Talk:Main Page/archive 97

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pseudoscience like always. Why are you basing present day weather patterns on a book that was not designed to predict the weather? That's strikes me as pseudoscience. [|Ronsin|]

You don't understand. It's not just weather; it's one of the signs that God predicted in the Bible. Read the news article first before making judgments like that.
Also, shouldn't the "Atlas Shrugged" news entries be combined? LogicalThinker 14:29, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Whenever I get the feeling that the Bible wasn't designed to apply to a situation, I go back and read it again. Time and again, I find that it was. There are always new truths to be found. --AndyJ 19:03, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Al Qaeda

Just curious as to this announcement from Homeland Security, hit list in place. Under the Bush administration, the public had a warning system; Severe, High, Elevated, Guarded, Low. Does anybody know the level of risk for warnings issued by the Obama administration? Is this a high risk announcement? Should I put off that summer vacation in D.C.? What will the government do differently after announcing this warning to the public? I don't feel more secure under Janet Napolitano's leadership. She along with Eric Holder should have been gone a long time ago. --Jpatt 21:22, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

The Obama administration stuck the whole warning system in the trash. To hear tem tell it, they don't need it, they're always on high alert. Of course now they have to be, since bin Laden was killed while under house arrest by a former ally. And after our untrustworthy allies get dumped, we can look forward Islamic extremists gaining control Pakistans nukes.
Meanwhile, press reports says al qaeda has "chosen" a new leader; that's good news, al qaeda's become democratic, evidently. All this so Obama can up his poll ratings, but it looks like the American people aren't buying it. Rob Smith 19:39, 18 June 2011 (EDT)


Discussion moved to Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Preview

Vancouver riots and Facebook.

If you're going to write about the Vancouver riots and Facebook, you might want to mention the Facebook group dedicated to marshaling volunteers for a clean-up effort as well as a pair of them set up so people can post photos for the police to use to identify and arrest vandals. The world -- even the online one, is not a black-and-white place. JamesES 13:00, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Agreed, Plus you are missing the boat on a lot of pertinent information. If you had noticed on the same issue and same website. They discussed a murderer in Canada who got light sentences for attempted murders and his original sentence of murder. That same site featured a good response rate of angry Canadians who wish for tougher sentences. You could have highlighted the differences of a more liberal Canadian society in retospect with crime with the tougher laws in some conservative states in the in the United States, you guys missed the boat. You concentrate on petty facebook correlations, which there really isn't, obesity, pseudoscience...rather than discuss real conservative issues. [|User: Ronsin|Ronsin]] 14:23, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

RESPONSE TO BOTH: The newspaper's observation was insightful. Facebook is associated with unproductive and self-centered activity. Correlations are worth knowing and publicizing.--Andy Schlafly 17:16, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that anything that doesn't support the so-called correlation should just be ignored? LogicalThinker 17:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm afraid I don't understand either. Volunteering to help clean up a city and to help police catch criminals is "unproductive and self-centered?" JamesES 17:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
There are skinny people who have high-sugar, high-fat diets. But their existence does not negate the clear correlation between diet and obesity. Ditto for Facebook use and underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 17:29, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
In other words, yes, he's ignoring the facts because he has his own idea of what the world is/should be like; facts and evidence be damned. Is that surprising to anybody who regularly edits this website? Jpope1487 10:40, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
Not sure to whom your comments are directed, but correlation often does signify causation, and most medical studies are based on that obvious truth.--Andy Schlafly 12:47, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Gas prices when obama took power

Ok, where was gas $1.79 in 2009? --SeanS 11:47, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

It took me less than 60 second of searching on the internet to find support for the statement: [1]. Couldn't you have found that data yourself?--Andy Schlafly 12:50, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
I prefer my own experiences in what prices were, and those showed gas as above $2. Thank you for the data though.--SeanS 13:35, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Perfect doubling by century

Just wanted to say that there is a typo and the last number should read 208, instead of 108. Just something very minor, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. --Leo-from-UK 12:42, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Great catch, thanks much. I just fixed it.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Michele Bachmann

Your headline about Michele Bachmann appears incorrect. The headline indicates that she said that some Nobel Prize winners did not believe in evolution. It also indicates that she was right in saying so. The linked article does not support that assertion. It does not name even one Nobel Prize winner who did not believe in evolution. Perhaps another source should be linked (if one can be found) or the item should be removed. --NigelH 18:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Umm, what's the difference between evolution and intelligent design? Rob Smith 19:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
I am not sure that I understand your question (or, more accurately, why you have asked it). Could you expand? --NigelH 20:04, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
The quote is (using WP as a source, FWIW), "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." The article on the mainpage is about misreporting of her statement. While it may be difficult to verify the accuracy of WPs citing the St. Cloud Times, we may be able to get to the crux of the matter quicker by explaining to those of us who don't know the difference between evolution and intelligent design. Otherwise criticism of Bachmann looks more like just another cheap shot, hit piece, and sexist hate rhetoric by misogynist bigots who feel threatened by an intelligent, articulate woman. Rob Smith 20:16, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, if that is the actual quote then the Main Page item is inaccurate and should be changed. Secondly, the linked article still fails to identify any Nobel Prize winners who believed in intelligent design. As to the difference between evolution and intelligent design, my understanding is that they are two entirely incompatible theories. In fact intelligent design is essentially a criticism of evolution (rather than a fully fledged stand-alone theory). ID proposes that the living organisms that we see (or some of them at least) could not have come about through the processes proposed by evolution but rather must have had a designer. This page might be helpful in relation to distinguishing between the two concepts. --NigelH 20:30, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Headlines, of course, are shorthand. It's common knowledge that the Nobel Prize is denied to conservatives and those who challenge liberal orthodoxy. Our entry here details many examples.
The real point is that Nobel Prize has been given for work done by scientists who knew that the theory of evolution is false. Fred Hoyle is one example, and there are others.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Whether headlines are shorthand or not, this one appears to be clearly wrong. The linked article does not provide a single example of a Nobel Prize winner who doubts evolution. And Fred Hoyle is not an example because he is not a Nobel Prize winner (as your own article points out). --NigelH 00:41, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
The most recent link given for Bachmann being right says that Einstein questioned evolution then gives quotes. In the two quotes he gives he never says evolution is a giant farce, but he does support the use of a god.--Harrymd 00:53, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
I am sure that many Nobel Prize winners believe in God. That is not the point. Many people both believe in God and accept evolution as true. --NigelH 01:16, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict)... and Einstein won the Nobel Prize and doubted evolution, just as the headline says. I'm sure other examples could be found. But the more important example is when the Nobel Prize was given for the work of someone who knew evolution is false (Fred Hoyle), but the prize itself was denied to him because he had recently exposed a false claim by evolutionists.--Andy Schlafly 01:19, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
How wrong does a news item have to be before it is changed or deleted? There is no support in the linked article for the proposition that Einstein doubted evolution. Nor, so far as I am aware is it true to say so. As for Hoyle, he remains irrelevant because Bachmann specifically referred to Nobel Prize winners. --NigelH 01:36, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Bachmann's statement was correct, and so is the headline. If you want to try to ignore the compelling example of Fred Hoyle, then take a look at what Bachmann specifically said and you'll easily find a Nobel Prize winner who supports intelligent design.--Andy Schlafly 02:13, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Who? --NigelH 02:18, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Can you name one? Because at the moment there is a link saying "Bachmann says Nobel laureates doubt evolution" and "she was right" - but it points to a link that doesn't provide any evidence that any Nobel laureates doubt evolution. Seems like it needs fixing? --Nzc 01:31, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
I do not believe there is anything wrong with her statement, though I do think she should have specifically said Nobel Prize Winners in the categories of sciences. There are Nobel prize winners that believe that evolution is not true, but there is also Nobel Prize Winners who think it is true, so I think her statement is meant to constrew things? I guess.--Harrymd 02:23, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
The real point Bachmann made was hundreds and hundreds of scientists; the Nobel Prize winner was thrown in for an extrea qualifiation. Are you disputing whether the hundreds and hundreds of scientists refered to was an exageration or blatant falsehood? Becasue it seems to me that was the point she made. Rob Smith 00:11, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
Nobel prizes lost their lustre to me when Obama won the Noble Peace Prize. conservative 03:00, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
I would like the prize better if it could be given posthumously.--Harrymd 14:32, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

excuse me

You guys know that you can discuss this on TerryH's blog, right? He has a very kind comments system that allows you to make your points and reply to the points of others. And there's no 90/10 rule--CamilleT 15:55, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Gold - for the record

For the record, although I have made some main page posts about gold and think gold certainly has its place as an investment, I do not recommend being a fanatical "goldbug" investor. I also do not make investment advice for individuals. With that being said, the successful and renowned investor Jim Rogers thinks investing in a portfolio of commodities is a good idea at this time.[2] My guess is that bearish investment professionals recommend investing in some hardcore value stocks in some of the stronger economies is not a bad idea for those who are seeking to make investments. I would also recommend doing your due diligence when it comes to picking commodities/stocks or an investment advisor. In addition, I think Jim Rogers offers some good investing principles advice HERE. In the 2008 downturn, simple minded approaches to global diversification or asset class diversification was not a very effective strategy for investors.[3][4][5] The US is a big economy and can strongly affect other economies around the world. Although I am not a believer in "market timing" (guessing when the overall economy is going to be good or bad) is generally a good investing approach, I do think the probability of another economic "black swan" coming up are pretty good and the WSJ had an article indicating that the "black swan" approach to investing may have some merit.[6] I do agree with Gerald Celente that future trends are able to be predicted through careful analysis, however, making specific guesses for which year economic calamity will strike is difficult to do. I also think various strategies to mitigate against investment volatility can be helpful.[7][8] conservative 14:36, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Minor nitpicking

A few changes that I'd like to see on the main page: 1. In the "Popular articles" section, "Earth" should be capitalized in the "Age of the Earth" article. 2. Likewise, all instances of "Evolution" and "Creation" should be capitalized. "Theory of Evolution" has a capital T, and a capital C. Atheism is NOT capitalized unless it appears at the beginning of a sentence, being only a common word. 3. The "When the wicked perish" biblical quote should have its first letter capitalized. The "but later it warns" part shouldn't be in italics, as it is not part of the quote. Reference to the specific verse of the Book of Proverbs should be made.

I'd change all of this myself, but I can't edit the main page. I know these are only minor things, but they make a great difference in the perceived quality of this encyclopedia. --Leo-from-UK 18:40, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Obama's fellow Moslem from the lamestream media wants a new Constitution written through Facebook


Fareed Zakaria is clearly unAmerican. HP 19:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Ironically the article addressed you calling him unamerican. and he never said anything about it being written through facebook, he pointed out some of the flaws in the 2-person senate system (despite there being a reason it was made that way), and how the electoral college can result in some problems involving people being elected without the majority of americans wanting them, and the problems that can arise in a 2000 type-situation.--SeanS 14:43, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
I think it's time to stop calling pork eating and alcohol drinking politicians Muslims and focus more on their anti-business, anti-capitalism and pro-abortion policies. Obama's theology is nuts and that is why he attended Jeremiah Wright's church for so long. You can't have it both ways. You can't criticize him for being a follower of Wright, but at the same time say he is probably a secret Muslim. The truth is that Obama is crazy liberal whose theology is a hodgepodge of contradictory notions. The same could be said of his economics. conservative 19:21, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Spelling error

It's "lightning" fast - not "lightening". SharonW 16:59, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Could we wiki-link Google Chrome?--IDuan 17:02, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

It's also "it's", not "its". SharonW 17:03, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Ignore - my computer glitched and the punctuation went weird. Lightning still needs correcting. SharonW 17:06, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

The healthcare bill was too long after all!

I think this would make for a brilliant news item.\ President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

~ an excerpt

--CamilleT 20:57, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
if this isn't a news item worthy of In the news I don't know what is--CamilleT 23:24, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Indian royalties

It is looking like this Democrat president might the last in a long, long time. He is so bad and hates America so much- he wants to affix his name to any *making it right* to all America's past wrongs. This only proves that we need to pry the Democrats from their sacred cows; justice for select classes of Americans. Another Democrat-supported lawsuit (just like Pigford), the government in the wrong (just like Pigford), billions from taxpayers as restitution (just like Pigford) and nobody is punished or fired (just like Pigford). Obama saves the day again. What a complete stooge.--Jpatt 00:35, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

The article Joaquín Martínez linked to makes no mention of either Obama or democrats. Actually, the lawsuit in question was over the federal government's mismanagement of funds already allocated to Native Americans. I think this suit provides a lesson in government corruption, in that what the government promised it failed to deliver and instead squandered on itself. Here is the article. I put it here because it took me a minute to find it on the column, and I would not wish this slight inconvenience on anybody else--CamilleT 01:25, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
One wonders: what the Native Americans were supposed to do? Not file a lawsuit? Remember, this was filed in 1996: the government's wrongdoing happened before that time. Where was Obama then? Hard to muck up the government when you're stuck in a Chicago law firm. AsherL 01:48, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Your edit summary maybe you just don't like these people?- I don't believe that's fair to say, AsherL--CamilleT 02:07, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Oh, I see. My, yes, that could be taken offensively as a charge of racism...but what I meant by "these people" wasn't meant to be taken as "people of color" (or whatever) but people who exercise their Constitutional right of the redress of grievances. AsherL 12:08, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia has already broken our record for unique visitors for June

