Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-03-19T14:34:16Z

Messpm: /* Morons/Vandals */

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-03-19T02:09:16Z

Messpm: Defence page for FOX

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Defence page for FOX ==

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-18T15:11:06Z

Messpm: Why such difference between the articles about the democratic and the republican party?

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the '''CRITICISM''' section?? I respect that the editors want to slant the information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

''I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:''

1) The [[Republican Party]] is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current [[Global Warming]] debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.

2) The current administration has pushed the [[national debt]] to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.

== Why such difference between the articles about the democratic and the republican party? ==

Let's see, in the article about the democratic party, it says:

"On the other hand, several planks of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's support for the legality of abortion - are contrary to Catholic teaching."

When talking about some of the democrats being catholic. Why isnt it included here that some republicans think of themselves as catholic, yet the republican party is for the death penalty when the catholic church is against it?

The overall differences between the articles is just laughable.

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-03-17T21:44:00Z

Messpm: Ridicolous claim

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

“Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Artical

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T19:25:50Z

Messpm:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T19:25:28Z

Messpm:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable "fact" ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T19:22:15Z

Messpm: Laughable bias

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T19:20:43Z

Messpm:

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T19:20:13Z

Messpm:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation?