Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2007-06-11T18:07:37Z

TheComputerWizard: /* No */

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Jesus will return, but he will not return as the peaceful, forgiving person he did come as. He will come in justice. AdamNelson has never read the Bible accurately. Just because two accounts of Jesus say different things does not mean that they are contradictory. For example: I saw the fireman working on a fire. I saw the police man making an arrest near the gas station. If you were to then say that both were true, then it would seem that there was a contradiction. However many times in the Bible, you have to take into account that such instances in the Bible are complimentary, rather than contradictory. In my example, to show how those two instances could be complimentary, look: I saw the fireman working on working on a fire in the gas station, while the police officer arrested a suspect.
In Christ;
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-06-08T00:14:41Z

TheComputerWizard: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-08T00:11:31Z

TheComputerWizard: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-08T00:09:44Z

TheComputerWizard: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with componets therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Star Wars

2007-06-07T23:56:43Z

TheComputerWizard:

[[Image:462px-Star wars dvd cover.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of the 2004 [[DVD]] widescreen release of Star Wars Trilogy.]]
:''Disambiguation: This article deals with the science fiction saga, not the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI).''

'''Star Wars''' is a science fiction film saga and fictional universe created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The original Star Wars movie (episode 4) came out on May 25th, 1977. The earlier set of Star Wars movies ''(Episodes 4, 5, and 6)'' are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were released in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively. All six movies are amongst the top 25 highest grossing films of all time.<ref>http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross</ref>
In 1984 and 1985, two spinoff movies to the original trilogy (Episode 4,5 and 6) were made featuring the Ewok characters seen in Episode 6, Return of the Jedi.

==Fan Films==
There have been many short films created by Star Wars Fans. One major website is www.fanfilms.com; which contains many fanfilms including TROOPS, The Essense of The Force, The Jedi Hunter, the Pink Five trilogy, Revelations, and Ryan Vs. Dorkman 1 and 2. One major high-quality fan based movie is I.M.P.S: The Relentless; which can be found at www.impstherelentless.com, and is the first chapter of a future full-length, chapter-based movie based on the Emperial Starship Relentless and her crew.

==Development of the Monomyth==

[[George Lucas]] built on the idea of the [[monomyth]] - a dominant mythic structure that for some reason resounds especially strongly with the human psyche - in structuring his narrative. He consulted closely with [[Joseph Campbell]], author of the book, "Hero of a Thousand Faces," towards the end of utilizing the [[monomyth]] structure especially well. In ''Star Wars'' (now known as Star Wars Episode 4:A new Hope), the reluctant hero is obviously [[Luke Skywalker]], the teacher [[Obi Wan Kenobi]], and the inner world the galaxy at large.

====Miscellaneous====

Star Wars became forever linked to politics when a missile-defense plan was devised under the Reagan administration which was nick-named Star Wars.

Many novels have been written as follow ups to the films.

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]

Star Wars

2007-06-07T23:48:46Z

TheComputerWizard:

[[Image:462px-Star wars dvd cover.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of the 2004 [[DVD]] widescreen release of Star Wars Trilogy.]]
:''Disambiguation: This article deals with the science fiction saga, not the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI).''

'''Star Wars''' is a science fiction film saga and fictional universe created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The original Star Wars movie (episode 4) came out on May 25th, 1977. The earlier set of Star Wars movies ''(Episodes 4, 5, and 6)'' are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were released in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively. All six movies are amongst the top 25 highest grossing films of all time.<ref>http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross</ref>
In 1984 and 1985, two spinoff movies to the original trilogy (Episode 4,5 and 6) were made featuring the Ewok characters seen in Episode 6, Return of the Jedi.

==Development of the Monomyth==

[[George Lucas]] built on the idea of the [[monomyth]] - a dominant mythic structure that for some reason resounds especially strongly with the human psyche - in structuring his narrative. He consulted closely with [[Joseph Campbell]], author of the book, "Hero of a Thousand Faces," towards the end of utilizing the [[monomyth]] structure especially well. In ''Star Wars'' (now known as Star Wars Episode 4:A new Hope), the reluctant hero is obviously [[Luke Skywalker]], the teacher [[Obi Wan Kenobi]], and the inner world the galaxy at large.

Star Wars became forever linked to politics when a missile-defense plan was devised under the Reagan administration which was nick-named Star Wars.

