Talk:Main Page/archive88

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Death by Segway

News item: "A British businessman who last year bought the company that makes the Segway scooter fell to his death off a cliff in northern England, apparently while riding one of the vehicles on his estate. [1] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:00, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

Yup. Those things are dangerous, and somebody actually died on one. I can't think of a similar incident involving a car. BrentK 09:47, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

"Tow" the party line?

The sentence should read "toe" the party line. The phrase is meant to imply a line of men all standing on exactly the same line--i.e. a party with no variations in thought. Enjoy the day! BrentK 09:46, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes, you are correct, sir. Thanks for the heads-up! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:46, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Bible verses on main page

I love how we have Bible verses on the main page, but am wondering as to why the quotes are taken from the NIV translation, instead of Conservapedia's translation. Can the quote be changed to reflect the more concise Conservapedia version? The current quote should be: "So I pray that your love will still grow in knowledge and insight, so you can discern what is best and be truthful and sinless until Christ's return." --TeacherEd 20:37, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

terrorists being afraid of United States and ending of attacks. Osama is evil, but not stupid

Osama is evil, but he is not stupid. Osama is quite aware of the spending of Obama and previous presidents and our national deficit and trade deficit. Bottom line: The United States is currently not in a financial position to fight costly wars and we cannot sustain it without drastic cutting of social spending which we are very reluctant to do. I do not see Obama and the Republicans telling US citizens we are going to cancel the Medicare and Social Security programs so we can win our current wars and pay down our deficit. Here is the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars: This is the financial shape the United States is in: America will Collapse - Jim Rogers,Gerald Celente,Max Wolf,David Walker,David Vickers,Jack Cafferty On top of this, I believe the drone attacks in Pakistan is also killing non-combatants and if I am not mistaken in their culture when you kill someone in their family, the surviving male family members are socially obligated to seek vengeance. There are a lot of people of Pakistani descent in the United States plus we have a fairly porous border with Mexico. conservative 18:33, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes, but your logic goes haywire here. You are assuming one must fight as we have been fighting......and that simply isn't so. There are many means at our disposal that have never been tried. We fundamentally differ, as I am not a proponent of isolationism, but one of engagement. In the ongoing battle of good versus evil, we are all, in my opinion, Christian Soldiers. That doesn't mean fighting yet another futile ground-based war, but using our technology and brains. We both agree that the liberals have deliberately weakened us, and now a majority see it also, and have begun to turn it around.....and that is a good thing! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:45, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
Our war fighting technology is not changing all that much and the battle in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not on favorable terrain. Second, I am not an isolationist. The United States needs an army of sales people opening up foreign markets and reducing our trade deficit and national deficit and not an expensive contingent of soldiers in foreign lands that we currently cannot afford. The US also needs an army of workers making things and providing services within the United States. The huge federal public sector and the US military industrial complex is pulling resources away from investment to the private sector. Does the US need a military? Of course. But we are choosing to get involved in ill conceived wars at a time we cannot afford it. Lastly, Woodward's new book the Obama Wars shows us a military leadership who believes the Afghanistan War is going to go on a long time and not end soon if we are going to keep fighting it (the military leadership wants to keep fighting in Afghanistan).[2] conservative 19:01, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

Someone please contact Bill O Reilly for his terrible interview with atheist and liberal Bill Maher

Biil O Reilly and Bill Maher both moccked the Noah's ark account when Bill O Reilly interviewed him. My suggestion is that it's time that we Christians and conservatives here need to call out Bill O Reilly for that. I emailed Mr. Oreilly and someone else I know did too. Even Answers in Genesis called him out recently. What I'm saying is that someone needs to contact Bill O Reilly for putting the Bible's name down. Bill O Reilly is a good commentator, but he should know better than that. He should have used his head before he unknowingly decided to offend many Christians and conservatives alike. Willminator 11:28, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

Did you actually see the two parts of the interview? If you did, it is hard for me to comprehend how you draw the conclusions you have. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:00, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
I have seen it, and I didn't like it. I also knew Ken Ham was going to write about it in his blog. Willminator 10:01, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
O'Reilly doesn't speak for the conservative movement. I'm not sure he even thinks of himself as a conservative, so your comments are not surprising.--Andy Schlafly 22:23, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
A lot of conservatives watch him though and have high expectations of him. His show is also the highest rated show in all of cable television. He should know better than that. Willminator 21:03, 10 October 2010 (EDT)
Caveat emptor with respect to the media. But please feel free to express your complaint to FoxNews, and thanks for expressing your views here.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 10 October 2010 (EDT)
I emailed Mr. O Reilly, but thanks for your concerns. Willminator 22:55, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, Lots Of People Would Like To Throw The Book At Obama, But...


Does anyone doubt that if it had been a CONSERVATIVE author throwing his book at Obama, he'd be locked away in a deep dark cell and accused of all manner of heinous crimes? --Benp 18:14, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

The guy threw a book, nothing more. That's not the kind of thing that leads to more serious accusations of all manner of heinous crimes. Sorry, but in attempting hyperbole you're just overreacting. Nate 18:23, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
Am I? I don't think so. I think that had, say, Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter shown up and thrown a copy of one of their books at President Obama, the liberal media would have had a collective conniption over "inciting violence" and such things. --Benp 19:04, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
The Secret Service views anything thrown or hurled at the President to be an assault. Doing so, in the strict sense of the law, is a Felony. Of course their boss is a politician, so some common sense, some accommodation has to be applied. If Ann Coulter threw a copy of one of her own books at any President she would indeed be detained and questioned, most likely told she was being a jackass, and then turned loose. Same for Beck. Of course neither of those people would ever make such an attempt. But the law is very, very clear on this matter. Even making a casual observation that you wish some kind of violent misfortune to befall whoever is President is indeed against the law, and a Felony, and their are dozens who didn't consider that....and their lives have been utterly destroyed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:14, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
But the point of the story is that the guy was a goof who made a mistake. He wasn't talking about harming the President, which is illegal. He was described as making a mistake. I don't think anyone else making the same mistake would have been treated differently. Nate 00:57, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
You miss the point. The Secret Service cannot afford the benefit of the doubt. All potential threats are always taken seriously. That said, yes, of course the Lamestream media certainly would have blown it up completely, if it had been a conservative. But that is really a truism in their world, which is why they are slowly dying, the liberal media. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:04, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
Well said, TK. My first comment was poorly phrased; I meant it as a criticism of the media, not the Secret Service. --Benp 20:00, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Class on shop safety

I see that people are offering courses here. Is there any interest in a short course, maybe 1 quiz, on shop safety? I can also offer some pointers on home maintenance that have saved me a lot of money. Nate 00:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps you would also like to offer a course on the building trades? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:06, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
Sorry but I don't know anything about construction or whatever goes into building trades. The most I know is replacing shingles, patching drywall, basic electric and plumbing, etc. I've been a machinist 16 years and have time for machine shop stuff if there's interest. Let me know. Nate 12:44, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
I believe an article on basic shop and machine safety would be beneficial, Nate. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:28, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Chilean Miners Freed...

Surely, if there's a good example of a miracle, this would be it--aided and abetted by good old American know-how and ingenuity! God bless the rescued miners, and the men of Center Rock Drilling and Schramm who helped effect their rescue. --Benp 17:34, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Exactly...through the Grace of God, this is indeed a good example of the power of prayer and the importance of never losing Faith! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:43, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Quantitative burning?

Is Ben Bernanke aware that Obama wants to engage in quantitative burning?[4] :) conservative 05:07, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

