fits...Karajou 13:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
What makes you think a majority of liberals are "self-identified as Christian"? Only 20% of the population is liberal, and less than half claim to be Christian. Many are atheists.--Andy Schlafly 13:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Well at least Karajou is honest about it Andy - despite that he must know it's a suspect claim. it is absolutely and unequivocally untrue that only 20% of the population is liberal. If you want to start citing credible sources on that then I'll give you some as well. Considering only 15% of the population identifies as atheist and roughly 40 to 50 % of the population is left leaning, even if we grant that ONLY liberals are atheist, then the majority still are not. What makes me think that most liberals self identify as Christians is because it is true. Well over 80% of this country is Christian. So slice the numbers anyway you like, Most libs are God fearing individuals. And seriously, it is ok to admit that we get carried away with our emotions some times and say ugly things in the manner of the original post. it doesn't mean you're catching the liberal disease.
If you as a lib self-identifies as a Christian, then what must you do now to ensure you go to Heaven if and when you die? Karajou 13:49, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Well I can tell you that it's not YOU that I have to justify anything to Karajou - so I don't actually feel the need to answer you. But for the sake of you turning it into a strawman, as a Baptist I need only accept Jesus as my lord and saviour. Incidentally, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm liberal. If you're definition of conservative is such that they must think exactly like you, then your world perspective is sorely impoverished. It is ok to say to another conservative that their bitterness and anger is emotionally based and that a statement was unfair.
Part of it you have exactly right: you have to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and that is between you and God; if you didn't, then you'll find out the alternative when it's too late. As to being conservative, you don't have to think like me as well. But you're not a conservative, are you? You're not a Christian, are you? I cite as evidence the postings you made above, which are repeated examples of liberal trollings that we've all seen too many times before. Karajou 14:01, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Wow. Good thing for me you aren't a good judge of character nor a judge of souls. I STRONGLY recommend you withhold your judgement of who's a real Christian and who isn't because whatever their beliefs, if they believe in Jesus they are saved. Period. I happen to be a conservative who wants the change the hearts and minds of the people around us - and your brand of libel isn't going to cut it. So i DO take issue with it and I may rightly criticize someone even if we are both conservative. What you call evidence is a statement that TKs blithe remark is emotionally based and unremarkable. Amusing you give me a quiz to test my faith and when I answer you, you just decide to accept your previous judgements. It is OK to be wrong sometimes.
Msalada, if you think it "is OK to be wrong sometimes," then please be wrong somewhere else. We have a 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk. Contribute in an educational way to substantive entries here, or go elsewhere to rant about your view of the world. Please.--Andy Schlafly 14:21, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Unsigned comments should be given zero weight from the get. However since the anonymous user has already been answered, I submit:

  • Was there anything that wasn't factual in my post? No, there was not.
  • It is beyond debate that liberal, permissive societies have been wrong on the administration of criminal justice at every turn.
  • The requirements for being "saved" isn't only a belief in Jesus Christ. One must also have a contrite heart and do good works.
  • Your original "argument" wasn't, because it was a posting about a news article, not a encyclopedic entry, and was quite obviously a statement of my own opinion, the second sentence, therefore your response was a complaint against my statement that liberal, progressive societies beget the kind of behavior cited in the news article, only a vehicle to make my personal opinion "wrong", to assume bad faith.
  • The fact you later claim to be a "conservative" marks your posting as the work of a liberal trying to have it both ways.

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:53, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Msalada came in to troll and push his liberal philosophy...and he didn't like me passing judgment on him? His own mouth accuses him, not mine. What disturbs me is his statement "No one blamed the killers for killing that man." Is blame going to fall on the mailman now, or the guy running the pizza joint across the street? Or is blame going to be placed on the murder victim? Or maybe I'm right by repeating what liberals have said for years, that criminals are just victims of society and Msalada didn't like hearing it one bit. Karajou 23:56, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
I think what he was trying to argue, as inelegantly as expressed it, is that the people to blame for this murder are the murders, and that they're not just victims of a liberal society.--Whizkid 01:10, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
I don't think he/she was thinking that at all. They did have a problem assigning blame, that much is clear. Nobody deserved to die, no one was forced to kill anyone, especially by the good citizens of New York. The so-called "kids" were little better than wild animals, judging them by their actions and words. If one had to profile them, they most likely come from broken homes, are "latch key" children, and were allowed unsupervised access to the Internet and Television, from which they learned their moral values. Their exemplars were Comedy Central, The Simpsons and ultra violent video games. It is doubtful they attended Church on even a semi-regular basis or were involved with the Boy Scouts or any organized sporting activities. They will at some point spawn and the cycle will be repeated. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:13, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