Congratulations. But - as I said last month - such a statement is next to meaningless without the actual numbers. I understand that you are in general a supporter for a public access to such a sort of information, so, in your own words I ask you again: "show us the data"! Otherwise, your claim that this site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage is vacuous. AugustO 12:17, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Why are exact numbers necessary? If Mr. Schlafly says Conservapedia broke it's record, I believe him. Perhaps you'd like to answer why you're so hung up on this. --AndyJ 13:58, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
August, relative data are highly significant, as in the slope of a line or economic trends. They show where the future is.--Andy Schlafly 14:24, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Are you going to do this every time august or...?--SeanS 14:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Congratulations on breaking the record! I would also like to see the data released. We can analyze it and perhaps find a pattern. --MatthewQ 15:28, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
In order to calculate unique visitors, raw server logs are needed, containing IP addresses of visitors amongst other valuable data. I certainly wouldn't give my server logs out to strangers; I'm sure Andy feels the same way. Jcw 15:39, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
I disagree with some of the above posters. Why don't you track the views of a sample of various articles and determine for yourself. You can also use Alexa, Compete and Quantcast data for Conservapedia for additional data. Plus, you can take into account that traditionally Conservapedia has benefited from election cycles and 2012 is going to be a big election. Also, Obama's poll numbers are falling and we do post a lot of anti-Obama policy posts on the main page. I would also suggest tracking the Alexa, Compete and Quantcast data of other conservative websites and see if there is a trend of conservative websites seeing increased traffic. This isn't rocket science. Just use some creativity. Besides, if you are going to doubt Andy's reports which I have no problem with as it is a free country, then why would you trust that he is giving you accurate server data and not fake data? Do you own homework and use some common sense. conservative 06:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
Alexa is hardly reflective of what is actually popular, given its lack of majority computer penetration, so any data from it has to be taken with a grain of salt. And because those don't reflect unique visits, only reflects that "people have indeed visited, whether they are longtime legitimate visitors, a DDoS attack, or people who feel like mocking others out of having nothing better to do with their life." good point though about trust.--SeanS 07:56, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
Alexa updated their data sources in 2008.[10] More importantly, I suggested using a wide variety of sources. conservative 11:36, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

@AndyJ: I said earlier that I do not doubt Aschlafly's statement, though I'm surprised that the numbers surpass those of June 2007: in the first year of its existence, Conservapedia got quite a bit of media attention.

@Aschlafly: relative data can be highly significant, absolute values are even more so (as the relative data can be calculated from them). If a friend tells me my son is the best pupil in his class, I don't think that this statement isn't accurate. But without context (class size?, age?, school?), it is meaningless.

When I looked up the phrase "show us the data", I was pleased that you used it here. You made some excellent points, and though there is no obligation for you to present us with the numbers, your point still stands:

“At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with your sentiment, and I don't understand why these numbers are kept secret, is there any reason not to show the data?

@SeanS: Are you going to do this every time august or...? Probably.

@Jcw: I certainly wouldn't give my server logs out to strangers; I'm sure Andy feels the same way. I think that this is what they call a strawman. I don't want to sift manually through Conservapedia's server logs - and I doubt that Aschlafly did so: The number was calculated by the server software, and Aschlafly receives updates regularly (perhaps on a daily basis). Again, I'm interested in the number and not the identity of unique visitors to Conservapedia in the last months.

I don't understand why these numbers are kept secret, is there any reason not to show the data?

@Conservative: Why are you sending me on a wild goose-hunt for inferior data, when the exact data is already gathered by Aschlafly? That's just a waste of time! And again, I don't mistrust Aschlafly's statements, and the idea of faking the data is absurd.

AugustO 11:58, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

You say 'the idea of faking the data is absurd' - but you've accused Andy of exactly that over at Essay:Best New Conservative Words. From what I've seen of your talk page edits, your main motive seems to be a vain attempt to disprove whatever conservative insights you can. You say you don't want the raw logs, but if you're prepared to accuse Andy of deceit over other issues, why not this one? If the exact numbers are published, no doubt you'll then start asking for the raw data; then if that were released, you could ask for live access to the server to collect your own logs - where would it end? Jcw 12:07, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
You can say andy or anybody else here is wrong about something, thats your right,and if they are you should, because then people learn and the mistake is fixed. back ontopic, you say you dont think we DIDNT break the june 2007 record, but still demand you see the data. that's basically saying "i think your lying, otherwise why would i personally need to verify the data?"--SeanS 12:34, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
@Jcw: You say 'the idea of faking the data is absurd' - but you've accused Andy of exactly that over at Essay:Best New Conservative Words. I believe in Aschlafly's honesty, I don't believe in his infallibility. That's why I think that such an edit is admissible, and no one has to search for hidden motives...
At Essay:Best New Conservative Words I criticize the method of gathering the data, I don't doubt that - for instance - Aschlafly thinks that counterfactual is a conservative word which originated in 1946.
AugustO 09:17, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
Your point is well taken August, I see the distinction you're making. However, I still don't see what you can hope to do with the data - prove Andy wrong? Or just confirm what we've all taken on trust? Neither seems a very fitting attitude when Andy is generally so open with the site and receptive to criticism. Very few teachers would be prepared to lay their lectures out for all to see while working on them, and perhaps even fewer Bible translators. Yet Andy does all this in full view not only of the editors here, but of a bitterly hostile liberal clique elsewhere on the internet. A lack of openness is one thing no-one should accuse Andy of. Jcw 10:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
No, I won't prove Aschlafly's statement Conservapedia has already broken our record for unique visitors for June wrong. But I hope to make it a little bit more meaningful: we don't know even which year's record was broken!
Aschlafly said: this site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage Well, at the moment Conservapedia provides as much of statistics on usage as any other wiki, plus the information that May and June where record-breaking. That's not what I would call an enormous amount of statistics on usage, and it doesn't become such an amount be reading the CBP...
AugustO 12:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Jon Stewart Misinformed About Fox Viewers Being Misinformed

Just to prove that irony is alive and well when it comes to the liberal media!