MSNBC's new "Lean Forward" slogan and campaign

Now that MSNBC has finally admitted their liberal stance with their new Lean Forward slogan and campaign, would it be now safe to say that MSNBC is not part of the liberal mainstream media anymore, but now part of the radical new liberal media movement? Also, if the mainstream media is not afraid to admit that MSNBC is liberal, and if the NBC executives, the website (to the point that the website wants to change it's name so as to not associate itself with the cable channel anymore), and even the mainstream media are trying to distance themselves from MSNBC, wouldn't that give even more credence to my first question? Willminator 16:06, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Given the number of viewers MSNBC can now claim, and their demographics, it hardly matters. If not for their fellow travelers in the Lamestream media parroting what they say over there, no one would ever notice. Or care. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:04, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Hispanic life spans

re: Hispanic lifespans

Diet plays a role too probably due to less fat in diet commonly.[5] Plus, Hispanic men probably have less stress in their families due to less feminism. :) Of course, this is just one of the many benefits of machismo, which is something Western atheists have a hard time relating too! :)[6] Not that it matters to many atheists since the marriage rate for atheists is significantly lower. :) Of course, the "machismo effect" will never be discovered by liberals as it will never occur to them! :) conservative 23:47, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

In the news

Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement - The Wall Street Journal. This article does a very good job of explaining why and how our education system has failed.

Neither professors of political science nor of history have made a priority of instructing students in the founding principles of American constitutional government. Nor have they taught about the contest between the progressive vision and the conservative vision that has characterized American politics since Woodrow Wilson helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the Constitution had become obsolete and hindered democratic reform. [...] Those who doubt that the failings of higher education in America have political consequences need only reflect on the quality of progressive commentary on the tea party movement.
DerekE 20:16, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia has a Google trifecta!

Conservapedia has a Google trifecta! Take a look HERE. :) conservative 05:39, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia has a Bing quadfecta! Take a look HERE. :-D DerekE 11:59, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

He LOST the nuclear access codes!?


Okay, it's one thing to make snide comments about Clinton's peccadilloes and flaws, but this is no joke; this is terrifying. And Carter did the same thing? How is this not bigger news? And how are they going to ensure that Obama doesn't make the same mistake? --Benp 20:37, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

I read about this today and it is truly terrifying. Thank God that no terrorists got their hands on the codes when they were lost. I pray that Obama won't be making the same mistake as Carter and Clinton. --TeacherEd 00:24, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
Rest assured it takes more than merely knowing the codes, that much I know for certain. Thank God! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:36, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

Rangers/ Yankees Post was funny!

Even though I'm a Yankees fan, I was glad that my favorite state got through. One of the reasons I love conservapedia is they're willing to point out the obvious.

Great Article! Can this be put up on the main page?

I know MSNBS is usually pretty ridiculous, but this is actually a really exciting article; it's about how American Catholics are fighting to retake their church from liberal influences using the internet. --WillS 16:23, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

2010 Midterm Election Predictions

  • Will Republicans gain 40 seats in the House? 60? 70? 6 in the Senate, or 10? You don't have to be specific, but what are your own predictions about total House and Senate losses for the Obamabots?

9 Senate seats, and 60 in the House is my best estimation as of this early Saturday morning. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:34, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Liberal gene...

Actually, the more I look at that (minus the positive spin, of course!) the more I think there might be something to it.

Notice that the gene they're talking about predisposes the person to seek "novel experiences." Now, that's a nice, neutral term, but there are a lot of things that fall under "novel experiences" that aren't so nice. How many times have we heard someone say they tried drugs "just to see what it's like?"

It could well be that there's a genetic reason that drug abuse, casual sex, and illogical behavior tend to come together in people with liberal political beliefs. --Benp 18:51, 28 October 2010 (EDT)

Just to get pedantic, terms like "gene" and "brain" are often used so loosely. We blame genes for anything inherited, even attitudes (which are elements obviously passed through talking and what not); and we talk about the brain as if it constitutes the entire mind.
As Christians, we know that there is life after death, and that even after we die we retain the memory of our life (see near-death experience). That's why so many people are afraid of Hell. After death, it's hard to escape the regret of all the good things we wish we had done and all the bad things we wish we hadn't. There's no regret if there's no memory. I wonder what scientific work has been done to distinguish mind and brain (see John Eccles, maybe?). --Ed Poor Talk 13:26, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Based on liberal hypocrisy, liberal hate, liberal spin, liberal toy-with-the-facts, liberal couldn't-see-the-facts-if-they-were-nailed-to-their-faces, I would think it would be more accurate if we call it the "stupid gene". It replaces the "common sense gene", which liberals seem to be born without. I wonder what kind of government grants these "scientists" will get now for "discovering" this new side to idiocy. Will they go on a world-wide band wagon the way Al Gore does with global warming? Karajou 13:42, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

