Talk:Main Page/archive94

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rick Santorum

Running for president in 2012. I already modified the article. --SethC 13:53, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

We Are a Wiki, Right? That doesn't repress legitimate comments or complaints?

I must say I was quite shocked to see my comment unceremoniously removed as a "complaint". Is that what conservatism is about now? Ignoring difficult questions and situations?

Is anyone else a bit confused by the fact that we're using open-source software but that editing is EXTREMELY limited outside of discussion pages? I checked, and every single "popular" article on the main page is locked. Why bother calling this an encyclopedia and giving the pretense of freedom, implied by the use of the wiki software, when in reality this is essentially a blog?

What would you like us to unlock? All you have to do is ask. Controversial pages on most wikis are locked and unlocked periodically, in response to vandalism or contentious editing.--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Delete the "Extinction" article?

The article on Extinction seems to imply that evolution is real by talking about species and their "descendants." -[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 20:14, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

The article looks fine to me. Evolution is not a prerequisite of extinction. Perhaps it should be merged with extinct though? --SethC 13:55, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Headline Issue

It says in the headline about Bachmann getting closer to a presidential run that Newt and Trump dropped out. Newt needs to be switched to Huckabee --Esmith543 18:30, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Obama tried to stop the Osama raid

Has anyone seen this: [1]. Apparently Barack Hussein Obama tried to abort the mission that killed Osama, but was overruled. Is this grounds for impeachment? It is tantamount to protecting the world's most wanted terrorist, and implies collusion in the deaths of over 3000 Americans. Thank God our soldiers did what they had to do despite Obama's efforts to stop them and side with Muslim terrorists. AngusT 16:53, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Maybe it's a coup against the Commander-in-Chief. Rob Smith 17:05, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
"SkyNet became self-aware." --Jpatt 17:41, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
So, given the discussions above demanding absolute transparency people are now taking the word of an obscure 'news' site printing a 'communication' from a completely unnamed 'source' which completely contradicts all available evidence? WilliamB1 18:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes. Are you in any way surprised? RobCorti 18:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh what do you know about anything RobCorti? You are just spoon-fed media soundbites and nod your head in agreement. WilliamB1, open your mind. The source is only obscure on the left. Unless you have been asleep for three years, how can you believe a thing Democrats proclaim? Obama can't be trusted on the small things, how do you trust him on important matters? Also, you would recognize a pattern of indecisiveness from POTUS aka Ditherer-n-chief. Fits in perfect with the story. There are so many stories out there I don't know what to believe and that's by design, thanks to a complicit media. --Jpatt 20:21, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
It truly is astonishing how paranoid you all are. RobCorti 21:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Truly, you have an astounding intellect, RobCorsi, to be able to diagnose a psychological disorder on all of us, all without a degree in the science. Astounding! Karajou 22:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
It is true. I do not have a degree in 'the science'. I've also apparently being spelling my name wrong all this time. RobCorti 23:03, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
ABC News set the permanent record straight on "what everybody was wondering" in the first five minutes of its broadcast; Hillary did not hold her hand to her mouth in shock, she was suffering from spring allergies. At least we have those facts straight. Rob Smith 21:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Thank God for ABC News. Forgive RobC, he is from a higher species of knowledge. No need to question anything, move along like zombies. --Jpatt 21:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps we should all bow down in homage to the occasional representative of Smart-Guys R Us[2], who spend a few minutes of their time on a daily basis to convince us about learning proper wiki-editing the old-fashioned liberal way. Golly, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves if it weren't for them...we'd probably be just a sorry bunch of lemmings near a cliff! Karajou 21:51, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
You DO know that lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs, right? So no, you wouldn't do that. RobCorti 22:03, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Of course I wouldn't jump off a cliff. I'm not a liberal. Karajou 22:29, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
AngusT, have you seen this one [3] which makes perfect sense. Since Bush and the neocons, as everyone knows, blew up the World Trade Center with thier al Qaeda stooges, and Obama has reestablished the relationship (which goes back to the Soviet-Afghan War) in Libya, it makes sense to off bin Laden. He knew too much. Rob Smith 22:01, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
I read that the WH story has changed 27 different times in 3 days about what happened to bin Laden [4]--Jpatt 00:13, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
I don't consider Iran to be a reliable source, but none of this addresses the fact that Obama tried to abort the mission (he just loves abortion, doesn't he) that killed bin Laden. This is protecting a terrorist and treason. Impeachment seems not to be enough, can he be brought up on treason charges? AngusT 13:37, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Let's see, can he be "brought up on treason charges" for a mission he ordered which succeeded without a hitch, purely on the vaguely-worded statement of an unnamed insider that he tried to stop it? Let me answer your question with another question, AngusT, can I have you put behind bars for that murder you didn't commit yesterday, because someone accused you of wanting to do it? JDWpianist 16:38, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
AngusT, I don't think Obama tried to stop the raid at all. Take that story with a grain of salt, just like the other two or three thousand stories that appeared out of nowhere by people who never had access to any pertinent info; that's a lot of conspiracy tales about one man and one event in less than 24 hours...maybe a new world record. Here's story number three thousand and one: Bin Laden slipped on a banana peel, banging his head open on a toilet pipe. SEALS never got him. No proof, but maybe it's true 'cause I said so! Karajou 17:08, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Australian 'Greens' Leader melts down after hard questions on Sky national news network

This article from well known conservation opinion columnist Andrew Bolt [5] discusses the break down and includes a youtube video.

"Brown accused the Murdoch media of dragging down the debate [on Carbon Taxation] and forgetting its true role of “moving Australia” forward, which he interpreted as backing a carbon dioxide tax."

--DeanHamstead 07:53, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Sermon from Royal Wedding

Many Americans may not have understood the need to watch the Royal Wedding, however billions watched and listened. Many conservatives who tuned out may have missed on an excellent sermon [6] from the Bishop of London. For many this may be the closest to religion they will get!