--Benp 15:28, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

That's amusing and, as you say, highly ironic. Thanks for posting it.--Andy Schlafly 16:08, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
It's not particularly damning. If you read the article, it says Fox still scores pretty low and Stewart's viewers are still better informed.--CamilleT 16:54, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
I think the humour derives from the fact that Stewart, while mocking Fox News viewers for being misinformed, was in fact demonstrating that he himself was misinformed. Liberals often act as if they know better than everyone else and assume that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or has been misled by the 'right-wing media', so it's always amusing to see a clear demonstration of what we all know - that the reverse is much closer to being true. Jcw 17:06, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
If anything this scenario shows how ignorant both sides can be. It would even be more ironic if the Daily Show's audience scored as less informed than Fox--Harrymd 12:53, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
Here is Stewart's rebuttal, for those that are interested. The video is slightly less than six minutes long, there is "bleeped" profanity and you will likely have to watch a commercial. Enjoy--CamilleT 20:32, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

so, wait, the emergency oil

should we have just let gas prices climb up til nobody is driving, therefor the economy won't be moving or...?--SeanS 17:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

I think it's more of an issue with the fact that the government is arbitraging on commodity prices. And remember, there are two sides to every trade. The government has made someone the loser by manipulating the markets. I don't like high oil prices, but I also don't like the government creating artificial surpluses. EricAlstrom 18:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
Very few Americans are going to argue against lower gas prices. they dont care if some guy is losing out now cause oil prices are lower, it's his fault for wanting to profit on their problems. --SeanS 18:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
What's the emergency reason for tapping in to the reserves? There won't be any reserves after a while if they are simply used nonchalantly to try to lower gas prices.--Andy Schlafly 18:38, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Sean, you seem to be very naive. On the Bloomberg currently, RBOB has only dropped 10 cents from the point of announcement, which is barely a little more than a 1 standard deviation move. Politically, this won't help Obama since the long term effect of this will probably be a wash (this relase only accounts for less than a day's worth of consumption.). Andy has it right; the reserves are intended for actual emergencies. If we deplete our reserves, we have no cushion to mitigate a real crisis. Eric, (technical point) the government is not arbitraging oil; they are selling it at a loss because they're flooding the market. Speculators and hedgers are big boys; there's no real need to worry about them and this point is a red herring. HP 19:02, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

The emergency is Obama's poll numbers are falling and he doesn't want a lot of summer travelers mad at him. This is his "cheaper gas" for clunkers program. conservative 19:24, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Random thought on SPR (:re debt ceiling)

Did Obama release oil from SPR to buy time on the debt ceiling? Obama's like a deadbeat in an inner city pawn shop. HP 17:27, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Interesting article in the UK's Telegraph

Not all UK newspapers are irredeemably liberal, it seems.

Another good piece today.

Jcw 17:10, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

When were they ever always always liberal?--SeanS 23:05, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
Those are interesting articles, Jcw. Looks like criticizing liberals is becoming acceptable in British newspapers - or at least on their blogs and in their commentaries -- than in American ones.--Andy Schlafly 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

What's a "real substitute?"

Wouldn't a trained teacher who can actually teach be better than some schmuck with no training who just throws a movie on? Substitutes are part time anyway, at least a laid off teacher can keep himself sharp. TerryB 23:40, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

USA Public school teachers in all too many cases are turning out poorly functioning individuals. Imagine how bad an inexperienced or badly performing laid off teacher is. I say more competition. I say more competition for public schools with private schools via vouchers as well. conservative
Laid off doesn't mean they're bad. Yes, the newer teachers are laid off first, but they still have teaching experience and are trained. Subs aren't. They just have a background check done and get a certificate. I know this because my girlfriend is a substitute teacher. TerryB 10:22, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
A real substitute teacher is typically someone who works outside of the public school system - someone more like what a traditional teacher was before the unions took over the public school system and turned it into a liberal political machine.--Andy Schlafly 10:57, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
All they do is throw on a movie and fall asleep at their desk. TerryB 11:00, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

I think the point gets lost when we start debating who is a better substitute. The real problem is the public school system or not. I disagree that all substitutes who just have to pass a background are good and I similarly disagree that all laid off teachers who have a teaching certificate are good either. The problem here I think is the premise of this question. We have to pick between two pretty bad choices ... the lesser of two evils. I think substitute teaching is a boondoggle for people too lazy to work in the private sector. What we really need is the abolition of public schools and then have parents use the money they would instead divert to property taxes to go pay for a good private school for their children. HP 12:23, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

A lot of states don't fund schools through property taxes. And even then, not everyone can afford private schools even if they didn't have to pay taxes for schooling. Education should be subsidized and everyone should have access. TerryB 12:43, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Why stop at just education then? Why not subsidize health care for all children as Obama wants to do, or subsidize food for all children? What you talk about is typical socialist thinking. If parents can't pay for their choldren's tuition, then it is probably optimal if they homeschool them rather than using the public schools as a free day care. HP 00:32, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Because not everyone can homeschool. And it's not a "free daycare". TerryB 07:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

61% Are Still Angry At The Media

38% of voters believe that when most reporters write or talk about Obama, they are trying to help him pass his agenda. That’s down from 48% a year ago. Just 20% think most reporters are trying to block the president from passing his agenda. 26% feel that most reporters are politically biased, 46% think the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while 26% say they are merely interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner.