We need a series of articles on ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination (the latter in the sense of choosing someone or something for no good reason except that they're in some group you happen to like). --Ed Poor Talk 14:02, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
Not only is the liberal scientific community saying that liberals have an extra gene in them that causes liberalism, but they have also said that liberals are more highly evolved than conservatives, that liberals have a higher IQ than conservatives, that the reason why people are conservatives is because of fear, and that liberal brains have a higher brain activity than conservatives. Don't take any of these studies seriously as they are politically motivated. Scientific studies are never done randomly. The scientific community has an agenda against political conservatives. Just like they have tried to discredit the Bible through "science," they are trying to discredit us through "science." Also, these studies have the capability in promoting discrimination and prejudices. By the way, what about those conservatives who used to be liberals? Have they lost the liberal gene through a mutation? Have they devolved? Did they become dumber and why? Did they become weaker? Do you see what I mean? Apparently, the scientists haven't take into account that there are many people who used to be liberals. Willminator 16:14, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
Former liberals like Ronald Reagan, Will, exactly so! Liberals are predominately made up of pseudo-scientists, who can talk a good game, I grant you, but that is what it is....a game. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:54, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Rally to Restore Sanity

To be fair to Stewart (and Colbert), I happened to catch the end of the rally on the internet and one of the videos they showed basically showed people from both sides making extreme comments. It would flash from Beck making one to Olbermann saying one, so on and so forth. Every other person was from the left or right. That kind of shows that he was at least admitting both sides are at fault when it comes to bad information in the media, even if its mainly from the left.

That aside, I would like to see statistics on how many people went to the rally. Liberals are characteristically pretty lazy, so I would be shocked if the turnout was even a quarter of any of Beck's rallies. Sol1221 21:32, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

The key phrase you used was one of the videos they showed . One of the press reports I read said:

Stewart is popular especially with Democrats and independents, a Pew Research Center poll found. Colbert of "The Colbert Report" poses as an ultraconservative, and the stage Saturday was stacked with entertainers associated with Democratic causes or Obama's 2008 campaign.

Organizing for America, President Obama's political operation based at Democratic National Committee headquarters, was setting up a "Phone Bank for Sanity" after the rally to urge people to vote on Tuesday.

I watched most of it, from beginning to end, and I must say it was a bit spooky...people rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or perhaps more apt, people awaiting the Obamageddon. What they said was very reminiscent of the gatherings I witnessed first-hand around 1970-72...the same phrases and calls for "power to the people". Those in the crowd who weren't clueless seemed to realize liberals had been given yet another chance, blown it, and like 1980 and 2000 were now going to be consigned to the ash-heap once again. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:50, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
I read a transcript of much of Stewart's closing remarks and found them to be utterly incoherent. It seems like Obama is almost the only Democratic politician dumb enough to appear with Stewart, and not even Obama would show up at today's idiocy.--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Cellphone Story

The cellphone story seems to be inaccurate, based on the references provided. Republican landslide victory coming on Tuesday!!! ColinS 23:03, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

Are you referencing the Crist-Meek incident here?--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
It was the story I just removed about cell phones for the poor. Based on the citations given, it appears whoever added it mistook the stories as being one thing, but they are another, Andy. The correct point of it was why is the Federal Government taxing cellular users to provide low-income people with land-line or cellular service, when that rightly is a local issue or something the mobile service providers should be offering on their own as good citizens. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 03:16, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
It appears as if some off wiki liberals took exception to the main page post. Those off wiki liberals apparently are not recognizing the fact that Obama and the Democrats have been in power. The cell phone program was started under the faux economic conservative George "Bailout" Bush, but Obama and the Democrats could have ended the cell phone program if they wanted, but chose not to. Furthermore, the call to action to throw out the big spending lawmakers in Washington is also correct. conservative 03:33, 1 November 2010 (EDT)