Several novels have been written as follow ups to the films.

==Fan Films==
There have been many short films created by Star Wars Fans. One major website is www.fanfilms.com; which contains many fanfilms including TROOPS, The Essense of The Force, The Jedi Hunter, the Pink Five trilogy, Revelations, and Ryan Vs. Dorkman 1 and 2. One major high-quality fan based movie is I.M.P.S: The Relentless; which can be found at www.impstherelentless.com, and is the first chapter of a future full-length, chapter-based movie based on the Emperial Starship Relentless and her crew.

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]

Star Wars

2007-06-07T23:48:33Z

TheComputerWizard:

[[Image:462px-Star wars dvd cover.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of the 2004 [[DVD]] widescreen release of Star Wars Trilogy.]]
:''Disambiguation: This article deals with the science fiction saga, not the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI).''

'''Star Wars''' is a science fiction film saga and fictional universe created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The original Star Wars movie (episode 4) came out on May 25th, 1977. The earlier set of Star Wars movies ''(Episodes 4, 5, and 6)'' are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were released in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively. All six movies are amongst the top 25 highest grossing films of all time.<ref>http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross</ref>
In 1984 and 1985, two spinoff movies to the original trilogy (Episode 4,5 and 6) were made featuring the Ewok characters seen in Episode 6, Return of the Jedi.

=Development of the Monomyth=

[[George Lucas]] built on the idea of the [[monomyth]] - a dominant mythic structure that for some reason resounds especially strongly with the human psyche - in structuring his narrative. He consulted closely with [[Joseph Campbell]], author of the book, "Hero of a Thousand Faces," towards the end of utilizing the [[monomyth]] structure especially well. In ''Star Wars'' (now known as Star Wars Episode 4:A new Hope), the reluctant hero is obviously [[Luke Skywalker]], the teacher [[Obi Wan Kenobi]], and the inner world the galaxy at large.

Star Wars became forever linked to politics when a missile-defense plan was devised under the Reagan administration which was nick-named Star Wars.

Several novels have been written as follow ups to the films.

==Fan Films==
There have been many short films created by Star Wars Fans. One major website is www.fanfilms.com; which contains many fanfilms including TROOPS, The Essense of The Force, The Jedi Hunter, the Pink Five trilogy, Revelations, and Ryan Vs. Dorkman 1 and 2. One major high-quality fan based movie is I.M.P.S: The Relentless; which can be found at www.impstherelentless.com, and is the first chapter of a future full-length, chapter-based movie based on the Emperial Starship Relentless and her crew.

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]

Talk:Star Wars

2007-06-07T23:46:55Z

TheComputerWizard:

You know when star wars 4, 5 and 6 were released people complained about those too.

This is my first major edit, please feel free to re-edit it if I have inadvertantly messed it up. [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 19:46, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Star Wars

2007-06-07T18:15:02Z

TheComputerWizard:

You know when star wars 4, 5 and 6 were released people complained about those too.

This is my first major edit, please feel free to re-edit it if I have inadvertantly messed it up.[[user:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] Also I am not sure how to place my name so that the date and time follow it like I see every one else doing.

Star Wars

2007-06-07T18:13:24Z

TheComputerWizard:

[[Image:462px-Star wars dvd cover.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of the 2004 [[DVD]] widescreen release of Star Wars Trilogy.]]
:''Disambiguation: This article deals with the science fiction saga, not the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI).''

'''Star Wars''' is a science fiction film saga and fictional universe created by American director [[George Lucas]]. The original Star Wars movie (episode 4) came out on May 25th, 1977. The earlier set of Star Wars movies ''(Episodes 4, 5, and 6)'' are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first "summer blockbusters" ever made. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were released in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively. All six movies are amongst the top 25 highest grossing films of all time.<ref>http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross</ref>
In 1984 and 1985, two spinoff movies to the original trilogy (Episode 4,5 and 6) were made featuring the Ewok characters seen in Episode 6, Return of the Jedi.

[[George Lucas]] built on the idea of the [[monomyth]] - a dominant mythic structure that for some reason resounds especially strongly with the human psyche - in structuring his narrative. He consulted closely with [[Joseph Campbell]], author of the book, "Hero of a Thousand Faces," towards the end of utilizing the [[monomyth]] structure especially well. In ''Star Wars'' (now known as Star Wars Episode 4:A new Hope), the reluctant hero is obviously [[Luke Skywalker]], the teacher [[Obi Wan Kenobi]], and the inner world the galaxy at large.