HC Bill

The House has passed Obamacare. Looks like Bill McCollum and Henry McMaster's going to be busy.[7]. Worthy of the main page? DMorris 22:58, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

I have to admit it is amazing to see the left all smug and comforted by this legislation enacted on a partisan basis. They obviously don't get how Marxism comes to power, nor do they understand that a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have. What happened to Ask not what your country can do for you?, it's been replaced with promises of utopia, of government unicorns giving you free healthcare. Trillions in debt and trillions for healthcare is a recipe by madmen. The government has a zero track record when it comes to reform. They just keep spending and spending. Now, by force if necessary, you must be a slave to the government. The Constitution made certain to keep D.C.'s power in check. They have crossed the line and the American people know it. They shrugged off the concerns from losing Scott Brown's seat (in liberal land), they shrugged off concerns of losing the governorships to Christie and McConnell. The government owns Mortgage Co., Insurance Co., Banks, Auto Co., Student Loans, it is never ending. 1/6th of the economy with health and your liberty. They are drunk on power and spending furiously. Oh don't worry about it, because it's what everyone wanted, Obama the candy man will save us. Keep letting them think they rule us, we rule them, they work for us and the majority of Americans are not liberal. The majority is connected like never before. Obama divides this house, we'll set the record straight because the battle was lost but the war will be won by We The People! --Jpatt 19:37, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
This is true. Conservatives are banding together like never before, and will absolutely dominate congress in November and the Presidency in 2012. I don't think it's a stretch to predict Obamacare will be repealed (if not already defeated in the courts, but the legal system probably won't move that quickly.) DouglasA 00:30, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

"Now that liberals are forcing Americans to buy "health care" products they do not want, the stocks of companies that benefit increase in value."

That's why I bought shares in pharmaceutical and health-care companies. Capitalism works. EMcCay 21:29, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Capitalism is freedom for producers and consumers. JacobB 22:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
I might add that forcing people to buy a product they do not want is hardly capitalism or freedom.
Perhaps what is "historic" about this vote is how nearly all the Democrats voted to give the insurance industry a massive handout, and force the public to buy its product. This is progress?--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
I'm making money. It's all good. Looking out for number one. EMcCay 00:24, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Maybe, but there's a quote from an book that you may have heard of that asks "What profits a man if he gains the world and loses his soul?"--Whizkid 01:14, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Constitutionality of Healthcare Bill

Suing to overturn the healthcare could be great but it could backfire. Suing it under the Commerce Clause is definitely dangerous, because that clause already has some terrible precedents. If it were found to be Constitutional under the Commerce clause, it would just set another horrible precedent. The ideal method of defeating it, would be through the Tenth Amendment, and if that happened it would set one of the best possible precedents. If the congress was held to obey the Reserved Powers clause, we'd be a lot better off.

--Double Edge 12:08, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Good point. And in addition to the Tenth Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment may also be a superb way to challenge these laws.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
It seems almost sure to backfire. The best opposition to this bill would be by targeting vulnerable districts for the midterm election, not offering a means for legislative and legal validation through the court system, which this bill will almost surely achieve. The alternative to the mandate (a fee) can be viewed as a tax, and as congress has the power to tax, the legislation is likely to be deemed constitutional. Why waste time trying to defeat a near surety? Repealing the bill under the next Republican administration would be viable as well. DanieleGiusto 15:42, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Daniele, since the year began you've made 5 not-minor edits to articles, 19 talk edits and a debate edit. Perhaps if you were a legitimate editor, I would respond to your claim - I might say that it needs to be established that this is unconstitutional, so that it isn't discussed again and again as Republicans and Democrats trade power over the next few decades, that a legislative solution only means the bill is repealed until the next liberal gets into the white house. But I'm not going to give any sort of in-depth response, because this isn't a forum for you to claim Obamacare is constitutional, and it's not a place where you can come argue with impunity. We're an encyclopedia, not a liberal-fighting machine. It is preferable, from our point of view, to simply ban provocateurs than to continually argue with them. Please, make substantive edits, and stop editing talk pages.JacobB 15:57, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Although Daniele does have a good point: the fee could be deemed entirely constitutional, as long as it's for just compensation, as the fifth amendment explains. This must be the case, otherwise taxes would be unconstitutional. This is from a conservative: the fifth amendment is not a good way to challenge this bill. It wouldn't defeat the bill in principle, merely require that there be a just compensation for the fee. The tenth amendment is the best way to go. If it was overturned by the tenth amendment it would be an incredible precedent, as politicians (republicans and democrats alike) tend to ignore Reserve Powers entirely.

--Double Edge 21:18, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

I haven't heard anything about-

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the ... right of the people."
Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United (Stevens) "when Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy."
James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 57, which appeared in the New York Packet on Tuesday, February 19, 1788,
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.--Jpatt 22:20, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Jpatt has some great quotes, and to respond to Double Edge's arguments, I agree the Tenth Amendment is a good claim, but also think it is unconstitutional for Congress to require person A to pay person B or else be fined. That is fundamentally different from taxation. By forcing one person to pay another private person (an insurance corporation), Congress is doing something it has never done before, and which the Fifth Amendment prohibits.

Note that there is not just compensation for this either, because person A would not pay person B in the absence of the fine. Person A may be a completely healthy 20-year-old who has no need for expensive insurance that Congress now forces him to buy. He's not getting value, and certainly not full value, for the expensive insurance.--Andy Schlafly 23:00, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

It is quite a bit more, requiring one person to pay another, than the tax on tea implemented by the King of England over 250 years ago, and we all know where that led! Is there any real difference between The Crown demanding payment on a private transaction, and the Federal Government requiring the same? What is next? Shouldn't all home sales be inspected, shouldn't we all be required to buy insurance that covers any deterioration to the home we sell? Perhaps with every live birth we should be required to pay "just a few dollars" into a malpractice fund for Doctors? And what about when we grow elderly? Shouldn't we be required to deed our house over to some government agency to cover long-term care if we didn't purchase it ourselves? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:18, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
Dick Morris mentioned that the Interstate Commerce clause was used to enact Obamacare. He says not only can you not buy insurance from other states (interstate), you can't force someone to buy and call it commerce. Thought it was an interesting view I hadn't heard before.--Jpatt 12:12, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Three broken promises as Obama signs health care reform into law

#1: Bills would be available online for viewing 5 days before he signed them.

#2: Taxes for middle class Americans would not be raised.

#3: He would issue an [worthless] executive order banning funding of abortion through the bill.

Jinx McHue 00:09, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

He did sign the executive order today, though. [8]--Whizkid 17:34, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
Yes, one he claims does nothing. Begs the question as to why. Now that's leadership! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:45, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
And the liberal double standard in how Obama signed the two documents is appalling.--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Tax on tanning beds