64% of those in the "Political Class" think they are more interested in unbiased reporting. No wonder, then, that 71% of Mainstream voters are angry at the media, but 83% of the Political Class are not.

Male voters are madder at the media than female voters and believe more strongly that most reporters are trying to help the president. [12] Daniel1212 07:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Related stats: Revealing Statistics: Education and Media and In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias Daniel1212 16:11, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

"A sharply-divided opinion."

To use a sports analogy, a game in which one team scores 3.5 times more than the other isn't a close game, it borders on a rout. Likewise, this was a pretty clear, one-sided decision by SCOTUS, with one dissent each from a liberal-leaning and a conservative justice, and not a "sharply-divided" anything. Free speech earns a crushing victory, as it should have. DavidHRG 12:08, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

No, there was a sharp conflict between the 5 who held that violent video games are full First Amendment free speech, and the 4 who disagreed with that view.--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Andy, perhaps you misread the case report? The vote was 7-2. the official court decision is located here , the relevant phrase is "SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opin-ion concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. THO-MAS, J., and BREYER, J., filed dissenting opinions." - 1 majority opinion, one concurring opinion (with different rational) and two dissenting opinion. The final tally was 7-2 --DenisTR 13:16, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
I believe the point Andy is making is that, while 7 justices voted to overturn the ban, not all of them did so because they believed that violent video games are full First Amendment free speech. The concurring opinion supports overturning the ban because the ban lacks specificity, but does not support the argument that violent video games should be treated in a fashion identical to other forms of Constitutionally-protected free speech. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken, Andy!) --Benp 13:20, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
I haven't had time to read the consenting opinion, so this may well be the case, but I think the point that David was trying to make is that the phrase "sharply divided" usually implies a strong divide between the consenting and dissenting side. In this case the decision was handed down 7-2, and the majority opinion was strongly in favor of a first amendment interpretation. (signature added later-sorry)--DenisTR 13:38, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Despite disingenuous attempts to argue the contrary, the headline as written is clearly correct - there was a sharp (5-4) division on whether video games are subject to the same strict protection as art like the Divine Comedy. There was a 7-2 split on the actual point of law, but that's not what the headline is referring to. Jcw 14:03, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Jcw is correct. As to the other comments above, this isn't a simplistic sporting match. The issue is whether violent video games are protected free speech under the First Amendment, and only 5 Justices said "yes".--Andy Schlafly 14:27, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
(EDIT CONFLICT) I wouldn't characterize my argument as being disingenuous, being specific with definitions is kind of my tic (I am a student of mathematics after all). There is no harm in clarifying what is meant by a particular statement, especially if it goes against the conventions that I am used to. In fact, I have no stomach for politics because exactness and specificity are antithetical to its nature. - I see your reasoning Andy, but I'm still of the opinion that the headline itself isn't clear, but at this point I'm satisfied. --DenisTR 14:34, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Far enough, and I appreciate your insights. But note that 7-2 can be "sharply divided" also, based on a reading of the opinions and how they respond to each other.--Andy Schlafly 14:39, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
The quote about The Divine Comedy appears in a footnote on page 11 of the ruling:
JUSTICE ALITO accuses us of pronouncing that playing violent video games “is not different in ‘kind’ ” from reading violent literature. Post, at 2. Well of course it is different in kind, but not in a way that causes the provision and viewing of violent video games, unlike the provision and reading of books, not to be expressive activity and hence not to enjoy First Amendment protection. Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy,and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny—a question towhich we devote our attention in Part III, infra. Even if we can see in them “nothing of any possible value to society . . . , they are as muchentitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.” Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948).
This appears in the section "Opinion of the Court". As far as I can tell the "we" in the above quote refers to the 7 who voted to revoke the law. It's also only addressing Alito's accusations and no one else. I don't see where the 5 is coming from. What am I missing? --MatthewQ 14:39, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Your comment is excellent and was mistakenly deleted by the wiki software due to simultaneous edits (very rare error). But in response to your comment, the "we" is only 5 Justices. It obviously does not include Justice Alito.--Andy Schlafly 16:57, 27 June 2011 (EDT)


Please rid the mainspace of that ugly photo. Something pretty in its place would be nice.--Jpatt 12:19, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Just saw your notice after I had already removed the pic. According to a Pillette video, he has nice looking eyes despite the fact that he is overweight. I can't say I spent any time confirming this matter. :) conservative 16:22, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Fat people can't have pretty eyes? I get the fact you hate fat people, but come on!SharonW 16:28, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, as far as not spending too much checking to see if Penn Jillette has nice looking eyes, I am not a big fan of Penn Jillette or iridology. I will leave it up to Pillette's wife to gaze in his eyes. Lastly, I don't hate fat people. I just think there is a conflict between the proposition "The atheist community loves science" and the data I brought forth in the Atheism and obesity article. conservative 16:36, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Make politicians' pages consistent

Is there any way we can go through and edit the various policians' pages to have a consistent format? According to Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians, each page should include:

  • Lede
  • Early Life and Education
  • Military service
  • Private sector
  • Political career
  • Political views
  • Public criticism
  • Personal life
  • Post political career

Very few articles appear to follow this format. I'm trying to change at least the Florida politicians, but a little help would be nice. SharonW 16:35, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

the wording about the Chris Christie item

Without the context of the article, it makes it seem like at all being a friend to the Muslim population is a bad thing, bordering on anathema territory. Perhaps a more specific statement of Extremist Muslims or something like that?--SeanS 10:01, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Todd Akin

The congressman has since apologized for his comments and his implications - --DenisTR 01:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

In his heart, he no doubt still believes it. conservative 17:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Main page worthy news this one is just ridiculous. liberal judicial activism at work.

MeganH 22:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT) (I hope I'm signing correctly)

Also, regarding global warming, the high Sierra has received snow several times this month, which is very rare (based on personal experience, about once every 10-20 years). Global "warming" is real, huh? MeganH 22:23, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Excellent postings. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 22:46, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Another news story

Anthony Weiner still has access to many House perks. What kind of broken system is that? MeganH 00:34, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

As the story and your comment demonstrate, it is a broken system of favoritism for the privileged few, indeed.--Andy Schlafly 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Myspace story & Comment on news story

Highlighting the decline of the social networks, I see MySpace has been sold for $35m, after it was originally bought by News Corp for $580m. [13]TracyS 08:30, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Also, regarding the "30 degrees below average for this time of the year" headline. The forecast goes on to say "making for a cool day in the low 60s." It's a bit harsh to throw around terms like "lies", based on one cooler day, which resulted because of a storm. TracyS 08:30, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Your first comment and link are excellent. As to your second, evidence revealing the lies of global warming is obviously not limited to one cold day.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
It's hard to use myspace as an example of social media decline, given it was replaced by a more functional social website. --SeanS 10:57, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Time will tell ... but if social media were so great, one would think there would be room enough for more than one website featuring it.--Andy Schlafly 11:16, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
The same could be said of a lot of things. Inevitably facebook will be replaced by another social media site offering even better features and custom-made stuff then facebook does, just as facebook did to myspace and myspace did to it's predecessor (I forget which site it replaced). That is the inevitable feature of human technology.--SeanS 11:25, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, glad you could use it! However, I agree as there is plenty of evidence against Global Warming, but the fact that the weather is cooler for one day, because of a storm, shouldn't really be front page news. The story seems to imply that overall temperatures are down 30F, whilst it's actually only one day. TracyS 11:30, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
This unusual cooling pattern in California has been going steady for several months. For example, Lake Tahoe in the Sierra has been about 10 degrees below average for a while. For example look at this graph (scroll down to see graph). More ski resorts than ever have been extending their season to June or July. Freak snowstorms have been occurring at much lower levels than are normal for June. The snowfall line is at about 7000 feet now; at this time it is normally at about 11000 feet. If these aren't counterexamples to global warming, I don't know what is. However, I respect your viewpoint. MeganH 11:48, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Megan, those are great examples and I'm certainly not disputing it. I'm just saying that the headline is a bit misleading - one cold day (due to a storm) is not a good example of the fact that global warming doesn't exist. TracyS 11:52, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Terrific link to those daily temperatures, Megan! I've posted it on the Main Page. In response to Tracy, data are relevant and I don't think the headline implies that one data point is enough. Visitors to this site have seen many counterexamples to global warming ... hey, maybe we should start an entry on that!--Andy Schlafly 12:51, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Counterexamples to Global Warming -- here you go. Sorry that I couldn't addmore but I have other things I must do now. MeganH 13:45, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
While it is true that it's unseasonably cool in Lake Tahoe, there have also been record high temperatures for almost the entire month of June in Tulsa, OK, West Texas, including the all-time high in Amarillo, TX , Louisiana, all over Western Europe, China, South Africa, and so on. You can't claim global warming is happening on the basis of "it's warmer than normal here today", nor can you claim it isn't by saying "it's colder than normal there today". GennaS 17:54, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
That may be true, but the general idea here is that global warming isn't happening. If you look at the trend lines starting at around 2000, there has actually been a slight decrease in global temperature since then. MeganH 17:59, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
But that depends where you look. For each of those locations, I could show you a location that has been experiencing drought for decades, or steadily rising temperatures. And, you can't measure whether a system as large as the Earth is warming or cooling over periods as short as a year or a decade - we need to look at tens of thousands of years of data. GennaS 18:09, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
The unusually cold temperatures in many places do disprove the liberal claim that the earth is rapidly warming.--Andy Schlafly 18:14, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Did you not see the many examples I gave you above of unusually hot temperatures? GennaS 20:02, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Must I really repeat myself? The unusually cold temperatures cancel out the hot temperatures. Sre you sure that you're not a global warmist liberal?
I am not a global coldist either. I only see four examples you are presenting of global 'colding', whereas I have produced seven examples of global 'warming'. But you don't win this argument by bringing up places that are currently either hot or cold. GennaS 20:14, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Then why are you arguing? Obviously I haven't mentioned all the places undergoing record cold. Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. MeganH 20:17, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Instead of arguing, why not do something constructive, like adding to the list of Counterexamples to Global Warming? MeganH 20:22, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
OK, I'm sorry - I will try to do that. Except I am finding so many places that are experiencing record high temperatures right now, they wouldn't fit in that article? Should I add them to the Global warming article instead? Not sure how to proceed here, and don't want to get into a back-and-forth here. GennaS 20:27, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
A five year rolling mean has long been the standard scientifically accepted measuring period of temperature. Also, the Earth is not tens of thousands of years old -- see Counterexamples to an Old Earth for more information. MeganH 18:15, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Oh, right. Sorry. GennaS 19:58, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk about irony