--DeanHamstead 08:07, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm American and I watched it. Thing is it was really early in the morning here. DMorris 14:04, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Wisconsin item on MPR

There are numerous things wrong with your summary of the article and the way it is portrayed. For one, the cream puff has not been named the official state dessert; it has only been introduced to the legislature by a Republican state legislator, and even then at the innocent suggestion of a 4th grade class. Also, your summary says that liebrals voted for the cream puff to be the official state dessert; in addition to the vote having not occurred yet, the state legislature in WI is controlled by Republicans, and the bill would have to be signed by Republican governor Scott Walker. Did you even read the article, or are you just slamming liberals with no regard to both reading comprehension and the truth? I' going to assume that you didn't read it. Your summary is all assumption, lies, and innuendo. TedCarter75 00:48, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I reworded it slightly to address your comments. More generally, I encourage you to lighten up a bit.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Wikipedia More Accurate For Political Information Than In The Past

Thanks for linking to the intersting article[7] on the research of Brigham Young University's Adam Brown. It's a pity that the article mislabeled Conservapedians. But a more interesting question is: is there a similar analysis for Conservapedia? I tried to repeat Brown's test for Conservapedia on a much smaller basis using only the last governatorial elections, but sadly even the articles on current state govenors are lacking in depth - and a couple of govenors don't have a personal article at all. AugustO 09:50, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Lost in translation

Since I very much doubt the terrorist organisation originally released a statement in English, I'm guessing that what the media is reporting is a translation, which likely explains the use of the term God rather than Allah. As such, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement on this basis alone. WilliamB1 13:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

That significant problem aside, the current wording doesn't make sense anyway: "but the repeated references to "God" rather than "Allah" such a lack of authenticity."??? WilliamB1 13:15, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
I concur, isn't Allah simply their word for God? JacobSmith 13:27, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Christian Arabs call God Allah. It's no different from Spanish-speakers calling God Dios. DouglasL 13:44, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
No, "Allah" is not the same as "God" - that's why they are two very different words. The phrase "God bless" also suggests a lack of authenticity. But good catch on the typo, which I've fixed.--Andy Schlafly 14:02, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
The original Arabic communication refers to "Usama bin ladin rahamat Allahi" ... Or "Osama bin Ladin, mercy of God/Allah", depending on how you insist that "Allah" be translated. --RahamatAllahi 21:21, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Even if you personally disagree with the idea that Allah translates as God, it nonetheless remains the case that some people believe it does; and as the information noted by the previous post indicates, this is the situation here. As such there is no reason to assume that the statement is not authentic based on this issue. WilliamB1 22:24, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
"God" is not a name as such, but an office or title. DevonJ 22:56, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Devon, are you serious? I hope Heaven isn't run by a bureaucracy!
As to the retranslation of the surprisingly quick statement, the phrasing still seems unusual to me (and thus not necessarily authentic), but perhaps more discussion here can analyze it further.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
In the Decalogue God says, "I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me." If the word "god" is not an hierarchical term then perhaps God is an idiot? DevonJ 12:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I don't know for sure if you speak Arabic or not, but the phrase "Rahmat allah" (minor "correction" to what I noted above) is actually relatively common. "As-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmat allah" (peace be with you, and mercy of god) is a longer form of the common Muslim greeting. As well, the version "Rahmatullah" (spelled the same in Arabic script) is a well recognized name.
The original Arabic sounds perfectly natural, but translating it literally without making it sound stilted can be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The point to take away though is that the original Arabic does use the Arabic word "Allah", complete with the special ligature. This is simply the case of a translator deciding to render "Allah" as "God". A choice that is linguistically sound (as "allah" simply means "god"), but unusual to people who are accustomed to Muslim texts rendering "Allah" as "Allah" rather than "God". Poor word choice of the translator should not however be construed as reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the original statement. --RahamatAllahi 09:22, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Allah means God? There is a sound theological case to be made Allah means Satan. So let's stop with the generalities. Rob Smith 10:24, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I, for one, would love to see you make that case with reference to Arab-language scholarship, Rob. LloydR 10:56, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Hmmm, we're talking about the English language. And I'm not certain in Islam, where there's no separation of church and state, there's historically toleration of dissenting views. Let's call it NPOV. As to Christian scholarship, no one argues Jehovah God amended his statement, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9). The Koran, Islam, and consensus of Arab scholars all deny the resurrection and divinity of Christ. So clearly, Allah is not the same God of the Judeo-Christian bible. Rob Smith 14:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
To be clear, I did not say that "Allah" means "God", I said that "allah" means "god". In that, when talking in Arabic about Thor, and Zeus one uses the word "allah". So, in the same way that "ein Gott" in German means "a god", "un dios" in Spanish means "a god", and "kami" in Japanese means "a god", the word "allah" in Arabic means "a god". This should not be meant to imply that the Muslim god is the same as the Christian god. Rather, it is a simply translation of the generic terms. In order to distinguish between "allah" (generic) and "Allah" (Muslim god), the former uses contemporary spelling rules (إله, a-ll-ah), while the later uses a special ligature that uses more archaic spelling rules (ﷲ), or an unusual version of contemporary spelling rules (الله‎, a-l-l-ah). This is much the same way as European languages use capitalization to distinguish between a generic "god" and the Christian "God". --RahamatAllahi 14:16, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes that would fit with 2 Corinthians 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them [8] Rob Smith 14:31, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
As the Quran says to Christians: "Our Allah and your Allah is one". Islam says that Muslims pray to the same God as Christians. Maybe you can claim that God isn't speaking to them, but it doesn't change the plain fact that they're trying to talk to the same God we are. BradB 14:38, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes I understand the etymology of the Semitic word, "Elohim (sometimes El or Elah), English form "God," the first of the three primary names of Deity, is a uni-plural noun formed from El=strength, or the strong one, and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness", [9] however I believe we are discussing doctrinal differences. Rob Smith 14:48, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
"Allah" is an English term distinct from "God" or "god". There is nothing to translate term "Allah" to in English; it is English.--Andy Schlafly 14:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
"Allah" is an English transliteration of "الله‎". There is nothing to translate the term "Allah" to English because it is already an English transliteration. If you want to translate (not transliterate) "الله‎" to English, it translates to "God". This is doctrinally and etymologically supported, as noted above. BradB 15:05, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

This has become a theological/semantic debate and while interesting, it does nothing to change my original point. Even if you may disagree with how the media has translated the term, as the original statement shows, the term Allah was used. Given the apparent absence of this term was the grounds for questioning the statement's authenticity, it is not longer reasonable to do so on this basis. WilliamB1 15:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Ok, so who changed Allah to God, and where was it published? Was it a government counterterrorism source reprinted in the media, or a media source itself making the alteration? Rob Smith 15:21, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Someone most likely working for a media organization translated the original Arabic into English so that English speakers would be able to understand it, and that personal translated "ﷲ" as "God". The validity of that translation is linguistically valid, but theologically debated. (Muslims widely insist it is the same god, while many Christians assert that it is a different god.) It is apparent however that the translation was done without regard to any theological arguments, and as such is, in my opinion, a poor translation. Context (theological or otherwise) is absolutely important in any proper translation. --RahamatAllahi 22:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
So the assertion is made a media translator is feeding us bulldung rather than the U.S. government. That answers my question. Rob Smith 00:13, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