Unnecessary taxes are something all conservatives should fight against, but I have to question any opposition to additional taxes on the sale or use of tanning beds. The American Cancer society classified these as a serious cancer risk in 2009, and short of making them illegal, increasing their cost through taxes is an effective deterrent to their use, especially by teens and young adults. Conservapedia should view increased taxes on these harmful, stupid devices as comparable to additional taxes on tobacco - as long as the revenues actually go to related healthcare purposes, they are an effective free-market approach to addressing a public-health risk. --ChrisY 20:30, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Years ago I would have agreed. Make the smokers pay, and deter their bad habit. Ditto for other vices. Then I taught economics and realized that addictive goods are highly inelastic: increasing their price does not reduce their demand much. Next I saw how government spends those taxes, often on things like abortion that cause even more harm. Finally I looked at who ends up paying those additional taxes: segments of the society that can least afford it, and which need the money the most. Overtaxing these addictive goods or activities is perhaps the worst kind of tax of all, hurting the economically weakest segments of society. They need that money that government is taking from them.--Andy Schlafly 20:41, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
I thought about your comments, Andy, and they make perfect sense where something addictive like nicotine is concerned. Tanning isn't addictive (unless you're George Hamilton), so I'd like to think there'd be more elasticity, especially since sunlight is a free, if less convenient, alternative. --ChrisY 20:51, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
You may be right about tanning not being addictive, but I doubt a 10% price hike is going to deter much. And there still is the problem that this type of tax often hits people who need the money the most, and they can spend money better than the government can. Should we really be taking from the less privileged to give to more privileged, like Al Gore's wasteful green energy projects or Planned Parenthood's 6-figured executives?--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
ChrisY tanning can be addictive, especially to those addicted to pop culture! The junk on television and the Internet portraying "celebrities" cavorting on endless white sand beaches all with golden tans, convinces many people they can be popular and successful if they look the same. No one I know who has accumulated personal success and/or wealth has much time to cavort on those beaches -- they are too busy working 80+ hours per week! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:17, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Suggested News Story

I read this story about a man whose life was saved by a blood transfusion in his teens, who chose to "pay it forward" by being a dedicated blood donor himself. He's donated an amazing 984 times over his life since then, and because his blood also contains a rare antibody, his gift has helped save the life of over 2 million babies (that's not a typo).
When you give blood or platelets, you are sharing a unique gift from God with others in need, and as the Easter season arrives, there are few more fitting ways to perform a true act of giving in support of life. --ChrisY 09:27, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

Amen. The article should have also stated that government cannot replace the role of the blood donor, and that as government squeezes out charity from the health care system it squeezes out contributions that government cannot replace.--Andy Schlafly 10:49, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

GOP forces vote

That story had some whoppers in it. GOP offers 29 amendments and Democrats (party of no) shot each one of them down, surprise surprise. Democrats held to their convictions giving Viagra to sex offenders. That is clearly to benefit drug lobbyists & future campaign donations. Criminals= liberals best friend. --Jpatt 10:37, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

I don't know that the Democrats shot down the amendment banning giving Viagra to sex offenders out of any great love for sex offenders or drug lobbyists, but more because they were shooting down every amendment for procedural reasons, to try to keep it from going back to the House for a vote. That let the GOP offer a lot of amendments that would be embarrassing for Democrats to vote against. It's certainly funny, and kudos to the Republicans for doing it, but I don't think it represents any special Democratic love for sex offenders.--Whizkid 00:28, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

Obama Zombies

Quick suggestion here, the news article about "Obama Zombies" links twice to the article on Obama in the same sentence. I recommend either removing one of the links to Obama, to make it less redundant, or to switch the link on the phrase "Obama Zombies" to the page for mind control. Sol1221 18:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Excellent idea, Sol1221! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:37, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

California's budget woes

How to make $20,000,000,000 a year, WITHOUT legalizing marijuana, WITHOUT selling off our public universities, and WITHOUT cutting costs to education, health, police and emergency services, etc.:

+ 1,800,000,000 Offshore drilling

+ 10,500,000,000 Close the border with Mexico, send illegals home

+ 3,000,000,000 Ignore the endangered carp in the Delta and give the Central Valley farmers their water back

+ 995,000,000 Cancel the ridiculous high-speed rail plan9.95 billion over 8-11 (call it 10) years[9][10]



As you can see, this is still almost four billion dollars short - but the 16.3 billion saved by this plan is a huge bonus. I'd love some more contributions!

Good estimates, but closing the border with Mexico would probably take some time to become profitable. The increase in architectural security, increased police/border patrol, and routing out the illegals would take a lot time, effort and money. The payoff, however, would be well worth it. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:13, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
That's a good point. It is difficult to say if rounding up illegals would be worth it, fiscally. However, relatively inexpensive border enforcement measures would pay off huge dividends a few years down the road, as no new illegals come in and existing illegals begin to apply for resident alien status (most do, except migrant workers).
Let's keep that item in the calculation for now, but who knows? If a few people identify more liberal policies costing my state billions, we might find we can make a surplus, and we won't have to worry about how long that particular item takes to cut costs at its full effectiveness. JacobB 20:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
Obviously you are both haters, anti-animal rights and anti-union! Barack intends to grant amnesty for all those illegals, and if you oppose that you are obviously dangerous people who spit on members of Congress and threaten them! And what about the SEIU? Barack promised them he would grant amnesty and increase the union membership and dues! I just cannot believe how closed minded people can be. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:25, 27 March 2010 (EDT) Yes, this is indeed sarcasm.

I do not think this is well thought out. Offshore drilling yes, so long as it isn't anywhere where the economically important tourism industry would be impacted, furthermore the economics of drilling in the Pacific are different then drilling in the Atlantic, it's much steeper on the edge of the pacific plate because of the whole subduction zone thing. Illegals, It will cost money to get rid of them, in this economy we wont miss the labor so that will be fine, however most of that money (7.7 of the 10) is spent on their children, most of whom are legal citizens, how much is it going to cost to put those kids in foster care when we ship off their parents? Water yes you will help the farmers, and you may destroy the delta and loose a species of carp forever, extinction is permanent, you also loose the habitat for your salmon runs, and with out the salmon spawning habitats you don't get salmon for fishermen to catch and you end up destroying an industry forever and loosing back most of that money you make in this one drought season, not selling water to the golf courses would be a better choice economically, at least that is only one season. Highspeed rail I don't know enough about this project, but if it reduces the amount of time people spend on the roads it will reduce the medical costs from the particulates from exhaust and the amount of road maintenance that has to be done on roads, and the number of traffic cops needed.

The simple answer is to cut spending, to rewrite the california constitution so that the people cannot vote for a new program and vote to block the new taxes to fund the new program. --JimPT 18:36, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

That's absurd. Do you really think the people would re-write California's Constitution and remove the only brake they have? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
Getting rid of the illegal aliens BEFORE Obama forces you to pay for their health insurance would mean a great saving, which I doubt is covered in that figure above. --Newton 10:26, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
A brake? I'd call it a break, as in it is breaking California. It gives them permission to do things on debt. If the people had to vote for some project and a bunch of taxes in the same measure then at least the spending would be tied to the taxing, and some of the spending wouldn't go through. Right now all of the spending goes throught, and the bill eventually comes whether you vote for it or not.

Rand Paul conservative?

Rand Paul is the son of little l libertarian Ron paul, the guy is even named after Ayn Rand. Conservative =!= libertarian. --JimPT 18:36, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Rand Paul gave a terrific speech to a conference I attended about six months ago. He didn't address the source of his name, but someone in the audience said that he wasn't really named after Ayn Rand. So while I had the first impression that you do, I'm not sure you're right about the source of his name. Note that Ron Paul himself is very different from Ayn Rand: Ron Paul is pro-life and pro-faith.--Andy Schlafly 01:12, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
Here's Rand Paul himself, explaining, that while he's a fan of Ayn Rand's books, he's not actually named after her. His birth name was Randall, given to him by his mother, he went by Randy as a kid, and Rand was the nickname his wife gave him. [11]--Whizkid 17:32, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

News Suggestion

Switzerland, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world: Newton 10:23, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

Isn't Switzerland the poster child of the pro-gun movement? I thought that every man in Switzerland was required to possess a firearm in the household, and that recreational shooting is very popular there. Am I mistaken? -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
You would be correct. Not sure where you thought Switzerland had the strictest gun laws in the world, unless by gun laws you mean how weapons are actually required in most households. I would assume you mean strict gun laws as in gun control, like what the liberals want, however. Crime happens sometimes, regardless of gun control. Then again, I would not think guns are allowed in casinos in the first place. Sol1221 16:39, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

Steele is the next profligate who needs to go

Have you read about the profligate spending of Michael Steele? He's wasting Republican money on corporate jets, fancy hotels and dens of iniquity [Ed.: link to gossip site removed], including spending $1600 in a "bondage themed nightclub in West Hollywood" featuring perverted performances. When can we get rid of these corporate fatcats? Glenn Beck for leader of the RNC, please!!!! KipDonner 15:20, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Kip, peddle the liberal double standard somewhere else. Pelosi and other liberals are far "fatter cats" than Steele will ever be. Why aren't you complaining about them?--Andy Schlafly 15:39, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

New News Headline?