Obama's "frustrated" at his former colleagues? That's rich. His rear has been out on the golf course and the basketball courts while hard working congressmen like Paul Ryan have been formulating ideas. Obama's the laziest President of all time and thinks that if he just doesn't answer the phone, the bill collectors will just go away. Thus, I feel the main page falsely accepts Obama's liberal paradigm. HP 12:00, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Congressman, getting anything done. what alternate world do you live in, and how can i join it?--SeanS 12:07, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Are you a liberal, Sean? Paul Ryan has done much more on this debt crisis than that lazy bum Obama. Obama's just milking it on the taxpayer dime. HP 12:17, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm a moderate, and was making a joke about the idea that how inefficient congress can be sometimes/a lot.--SeanS 12:30, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
It depends who's in charge of Congress. At least House members in the majority are actually reading bills before voting on them. HP 12:43, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
The Ryan Plan was the worst, convoluted, ideology pushing plan I've ever seen. Ever. TerryB 10:12, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
Before you scream "LIBERAL!", Obamacare is included in that. The Ryan Plan was worse than Obamacare. That says something. TerryB 10:14, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

How low do you think Obama's popularity will be come election day?

How low do you think Obama's popularity will be come election day? Here is a graph of the popularity of other presidents in terms of their popularity: conservative 02:50, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Interesting question! I personally think his decisions around oil will make a big difference. If he decides to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling to lower gas prices, his approval rating will end up anywhere between 35 and 45 percent, possibly higher if he makes some budget cuts instead of raising more taxes, and pulls out of Libya soon. However, if he refuses to allow more oil drilling, continues his tax and spend policy, and stays in Libya, it will end up between 20 and 30 percent. MeganH 02:56, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
I think that it's against the interests of American Conservatives to consider that Obama is already defeated. There's still a long time to go before Election Day, and unfortunately elections are not always decided by individual merits, but also by populist acts and propaganda. The more seriously Conservatives take Obama as a political opponent for the elections, the more chances they will have of winning. I don't think that saying that he has no chances whatsoever and speculating how further his approval will decrease in the next year serves the Republican cause; on the contrary, I think it might hinder it. --Leo-from-UK 10:27, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
On the other hand, recognizing that Obama will likely lose reelection would encourage Republicans to nominate a strongly conservative candidate, rather than a "this guy has the best chance of winning" candidate.--Andy Schlafly 14:15, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

News articles (Florida drug-tests welfare recipients) (Civil unions legalized in Rhode Island)

Image uploads

Is there a place I can ask someone with the upload right to upload a few global-warming related images?

Uploading privileges are earned over time, and you're off to a great start! Alternatively, you can always request that someone upload any particular image here.--Andy Schlafly 00:58, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
Could you upload an image from this blog entry illustrating Chicago's Lake Shore Drive after the groundhog day blizzard? The URL is here. MeganH 01:48, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Libya statement- Grammar on main page

"Do they ever think in a peace deal? What is doing the UN as a peace organization?"- I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to say but the grammar here looks off. I can't parse this. JoshuaZ 15:40, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll take a look. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 00:58, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
I think JPatt fixed that already--CamilleT 01:45, 3 July 2011 (EDT)