# of people who think obama was born abroad

I would like to point out a problem in the mainpage text about the % of people who believe that obama is not a natural born citizen, in that the link says that it was around a quarter last year, and is now at around 10%. Although reading it. it seems rather confusing, stating 77% believe he is a NBS, and yet 10% do not, with a missing 12%. For the actual text "the percentage of those who say Mr. Obama was likely born abroad has fallen from 20 percent in a Post-ABC poll one year ago to 10 percent in the new poll; only one percent of respondents say they have "solid evidence" to support that belief." IF i have mistaken something please let me know ^_^--SeanS 20:42, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

The article implies a massive jump in the number of people who think Obama was born in the U.S., but the poll numbers don't really support the theme of the article. Note how the article implies at the end that people who doubt Obama was born in the U.S. are wrong! Is that unbiased reporting?? Are pollsters supposed to take a position that an answer is wrong??--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Well, true; it is kind of biased. However, the point of this is that the specific poll the article talks about does show a drop in #, so the mainpage is still inaccurate for the given source. .--SeanS 23:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
What do you think is inaccurate about the main page headline? We often cite articles for their facts, not for their biased opinions. After removing the bias, the facts are that nearly 25% of Americans still have doubts about whether Obama was born here.--Andy Schlafly 00:01, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
In 2002, a poll showed that nearly 20% of Americans still had doubts about whether or not Elvis is dead. Neither of our figures speak to the truth of the matter nor persuade in the least. BradB 13:57, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
The statistic suggests a lack of credibility.--Andy Schlafly 15:34, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


Every single news article on the floods that I have seen uses the term 'flood' or some derivative of it. Even the cited article uses it in the headline. I think a story on the main page should focus on the actual issue, which is the floods themselves, not a concocted story with no basis in fact. WilliamB1 15:16, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

No, the article avoids using the term "flood" ... and not even your headline here uses it!--Andy Schlafly 15:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Forgive me, but irony often doesn't come across well in written communication. You are joking aren't you? (I ask in all seriousness). Or are you actually suggesting that using the literally and scientifically correct term 'flooding', which is derived from 'flood' is part of some plot by the media? WilliamB1 15:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm not joking, and I'm not suggesting a "plot". There is an undeniable secularization of language. Or do you deny that?--Andy Schlafly 20:17, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that 'flooding' is a secularization of 'flood'? I must say, I enjoyed the secularization of language essay, but I think the link here is a bit strained. EricAlstrom 20:33, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I welcome other attempts to explain it. Atheistic newspapers do not prefer "storming" to "storm", but they do prefer "flooding" or "flood-waters" to "flood". I bet newspapers also prefer "Christian" to "Christ".--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Shall I google that for you, Andy? Seriously though, it's an interesting question, which I wasn't sure about before googling it myself. The difference between "flood" and "flooding" is grammatical. A flood is a self-contained event that happened in the past, because it's the noun form. "Flooding" is the active verb turned into a noun, which is typically used while the event is still happening, because it's not sure what the extent of the flooding will be before the flood is finished. For comparison, consider "lies" versus "lying." JDWpianist 11:14, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Please excuse my incredulity, but meteorology aside for a moment, I cannot quite get my head around the notion that the word 'Christian' is somehow secularized. It is by its very definition not secularized; it is the very antithesis of the notion of secularisation. WilliamB1 10:26, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Actually thats true. christian is the term for people who follow jesus, and so is kind of not secular. what term would you prefer for those who adhere, truthfully or not, to the teachings of christ? If we read what you wrote wrong, and thatwasnt what your getting at, let us know :)--SeanS 10:36, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Maybe we should compare the source story to the Genesis 6-9 narrative (KJV - my personal favorite and what I have within arms reach). I found the following - the news story has two instances of "flood" and six of "flooding/flooded/floodwaters". Gen 6-9 in KJV has two instances of "flood" and six of "flooding/flooded/floodwaters". Are you suggesting, then, that the KJV of the Bible is as secularized as the MSM? EricAlstrom 11:47, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

(Sorry for the two posts, I had an additional thought that just came to me :) When I was growing up, my church was particular to using the phrase "Followers of Christ" instead of Christian, which I actually prefer, even now. So, if something along those lines was what Mr. Schlafly was saying, I happen to agree. EricAlstrom 11:51, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
Right. I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian". Most church names (e.g., "Church of Christ") don't use that term either. It's a diluted term preferred more by atheists.
Ditto for the secularization of the term "flood", which is obviously reminiscent of the Great Flood. "Flood-waters" is a particularly silly secularization - does anyone think it might be anything other than water in natural disasters?
As to the KJV, note that the initial references are to "flood" in Genesis_1-8_(Translated).--Andy Schlafly 13:01, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
So, two things. Firstly I was surprised to learn that the term 'Christian' is apparently preferred by atheists when the logic of the secularization theory would suggest that they'd omit any reference to Christ whatsoever. Secondly, based upon that revelation, I was surprised to find that this website is apparently filled with atheist material. At this very moment I count 6 uses of 'Christian' and 1 of 'Christians' on the main page. Will all of these be changed to 'believers in Christ'? WilliamB1 13:27, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
I know plenty of liberal churchs that use christ or some form of that, and my church (a fundamentalist bible church) also calls us christians., infact, we use it every single sermon. so, christian isnt ALWAYS secularization. --SeanS 13:59, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Christian vs. Christ

  • Christian and Christ are not interchangable terms. A Christian is a follower of Christ: he belongs to Christ, he isn't Christ.
  • Modern translations of the Bible often use the term Christian where you find in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ), in the Lord (ἐν κυρίῳ), believer (πιστός), etc. in the original Greek version. The CBP is no exception to this rule: see Galatian 1:22, 1 John 4:1
  • The first mentioning of the word Christian was in the Bible: According to Acts 11:25, the term Christian (Χριστιανός) was used in Antioch for the followers of Christ (Χριστός). A Χριστιανός belongs to Χριστός in a similar way as a ROMANUS belongs to ROMA.
  • The term was meant to be deragatory, but the apostle Peter advised his brothers not to be ashamed (1 Peter 4:16): εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ.
  • I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian". That's wrong: the first Christians may have had problems with this term, but the early Christians hadn't - at least not after Ignatius of Antioch made the term popular. Keep in mind that early Christendom' is generally seen a the time before the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
  • So, before there even existed a sizeable number of atheists, the term was in common use!