There's a new Mason Dixon poll in Florida [12] showing that only 54% oppose the passed health care bill, and among people over 65, that number rises to 65%, and also that 52% oppose President Obama. These numbers are especially bad for Sen. Ben Nelson, who only enjoys a 36% approval rating, dropping to 29% among seniors.--Whizkid 22:48, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll post now.--Andy Schlafly 23:19, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Father gets harsher punishment than daughter's rapist after punching attacker

This is sickening. I don't know if it is linked with the rise of liberal values, but criminals walking free is certainly a disturbing trend. --TSpencer 07:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

More public school and homosexual values for you

'Lesbian' Teachers Charged After Being Found Naked in Classroom

Two female teachers from James Madison High School in Brooklyn are being charged with misconduct after allegedly being caught naked together in a classroom.

French teacher Cindy Mauro, 34, and Spanish teacher, Alini Brito, 30, were discovered by a school janitor who caught the "undressed" instructors allegedly sharing a kiss in the empty classroom at James Madison High School during a Nov. 20 assembly.

Liberals caterwaul that we're supposed to stay out of people's bedrooms, but how can we when their "bedrooms" include public school classrooms (among other public places)? Jinx McHue 10:42, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Shocking story, indeed.--Andy Schlafly 11:23, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

WBP and Phelps Leftist?

Whilst I abhor the WBP and their practices, especially protesting at soldiers' funerals, to what extent could they be considered leftist? They are against homosexuality, somewhat doubt they support evolution and I think they would believe in abstinence education. I also don't see them as the type supporting expanding government programs.

It's also been reported that Bill O'Riley has offered to pay the legal fees. Good for the family, but I hope they get some chance to appeal such that the money doesn't need to be paid in the first place. Also, it should be Phelps' (or Phelps's) in the news item. EDIT: Forgot the link Aslate 20:54, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Phelps ran on the Democratic ticket ... he has contributed financially to the Democratic party. How is that not liberal? -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
I will say, though, that liberals and conservatives alike would probably find his behavior disgusting. There is very little good about that man. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:06, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
This has been discussed here for years, Aslate. Given his MO, is there any doubt he is liberal? He disrespects funerals for fallen hero's, supported Al Gore, and even donated office space to the Democratic Party a few years back. Liberals like to pretend he's right-wing, so they can attach that idiot's agenda to conservatives. God doesn't hate anyone, even liberals like Phelps. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:09, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
Great points, Jeff. But I took the headline down (which I almost never do), because it just brings more unjustified attention to the non-encyclopedic story.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
Interesting to see the story taken down, I agree with your stance that not giving him attention is a good thing. I'm still not sure on "he's a liberal" though; he did support the Democrats but that seems to have stopped since 98 and he even protested at Gore's dad's funeral. Maybe he once supported them for some reason, perhaps they furthered some cause he was for, but that may not be the case any more. Aslate 21:19, 31 March 2010 (EDT) EDIT: Anyway, i'm new here so don't want to over-post, and i've just looked at the talk page for Phelps, I see you've talked over this before. Aslate 21:21, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
No problems, mate. Newbies get a few mulligans before the we sick the dogs on you.
On a related note, this story does go to show the charitable nature of Bill O'Reilly. Though I understand we don't want to give this pathetic sack of flesh any more attention than he deserves, it is refreshing to see a that sort of kind gesture from O'Reilly. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:25, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

In point of fact, where O'Reilly is concerned, he is living proof that conservatives are far more charitable than liberals. All of the proceeds from his merchandise goes to a charity, one of the largest is summer camp for underprivileged kids. He distributes something like $1 Million a year or so, from that venue alone. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:33, 1 April 2010 (EDT)