Star Wars became forever linked to politics when a missile-defense plan was devised under the Reagan administration which was nick-named Star Wars.

Several novels have been written as follow ups to the films.

==Fan Films==
There have been many short films created by Star Wars Fans. One major website is www.fanfilms.com; which contains many fanfilms including TROOPS, The Essense of The Force, The Jedi Hunter, the Pink Five trilogy, Revelations, and Ryan Vs. Dorkman 1 and 2. One major high-quality fan based movie is I.M.P.S: The Relentless; which can be found at www.impstherelentless.com, and is the first chapter of a future full-length, chapter-based movie based on the Emperial Starship Relentless and her crew.

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]

Talk:Meme

2007-06-07T17:55:57Z

TheComputerWizard:

I have seen a small clip of Indianna Jones that had was edited like this. But frankly, who cares? This is like Wikipedia's article on 'duh.' [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

Talk:Meme

2007-06-07T17:55:45Z

TheComputerWizard: New page: I have seen a small clip of Indianna Jones that had was edit like this. But frankly, who cares? This is like Wikipedia's article on 'duh.' TheComputerWizard

I have seen a small clip of Indianna Jones that had was edit like this. But frankly, who cares? This is like Wikipedia's article on 'duh.' [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

Talk:Homer Simpson

2007-06-07T17:51:32Z

TheComputerWizard:

This is a very informative topic. You do well to read it
[[TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

Talk:Homer Simpson

2007-06-07T17:51:21Z

TheComputerWizard:

This is a very informative topic. You do well to read it
----[[TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

Talk:Homer Simpson

2007-06-07T17:51:03Z

TheComputerWizard: New page: This is a very informative topic. You do well to read it TheComputerWizard

This is a very informative topic. You do well to read it [[TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

Conservapedia:Uploading

2007-06-07T17:48:49Z

TheComputerWizard: /* Technical difficulties with uploads */

{{guideline}}
You can upload images, but please keep them under 100 KB in size.

Use lowercase for the extension:
*PingPong.jpg
*Minaret.png

==Technical difficulties with uploads==

[[Image:Craigwhitephoto.jpg|right|thumb|This image uses Craigwhitephoto.jpg for a filename.]]This fellow is just as puzzled as we are. Why is it so hard to upload images sometimes? We thought it might be the number of letters in the filename. Some users report shortening the filename got their upload to work, but this man's image has a 15 letters + a 3 letter extension. The mystery continues.

[[Image:342px-Pinochet de Civil.jpg|right|thumb|And this image uses '''342px-Pinochet de Civil.jpg''' for filename.]]

==Deleting improper images==

If you can't bear to look at bad images, you can:
#Go to the new files page, which is formatted like a table.
#Open the link in a background tab.
#*Reduce the size of your browser screen so it shows only the top inch or so.
#*Go to that tab
#Click on delete
#*At this point, you don't have to see the image and can restore your browser to the normal size *whew*

Then delete as usual. You might want to say whose advice you took in the deletion summary.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-06-07T13:33:56Z

TheComputerWizard:

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the questions they are being polled on. [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==
I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bidiot] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==A genuine classic==
For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

*Very corrupt
*Somewhat corrupt
*Not very corrupt
*Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==For those who dislike this woman==
I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): [http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2003/BabyPunch.jpg funny pic] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
: Hah. We can all find ''hilarious'' photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the [[Al Gore]] article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-06-07T13:33:09Z

TheComputerWizard:

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the queststions they are being polled on. [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==
I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bidiot] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==A genuine classic==
For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

*Very corrupt
*Somewhat corrupt
*Not very corrupt
*Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==For those who dislike this woman==
I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): [http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2003/BabyPunch.jpg funny pic] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
: Hah. We can all find ''hilarious'' photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the [[Al Gore]] article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-06-07T13:32:06Z

TheComputerWizard:

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the queststions they are being polled on.

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==
I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bidiot] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==A genuine classic==
For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

*Very corrupt
*Somewhat corrupt
*Not very corrupt
*Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==For those who dislike this woman==
I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): [http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2003/BabyPunch.jpg funny pic] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
: Hah. We can all find ''hilarious'' photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the [[Al Gore]] article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]