AugustO 14:51, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

"Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? " (James 2:7)
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. " (Acts 26:28)
"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. " (1 Peter 4:16) Daniel1212 22:28, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

...and with that I think the notion that 'Christian' is somehow a secularized version of 'Christ' has been disproved. WilliamB1 16:41, 10 May 2011 (EDT)


I'm slightly confused as to how Thor is a conservative movie. Can someplease explain please.--SeanS 19:40, 7 May 2011 (EDT) Good question. Natalie Portman is in it, she's no conservative. Ronsin1976

It's a tale of good versus evil, based on a comic book hero. And like most comic book stories, it is far more conservative than liberal. Spiderman was an other example of a conservative movie based on a comic book hero.--Andy Schlafly 20:26, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I fail to see how the actors matter, and Ahh, i see now. thanks for explaining ^_^--SeanS 20:51, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism

The Biblical Archaeological Review, not a conservative Christian magazine, recently published an article [10] by Yosef Garfinkel entitled, “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism” which i think some would find edifying, as far as it goes.

Biblical minimalism,” as it is known, has gone through a number of permutations in the recent past. Its modern career began about 30 years ago, when BAR was still a youngster. Since then it has been part of the ongoing debate regarding the extent to which historical data are embedded in the Hebrew Bible."

In the mid-1980s the principal argument involved the dating of the final writing of the text of the Hebrew Bible. The minimalist school claimed then that it had been written only in the Hellenistic period, nearly 700 years after the time of David and Solomon, and that the Biblical descriptions were therefore purely literary....

THE FIRST NAILS IN THE COFFIN. The discovery of the fragmentary Tel Dan stela (lower left) in 1993 provided the first extrabiblical evidence for the existence of King David. The Aramean king who erected the stela in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. claims to have defeated the “king of Israel” and the king of bytdwd, or the “House of David...”

Related: Daniel1212 20:09, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Trump Ratings

I don't draw the liberal/conservative connection on Trump's ratings. In fact, I'm not surprised at all that the recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice went down in the ratings. I don't know why this season (and previous ones) have had episodes lasting two hours, when there's about 30 minutes of entertainment in each one. But three hours for any show is boooooring. I've watched almost every episode of the Apprentice, and I felt like I should have won $20,000 to donate to the charity of my choice for winning the challenge of sitting through the three hours of this week's episode. And since it's happened to him before, you think he would learn from his mistakes. Just my $0.02. --MarkN85 16:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

The Presbyterians are becoming Unitarians

Have you seen this? There is no denying that this is bad news, but the silver lining is that it will allow church's that adhere more faithfully to the Holy Book to make converts. JimmyRa 00:33, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Even the article in the liberal New York Times admits that:
The Presbyterian News Service estimates that approximately 100 congregations have left the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the last five years. Several were large congregations, which could help explain why the vote in some presbyteries switched from 2009.
Yes, the news isn’t all black. Though, I do find it disturbing how the homosexual agenda has infiltrated some of the more liberal “churches”. I think the remedy is the study of scripture and prayer. But some kind of campaign is also needed to save those in denominations that have strayed. JimmyRa 11:31, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
The PCUSA and other liberal churches might as well become Unitarian. If you don't believe in the entire Bible, there's really no point in believing in any of it. DavidE 11:34, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Parrots & Starfish

I noticed the link on the front page regarding parrots talks about how parrots actually understand what they are saying and not just repeating things they have heard, but the page for parrot says otherwise. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if this page just needs an update, but I really don't know anything about parrots and feel like I'll put something incorrect if I were to edit it myself.

And on an unrelated note I wanted to mention that the article on starfish states the evolutionist's point of view as if it were fact ("Fossil starfish resembling today’s have been found dating back 450 million years.")and doesn't give any creationist's answer. I was wondering why this could be, and if anyone could fix it. I honestly don't know a thing about starfish and wouldn't know what to write there. (Sorry for mentioning this here but that article doesn't have a talk page.)

Starfish content fixed. Evobabble removed. conservative

StephennE 02:05, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

The parrot page does need an upgrade and additional content. I did see the video with the African gray parrot being able to understand simple language, but that bird could be an exception rather than the rule. As to starfish, I don't know that much about them, but I do know one is best friend to a sponge on TV :P Karajou 02:49, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
TK and Mr. Schlafly both told me this is not a young earth creationist website but "Conservative" is an admin who gets to remove "evobabble" when a lot of Catholics like me accept an old earth. Both perspectives on age should be presented because there is no consensus among Christians which is correct. Nate 12:09, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
I like how fast this was responded to... I got a response a few hours after I posted this. :) @Karajou I think that just proves, rather, that any parrot of that species can be taught to understand human language to an extent. Many other parrot owners have said they think their bird understands some language based on the context they use words in. Nonetheless it is worth mentioning in the parrot article. ;)@Nate Yeah I don't see any reason not to give both points of view, but that article had only one, and the one that is contradictory to the general population of Conservapedia's viewers no less. It's just that Christians generally don't believe in old earth/evolution because the Bible doesn't specifically support the view and that you have to stretch the meaning of the Bible to get an old earth context out of it. Read literally it points to a young earth. But whatever, I'm getting off-topic. StephennE 20:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
I did say that the parrot talking and understanding "could be" the exception here, so I could be very wrong. Now, if we could train them to make coffee, then a lot of problems would be solved! Karajou 20:54, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Haha yes, I would pay just to see a parrot make coffee, no less own one that does! StephennE 20:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
First, I don't accept that it actually is contrary to the general population of Conservapedia viewers. Second, it doesn't matter unless that speculation has recently overridden the editorial policy TK and Mr. Schlafly told me. This is not a YEC website so it's not fair that "Conservative" gets to go around removing "evobabble" when regular editors will get blocked immediately for changing his edits. I also don't accept your story about literalism. There's more than one way to do it. As to Genesis, definitely not all Christians believe in a young earth or reject an old earth and the theory of evolution. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is consonant with Catholic Church doctrine so non-YEC Catholics (the majority by far) are not "stretching" anything. I take it you've never heard of the Day-Age Theory or Framework Theory if you think YEC is the only way to read Genesis. These are exegetical methods for interpreting the creation story; they do not conclude that God created the earth and its wonders in 6 literal 24 hour days 6000 years ago but that the story is allegorical. The Vatican endorses teaching and learning about the theory of evolution as well as the possibility that it explains the diversity of life. The Vatican has never in recent history endorsed the YEC method of reading Genesis. Therefore you will find that a lot of Christian Conservatives in this country and elsewhere don't accept a young earth. They're just not Calvinist YECs like this site seems to sometimes portray as the only Christians in this country. Nate 08:04, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Re: evobabble - Setting aside the issue of the accuracy of evobabble and the often transient nature of evobabble, the material was not footnoted and was not presented in a way that was appropriate with a counterbalance YEC remark. Due to other matters I wanted to attend to off wiki, I chose the most expedient way as it seemed the problem was not being fixed by others. conservative 10:52, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Since you chimed in here that you were removing it you could have simply put a "fact" tag on it like we do at wikipedia. I'd document the statement if I could find it in the page history but it doesn't seem to be there. Where did it go? Nate 13:56, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
I never said there is only one way to interpret the Bible and that only my way is correct, I said that the general population of Conservapedia viewers are YEC (As evidenced by the fact that there are so many articles here regarding why evolution/old earth is incorrect, and not many, if any at all that support old earth/evolution). And I've always felt like Catholicism is almost a different religion entirely, they always seem to support things contradictory to what Protestant Christians believe. I heard Catholics who support homosexuality, certain liberal attempts at making America more secular, gun control laws, and even one who said that the Bible is wrong.(Yes, a Catholic I was talking to once told me he thinks the Bible is completely incorrect... He says he thought that people have been revising the Bible so much throughout history that it doesn't even resemble what it once did, so he comes up with, in his own mind, what he determines to be right and wrong, what to believe and not believe, etc.) Okay, I'm done ranting... This is getting way off-topic again. StephennE 15:25, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Interjection: Catholics are certainly Christians. What your describing is not mainstream Catholic belief, and I assure you there are also Protestants who believe the same things you describe. Small factions's beliefs should not be used to determine ideology.--IDuan 17:54, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Re: Interjection: I never said they weren't, and I know that those people I were talking to were outside the mainstream belief of Catholics, I mean that it seems whenever I come across someone like that they are Catholic. But on the evolutionist/old earthist thing, it seems that a rather large number of Catholics do believe in that. More so than Protestants, anyways. StephennE 22:41, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
With all respect, I'd rather hear from someone who will give me permission to edit the article and who will restore the "evobabble" so I can work on adding some YEC balance. Nate 15:35, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Shouldn't a YEC add the YEC details? How much do you know about it exactly? But I don't see the point in restoring it, it was a short sentence and would need to be completely reworded anyways just to give a truly neutral point of view. It would have to say something like 'According to the evolutionist point of view... etc. etc. etc. insert evobabble here etc. From a YEC standpoint the Starfish is etc. etc. etc. insert YEC P.O.V. here etc.' When what it said before stated that starfish fossils were found to be 450 million years old (using flawed radiometric dating)(Which needs a citation at any rate) as if it were fact that they were so many millions of years old or whatever. Restoring the text would only mean you would have to delete it again anyways, since the sentence was too one-sided. StephennE 16:42, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

AP poll

Hello, I think in the item about the AP-GFK poll, the word should be "skewed" rather than "skewered" EricAlstrom 20:16, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Arnold and Marie

Given Arnold's own admissions of inappropriate behavior with females other than his wife, is it really fair to imply Maria was the cause of the break-up? SharonW 13:01, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Sharon, if Arnold had married a conservative in the first place, they would still be happily married. BradB 13:10, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
Brad, maybe if he had honored his marriage vows, they would still be happily married. I have no patience for adultery from anyone and blaming the spouse is the easy way out. He's the only one responsible for his behavior. SharonW 09:22, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations? Daniel1212 18:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Che Guevara

Wikiquote is one of a family of wiki-based projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and it favorably portrays [11] the murderous Che Guevara - the rebel "brain of Castro]], and type of Bin Laden (also killed quickly, after capture) and hero of the Left.

A conservative view is can be seen here: [12] Daniel1212 21:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

So in a few years we can look forward to bin Laden posters and T-shirts on college campuses as bin Laden assumes his iconic status at the head of a national liberation movement against the imperialist and capitalist oppressors. Rob Smith 12:06, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

maybe not MPR worthy but

[13] how much of a hypocrite osama was >.>--SeanS 09:57, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Australian Atheist Convention/Economy

I thought I should point out that while the supposedly conservative Victorian state government is funding that atheist convention, the Federal government's most recent budget gave $222 million in extra funding to the National School Chaplaincy Program (source) - which, of course, atheists are having a whine about despite it being welcomed by schools.

I'm also not really sure that the economy is "descending downwards". Unemployment is below 5%, official interest rates are also below 5%, the currency is pretty strong and GDP grew by 1% last quarter. This is pretty good compared to most other developed countries. EJHall 21:20, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

It is still moving in a downward direction plus somewhat dependent on supplying commodities to China and Asia rather than manufactured goods.[14][15] Until China develops a wealthier populace overall and other trading partners, I would tend to think it is fairly dependent on the U.S. economy which isn't in good shape. I tend to agree with Peter Schiff, who if memory serves, essentially said that over the long term and perhaps in the short term as well, it doesn't make sense for China to keep loaning the USA money when Chinese could be enjoying more of the fruits of their labor. I think you misread what I said (or merely read too much into what I said) as I merely declared the Aussie economy is descending downwards. It would be helpful if I knew more about the historical trend of Aussie GDP, but nevertheless I cited a number of good indicators that the Aussie economy appears to be heading for a recession that is on the horizon. conservative 21:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
By the way, the Chinese economy is slowing. [16] On the other hand, experts such as Jim Rogers and others have cited some good reasons why they are bullish on Asia long term. One thing that is positive that is happening in China is that Christianity is growing rapidly within their country which is a very positive thing in terms of further improving their societies health. conservative 22:42, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
Whether or not the Australian economy will experience a recession in the future (and it will), my point was simply that an economy with low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, a strong dollar and positive GDP growth can hardly be described as "descending downwards".
The boom/bust cycle of economies is well documented - every economy in the world (including Australia's) will experience a recession at some point in the future. It may be that Australia is on the brink of a recession, like the US was in 2007/2008, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying that the economy is descending. EJHall 01:07, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Princess Diana

There appear to be two contradictory stories on the main page. In one liberals are accused of promoting conspiracy theories regarding the death of Princess Diana. That in itself is odd since there is nothing to suggest that holding such views concerning this incident is limited to any particular political ideology. A more recent story asserts that the liberals are trying to censor the film containing these conspiracy theories by banning it. Firstly, that is factually incorrect since the film has not been banned nor are there any indications that it will be. If you try to divide every story, every issue and everything in existence between 'liberal' and 'conservative' you are always going to end up contradicting yourself at some point. WilliamB1 09:54, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

As the story goes, Lady Di was murdered in a CIA plot at the behest of the MI-5 & the British royal family because she was pregnant with a Muslim's child and there was concerns about a Muslim being in the line of succession for the crown and head of the Anglican Church. Rob Smith 12:11, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
Well, I'm not sure if this film is actually banned in the UK. From what I've heard the director decided not to air it because his lawyers warned he would certainly face libel charges. It would be similar to a clockwork orange when the director chose not to air it here if that was the case, but like I said I am not sure at all and I might be completely wrong. TonyB 13:24, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
Am I to assume that no one else is concerned about contradictions and factual errors appearing on the main page? WilliamB1 08:52, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes. Yes you are. LloydR 09:04, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
No, that seems odd to me as well. I'm starting to become a little concerned at the veracity of some of those stories. (See Below.) JacobSmith 10:04, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
You're probably a liberal then. Open your mind. LloydR 11:19, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

"Atheistic Canada"

Canada is not an atheistic country. Around 81% (~81.176053808769415063614587991816%) of the population is religious, with 16.5% (~16.532555800146664694042839114026%) reporting no religion. Data here. Please change that line. Thank you, JacobSmith 23:20, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

The culture of Canada has been increasingly atheistic, far more than the United States.--Andy Schlafly 12:29, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
While statistics suggest that the USA is more religious than Canada, the gap is not particularly large. A 2008 study puts the non-religious figure for the USA at 15.0% [17], while another from the same year puts it at 16.1% [18]. The first study also shows that the number of non-religious people has increased in both absolute and relative terms between 1990 and 2008. WilliamB1 12:37, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Open your mind and look beyond meaningless statistics. You would never, or at best rarely, hear a Canadian PM end a speech with "God Bless Canada." Even Obama does that on a regular basis. The word "God" does not appear on Canadian money. There's no Canadian equivalent of the National Prayer Breakfast. Canad was not founded by people who came to the New World to seek religious freedom, but by the descendants of people who came for commercial reasons. LloydR 12:47, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
I think the good old-fashioned method of asking people about their religious beliefs is more likely to yield a reliable measure of religious affiliation than counting the number of times a single person uses the word God or the size of the font the word 'God' is printed in on money. WilliamB1 12:51, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
It's not in ANY font size on the money. Talk is cheap. PRACTICE is what matters. How many Canadians go to church on a regular basis? Can they pray in classrooms? Can they get taxpayer funded abortions? Do they teach Creation in schools? Do they have burdensome gun control? Can homosexuals get married? All of these speak more to the relative atheism of a culture than what people tell an anonymous pollster during a cold call at dinnertime. LloydR 12:56, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
You are right about some of them at least being relevant for measuring religious belief; though I fail to see, for example, where firearms come into religious belief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many references to semi-automatics in the Bible. And if we are asserting that such surveys are likely to overestimate religiosity by not accounting for all such factors, then the logical conclusion is that the proportion of non-religious people is even higher than the results stated above for either the US or Canada. WilliamB1 13:01, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Owning firearms sort of goes into the whole 'freedom' thing. You know, that thing that liberals don't like. StephennE 17:14, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes and please remember, being "not religious" is not exactly the same as being an atheist. There are many non-religious types that believe in a divine presence but to not uphold religious customs or principles. Ronsin1976 13:09 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Plenty of either economic, political or religous liberals go to churchs regularly... so, "church going amount" is a rather bad way to decide how religious a community it is--SeanS 16:35, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Carrying on from what Ronsin1976 said, being "religious" is not exactly the same as being a christian, or even being whatever particular denomination you happen to follow. You have to remember, that although the ethical and moral choices a person might make may not be the same ones you yourself would make, this doesn't necessarily reflect on how religious they are. People can be religious and support concepts that might go against your particular brand of religion; in their eyes however it is completely acceptable to do these things, and they might even be following their particular brand of morals out of a very deep seated sense of religious duty. If their choices are right or wrong is irrelevant when asking how religious they are. The choices of a government don't necessarily reflect on the views of the people within the government's country. If 51% of the population vote for a particular party, 49% of people still opposed it. Making blanket statements about the views of people based on their origin is meaningless. TonyB 17:39, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Re:LloydR I'm not sure if you're serious or simply churlish, so just to be safe I'll answer those questions for you. How many Canadians go to church regularly? 20% on a weekly basis, 34% monthly. Pray in classrooms? Yes. Taxpayer funded abortions? Varies by province. In mine, yes. My province has a law that allows prayer in schools if the majority of parents petition for it. I'm proud that my childrens school has recites the Lords Prayer every day. Creation in school? No. Though during my education it was dedicated a week, but that's likely a special case. Gun control? I believe this to be a political issue, not a religious one. (Yes, for now. That's likely to change soon.) Homosexuals get married? Yes. I like to think we traded God on our money for referencing God in our national anthem twice. That being said, the stat I gave lumped all religious groups together as that was what was relevant to my point. Multiculturalism is something Canadians view with a sense of national pride, and I think this is part of the reason Canada may look atheistic. (Not holding public religious services because they might offend others, or some such.) JacobSmith 20:10, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Jacob, a simple search on the internet yields many sites discussing the decline of Christianity in Canada. Here's one: "Plummeting attendance shows Canadian church faces 'extinction'." [19]--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Schwarzenegger reveals he had child with staffer

looks like it wasn't his wife that was the problem... [20] --SeanS 08:16, 17 May 2011 (EDT)


Can I just point out that Britain has a largely Conservative government. While you would be right to assert they are perhaps not as conservative as the Republican party in the USA, they are engaged in a huge spending-cuts program - similar to that being advocated by US fiscal conservatives - which is vehemently opposed by the political left. I was just curious as to which aspect is considered 'liberal'. WilliamB1 12:25, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Our Tory party isn't very conservative in US terms - they support gun control, abortion on the NHS, keeping Creation science out of schools etc. etc.. Interestingly though, the UK still has classroom prayer - indeed every state school is obliged to start the day with a Christian prayer, and the state is quite happy to fund explicitly religious schools. The UK is generally much more liberal than the US, but in this respect it's quite the reverse. I've always wondered why... Jcw 08:53, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
That is an interesting anomaly. But note that the UK doesn't really have "classroom prayer," which is beginning an academic class (like history or biology) with a prayer, as I do in teaching homeschoolers. Instead, the Brits have a beginning-of-day prayer before any classes, breaking the essential link between God and knowledge. Attendance and respect for beginning-of-day activities are not particularly strong.--Andy Schlafly 09:19, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
What americans consider liberal and conservative and the rest of the world does is sort of different, so you can have a conservative party with waht americans consider liberal (the actual liberal party wasn't to bad in the UK, labour was the big socialism one)--SeanS 09:24, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
Quite so Andy, no doubt our beginning-of-day prayer is very often perfunctory and ineffective, but it's certainly true that most liberals in the UK aren't as anti-Christian as their counterparts in the US. Perhaps because we don't have US-style Bible-believing Christians in significant numbers - most UK Christians are CoE or Catholic, and most of the rest are mainline Protestants. This could also explain why our so-called conservatives aren't really very conservative by US standards. This ties in nicely with the growth of Conservative ideas since ~1600, and the concentration of those ideas in the US, where willingness to re-appraise accepted doctrines for oneself has always been a virtue. The CBP exemplifies this nexus between insightful religious thought and significant Conservative ideas. Jcw 09:43, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
In response to Sean, the (American) conservative viewpoint is a logically coherent set of principles. There are people who accept these same interconnected principles in England and every other nation, though in smaller numbers than the U.S. The names for it and the opposing side (liberal) may be different, but the concept of "conservative" does have an objective definition that can be expressed in any language or culture.
In response to Jcw, I think it is because of the smaller devoutly Christian population in England that there is a less militant anti-Christian group. But the anti-Christian group would "bare its teeth" and snarl as soon as it felt the Christians were making gains.--Andy Schlafly 16:03, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
I am sorry to say Christianity has fallen on hard times all across Europe, but England suffers this affliction worse than most. The largest denomination in England, the Church of England, sees less than two percent of the population most Sundays. Not surprisingly, the entire island is a vipers nest of atheism. The UK isn't infected with the false doctrine of separation of church and state, but the population as a whole has strayed further from God than Americans. JimmyRa 16:10, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Headline correction

Newt Gingrich is still running; the top story at the moment states otherwise. WilliamB1 18:18, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Got it, thanks WilliamB1--Jpatt 19:27, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Goodwin Liu

Shouldn't the summary mention that this wasn't the actual nomination vote, but a cloture vote to advance the nomination? It should also be mentioned that conservatives were actually outvoted by liberals 52-43 in the vote; the summary makes it seem like a majority of conservatives defeated the cloture vote. WillOlsen 20:55, 19 May 2011 (EDT)


To think that GM/we are supporting that dreadful dictatorship is beyond belief. I have many Jewish friends who would never, ever buy a German car, and I now feel similarly - I will never, ever buy an American car again, or at least a GM one. Disgraceful. JanW 17:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Patricia Heaton is not conservative or a Christian

That Newsbusters article does nothing but confirm that this woman is a pathetic liar. She's talks about God but slanders Him from the other side of her mouth. She says she gets denied work because of her "conservative" views but nowhere in this article does it say this is true. It's just the word of someone who openly supports gay marriage and murdering babies. Her outrageous political positions are not Christian or conservative. Her husband even says they get lumped in with lunatics by which I assume they mean people who actually try walking in Christ's footsteps even though they stumble and who don't support murder and abomination. Please take this outrage off the news page. This woman's histrionics only deserve ridicule. Nate 01:49, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Nate, obviously it's the perception of Patricia Heaton's views that matter. When someone is perceived as being more conservative, then Hollywood shuns them. Whether that perception is correct or not is a different story.--Andy Schlafly 08:16, 21 May 2011 (EDT)
She's the only one who says she is perceived this way and she's not trustworthy. I don't think she's even sane after reading what she says. You should address this and not assume one single person ever passed her over for being conservative when you don't know that's true. Nate 10:57, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Kim Il Sung on the MP

I don't think it sends the right message if the first thing people will see on visiting the main page is a big portrait of Kim Il sung. --SeanS 10:51, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

SeanS, I think you are missing the whole point. He was very big and that's the point. Which big atheists do you suggest Conservapedia place next on the main page? conservative 12:11, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
That was't what I was getting at. in the first 5 seconds somebody makes an impression of the website, seeing a big picture of Kim Il Sung will not leave a favorable one and will probably turn people away. The point we are making with it is sort of going to be secondary since you see the text explaining why it's there only if you scroll. Wait, isn't that titled "Gallery of political figures" and not atheists?--SeanS 12:15, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Why don't you do a survey on how many people recognize Kim II Sung's picture? I am guessing that will need to read the caption. I don't think the liberal Western press wants to highlight all the prominent atheists with double chins that Conservapedia has discovered via its investigative journalism. :) Of course, the term "prominent atheists" is a bit of a misnomer since atheists are but a squeek in American society (as Shockofgod likes to point out) and worldwide atheism is losing 400 adherents a day. On the other hand, there are quite a few prominent atheists in terms of their size. :) conservative 12:48, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Kim was the founder and advocate of a universal healthcare and single payer program. He should at least be given credit for that. Rob Smith 13:13, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Shouldn't one try to find a picture that really shows how fat he was? Maybe this one, although I don't know whether it's free to use. The one on the main page is a well-known North Korean propaganda picture that actually portrays him in a favorable light. --FrederickT 15:34, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Without knowing whether it is free to use, I am going to pass. Thanks for the input though. conservative 23:01, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
I agree with SeanS. Yes, Kim Il Sung was an atheist and he was obese, and his picture fits very well in the atheism and obesity article. However, displaying him prominently in the main page do not give a good first impression. Particularly because it is under the headline "Galery of Political Figures". If you really want to keep him on the main page, I suggest, at least, changing the headline to "Obese atheist" or something similar. At least in this way it is clear at first sight what the purpose of the image is. As it is now, it looks like communist propaganda until you read the label. --AlejandroH 23:45, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

I really don't get what weight has to do with anything, you guys should really just drop the whole topic from the site. -- PatS 11:28, 26 May 2011 (PST)

Many atheists have difficulty understanding the connection between atheism and obesity. Obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment. :) conservative 14:56, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I admit I have difficulty understanding this connection, but I have no problem elaborating. Let's set things straight, first off, causes of obesity include "poor dietary choices and inactivity" according to mayo clinic. Atheism is not a cause of obesity, it should instead be said there is a correlation between atheism and obesity. So it can still be said that atheists are more likely to be fat, and that's fine. It cannot yet be said that atheism is a cause of brain disease, or even correlated.

Causal factors for brain diseases include age, family history, and lifestyle factors. Lifestyle factors include things like exercise, diet, social activity, and mental activity. Now the link must be established between atheism and brain disease. Conservapedia references boundless information on the healing power of religion for mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety and the like, but none addressing degenerative brain disease, such as alzheimers and dementia. Gallup's "Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives" showed that religious people eat better, exercise more and don't smoke. These lifestyle choices effect obesity, but are not inclusive of factors that can lead to brain disease. Specifically I am referring to mental activity.

I believe atheists use their brains more than religious people, no offense intended. A serious study of this would have to be cited when making a claim that atheists are more susceptible to brain impairment. In summary, it's huge logical leap to just say "obesity is a cause of brain disease, and atheism is a cause of obesity, therefor atheism is a cause of brain disease". --PatS 17:08, 26 May 2011 (PST)

PatS, I think it is time for your high powered atheist intellect to move on. I believe it is fair to say that there are not many people who continue to obsess about a picture of King Sung II being on the front page of Conservapedia. conservative 21:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

What you say is true, though likely because of this site's general assembly. Do you understand the concerns I've raised about the premise for uploading this picture? --PatS 20:57, 26 May 2011 (PST)

spanish tea party

You guys realize that this so-called Spanish Tea Party is actually protesting austerity measures, right? So they want more spending. Yeah. That'll be all my talk page edits for the day, I promise!--CamilleT 23:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

CamilleT, did you see the size of the Spanish guy in the picture wearing a cap and sunglasses? Do you think some austerity measures would be a good thing for many Spanish people? Perhaps, there are too many Spaniards right now who want to feed off the government trough. conservative 11:33, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
And a few American Tea-Partiers as well?. LloydR 11:51, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Wow, conservative. You really like fat jokes.--CamilleT 12:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
20% of the population is out of work. Do you think it was all about how the government needs to spend more? Spanish Socialists are afraid to spend money? The center-right party takes control but the people are not happy with them. Hey LloydR, it's obvious you are not conservative. More page edits, less talk please. --Jpatt 12:16, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
LloydR, I wasn't aware that American Tea Partiers want a bigger government so they can feed off the public trough. Last time I checked, most Tea Partiers want to work for their money. By the way, while I certainly have nothing against the disabled receiving assistance, unlike government handouts, work has been known to burn off calories. :) LloydR, you failed! conservative 22:59, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

New essay on Christianity and Conservatism

I've written a new essay on Christianity and conservatism. It is a first draft of my first essay so it is a bit rough. I'd love contributions and criticisms so I can make it better. JimmyRa 23:18, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Christianity is over 2,000 years old and founded by an eternal God. That's pretty conservative. If Christianity expands in the Western World, conservatism will expand in the Western World. Without a firm foundation, society tends to do what is expedient many times, rather than take a long term view in terms of consequences. The USA Federal debt is prime example of this and many more could be given. conservative 00:04, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
I agree, that's why I think promotion of Christianity isn't just a religious matter but also an essential aspect to America's security and prosperity.JimmyRa 00:46, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
I think there is going to be a lot of economic instability in the United States (and perhaps the world) for at least the next 10-15 years and its coming on the horizon. A quote of Douglass MacArthur comes to mind though: "There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity." Also, the Bible repeatedly says, "Fear not". conservative 01:08, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
-points out liberal Christianity...---SeanS 18:28, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

A different kind of Spin on that Galaxy article.

Heres the original:

A counterexample to atheism: spiral galaxies having arms that wind in a direction opposite to the wake of the inner spin, demonstrating that the arms were placed there rather than arising from the inner rotation [1]:

This is how it should look:

Spiral galaxies having arms that wind in a direction opposite to the wake of the inner spin[1], demonstrating that the arms were placed there rather than arising from the inner rotation:

The cited article does not demonstrate the conclusion purported by the author of this post. The scientific piece does, however, suggest what may have caused the anomaly:

"Questions still remain about what led to the galaxy's strange behavior. The Hubble image revealed a dark dust lane in the galaxy center, suggesting NGC4622 may have devoured a smaller galaxy."

PatS 09:55, 25 May 2011 (PST)

It is discrimination, which is why them idiot liberals call it racism.

It's been official for a while, his certificate is public, so any News outlet which takes that for granted can do so while maintaining an unbiased outlook. However, many dispute the validity of that birth certificate, and have been doing so for quite a while. Though on what grounds?

The bologna scattered about the main page, and the articles they link to do not provide such evidence. One said article claims a typographical error - specifically "TXE" instead of "THE" - is proof. To me, "TXE" looks like a smudged or possibly even altered "THE", and does not convince me beyond reasonable doubt.

A capital H, as you can see has vertical lines on its left and right, and an X does not. In Mr. O's certificate, "THE", and other surrounding words appear slightly bolder, and the "X" does appear to have our vertical lines, with the exception of tiny areas of the letter, where ink is simply missing.

It doesn't convince me, and certainly should not convince anyone who is following proper human thinking. I won't even address such things as the missing raised seal, as I don't know anything about giving birth or the certification process.

"Jerry Corsi, PhD from Harvard, says that Obama's birth certificate is such a "crude computer forgery" that a word is misspelled on the stamp purportedly used by the registrar. [98]"

PatS 11:55, 25 May 2011 (PST)

Special Election and Medicare...

I think perhaps we need to step back and strip away the liberal spin from this story. Naturally, they want to paint this as a repudiation of Republican policies, but the truth is that Jack Davis was probably more responsible for the Democratic win than Corwin's support of the Ryan plan. The voters who misguidedly voted for Davis were overwhelmingly conservative; had they voted for Corwin instead, she would have won handily. It's the Perot effect all over again. As for Ryan's plan being unpopular, that may well be--but I think we need to give him due credit for coming up with a specific plan, something the Democrats lack the courage to do themselves. Bad-tasting medicine is unpopular, too, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes necessary. --Benp 17:25, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Good points, Ben. But the House Republican leadership does seem to be out-of-touch with voters. This is the same House leadership that denied Michele Bachmann a position and has ostracized Ron Paul. This is the same House leadership that caved in to liberals on the government shutdown issue, and funded Planned Parenthood fully. If the results yesterday were due to taking a strong stance on a moral issue, then we'd never hear the end of it. Instead, the House leadership staked the future on ... Medicare vouchers???--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

sort of confused

how the rep and dem fears is related to atheism and cowardice? Somebody explain. --SeanS 21:01, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Is fear and cowardice related? conservative 23:22, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
In the same way Fear and survival are related. same for Fear and Respect. I still don't see how we can link the two together at all reasonably
Nevertheless, it was seamlessly done. :) Of course, I am saying this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. conservative 01:49, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Come on Karajou

The article says the Jello wrestling was on their own time. It's stupid but the NSF didn't pay a nickle for it and definitely not hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article notes a bunch of other stuff that may not make such a snappy headline but is an embarrassing waste of money. Concentrate on the facts and you'll make a better case. They're right there. Shrimp on a treadmill? Stupid. The NSF is a complete waste of money. Nate 00:15, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

It's odd - the article does say it was in their spare time, BUT if you read the lead: "The Senate’s top waste watcher, in a new report Thursday, said taxpayer money has gone to funding jello wrestling in the Antarctic ..." - implying that, ... well, taxpayer money has gone to funding jello wrestling. So I don't think Karajou is wrong here. (Full disclosure though: the claim is contested: "In emails, several people who had been at NSF’s McMurdo Station said the time, effort and jello involved in the wrestling were paid for by contract employees for Raytheon Polar Services, not employees of NSF, and said the event was held outside of work time.")--IDuan 00:31, 27 May 2011 (EDT)