Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page/archive91"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(.)
 
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Japanese EQ==
 
−
"The earthquake in Japan altered the Earth's rotation for the second time in the past few years, again illustrating one of the Counterexamples to an Old Earth."
 
−
Might it's just me being slow, but could someone explain this one?
 
  
−
And yeah, I looked at the CtaoOE-page and I'm still confused.
 
−
 
−
Have fun [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 15:52, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: It's not hard to understand.  The more time, the bigger the earthquakes.  Much more time, much bigger earthquakes.  A stable rotation over millions of years is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: Sorry, but I still don't really get it. I can kind of get that if old earth is correct, then that means that the influence of earthquakes on the rotation of the earth might be quite large. But I don't really see how that would make stable rotation impossible. From what I've gathered (not done any proper though research) the quake change the axis of the earth with ~25 cm and that this new rotation is stable (due to the moon or whatever).
 
−
Well, I'll probably look into this some more. [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:28, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
==Hello all==
 
−
Hello, I am new here, and am a bit lost at where to start.  Are there any articles that need help?  If I could just be pointed in a direction where I can be useful, that would be fantastic.  Thanks [[User:CarlTMcK|CarlTMcK]] 20:52, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:Hi Carl, finish this up [http://conservapedia.com/Special:WantedPages] and I will nominate you as administrator for this site. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:55, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
The page you linked me will not load[[User:CarlTMcK|CarlTMcK]] 20:59, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Another link needing attention [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BrokenRedirects] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 02:31, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== New Files ==
 
−
 
−
The link to New Files [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:NewFiles] at Category:Image [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Image] has not been working for long. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:22, 29 January 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Looks like this was fixed.  Thanks for pointing it out, Joaquin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Snowstorm blurb ==
 
−
 
−
Mr. Aschafly, I am concerned that you are not discerning the differences between the variable weather patterns that we experience in a given time period and the overall change in a regions climate. Whether or not it simply snows, in February of all times in regions known for their snowfall, is not indicative of climate change. Furthermore, you obfuscate the concept perhaps purposefully by using "global warming" as pejorative as a means of debasing what you perceive to be a liberal position. What do you believe your qualifications to do so effectively? As a long time reader of your blog, I am familiar that you take this position frequently and I was hoping to gain insight as to why you do this. [[User:PhineasR|PhineasR]] 11:57, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:While you're banned as the troll/vandal you are - and since you like reading blogs - I suggest you try reading this one: [http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:43, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:"PhineasR", snowfall is correlated with cold weather, and much snowfall is a counterexample to the liberal claim of dangerous [[global warming]].  Here we observe events and data with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Our encyclopedia is not a blog, you know; you're just saying that because you want to cast doubt on the arguments we have presented against the pseudo-scientific [[global warming theory]]. To borrow your own words, you obfuscate the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog, for ulterior motives. Far from discrediting us, this discredits you. If you had a leg to stand on, you'd stand on it instead of making [[ad hominem]] remarks.
 
−
 
−
::If unusually warm weather is evidence of global warming, why is unusually cold weather not disproof of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
Andy, I think you're missing a key piece of the phrase 'global warming', which refers to events happening on a 'global' scale.  You also tell PhineasR that you observe events and data with an open mind.  According to Conservapedia open mind 'refers in general to one's ability to think, use logical reasoning, and consider different or even opposing viewpoints.’  It does not appear that you are actually considering opposing viewpoints at all in this case. [[User:RobCorti|RobCorti]] 10:16, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:Rob, the term "open-minded" is often used against conservatives by those on the liberal side, and in the case of global warming it is the liberal side who refuses to consider the facts that the sun may be involved, or that satellite temperature stations were deliberately-placed next to sources of man-made heat, skewing the data.  So, you need to be open-minded about that.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:49, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::Our distinction from Wikipedia and the MSM is that we '''do present''' opposing viewpoints. While Wikipedia routinely censors counter-arguments against the global warming theory (GWT), we welcome them. We also fairly describe pro-GWT viewpoints. In this, we adhere closer to Larry Sanger's original NPOV than Wikipedia does.
 
−
::If there is an argument for global warming we have not covered, please mention it here or on my user talk page, and I'll make sure it gets in. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:43, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
I am willing to be open-minded about this.  I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'the sun being involved'.  Can you elaborate on this?  Also you seem to be implying that there is a deliberate attempt by those involved to skew temperature collecting data.  I am curious, what would be the benefit of trying to prove that global warming is happening if it is not? [[User:RobCorti|RobCorti]] 11:20, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:The sun has sunspot cycles that occur every twelve years; it gets hotter whenever there is increased sunspot activity[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml].  At this time there are very few, if any, sunspots to observe.  As to the climate temperature readers, yes it is deliberate; they have to be set down and installed in a particular spot.  Too many of them were installed next to sources of man-made heat as indicated here [http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/busted-15-photos-of-climate-cheating.html].  They did not install them in remote locations far enough away from anything man-made, which is what they should have done.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:50, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Since Latin America is experiencing some of the worst floods and mudslides ever caused by warmer than average waters in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Australia is bracing itself as the strongest cyclone in decades is about to hit them, one must wonder if heavy snowstorms in the US are a strong enough proof that global temperatures aren't rising. [[User:CaueCamp|CaueCamp]] 10:59, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::I feel like the constant individual weather updates are getting a little repetitive, and to be honest, I don't think they are particularly useful. Shouldn't we be focusing more on the actual data pertaining to global warming (such as sampling problems, non-anthropogenic causes, etc.) rather than just repeating "It was cold today"? Besides, Niger's capital city of Niamey experienced a record high 108 degrees F today, but no one here would accept that as positive proof of global warming; I don't think we should expect an opposite event to serve as disprove. We are on the intellectual high ground, and I think we can be more than a glorified weather report. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 14:26, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::Liberals claimed that the world is rapidly warming to a dangerous degree.  That claim has been proven wrong by the observations.  Liberals would do better by now admitting, "we were wrong," but I don't ever expect liberals to admit it when they are wrong.  That's fine, because it makes it easier to discredit their ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::According to alarmists Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. [http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=11424] While speaking of Britain, I am sure he meant the N. Hemisphere. I for one am quite happy the daily alarmism has turned into the daily ripping of liberals.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:47, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::I agree that the liberal alarmists are terrible, and should not be listened to (for the record, I believe that the earth '''might''' (and that's a huge "might") be warming ever so slightly, and due to non-anthropogenic causes, but that any potential warming would be beneficial to our society). That said, I think there are better ways to disprove liberal alarmism than weather reports. You say International Falls is 3 degrees colder than record, and I say Niamey, Niger is 3 degrees hotter than record; I don't see how the first is evidence against global warming if the second isn't evidence for global warming.
 
−
:::::I apologize, I truly don't mean to be argumentative - I just think we can provide much more substantive, scientific evidence than city-by-city weather reports. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:08, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::::::Just for the record, [[Niger]] is a country where much of it is attached to the Sahara Desert; its capital of Niamey lies just a few degrees north of the Equator here [http://www.shaded-relief.com/?gt=13.521389&gl=2.105278&z=9&t=4].  It's a hot, tropical environment on one end of the country, and a hot desert on the other, so if it's going to be 108 degrees today, that's normal.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::::No one is saying there is a deliberate attempt to skew "temperature collecting" data. On the other hand, no one has been ensuring that weather stations are prevented from contamination from the [[urban warming]] effect.
 
−
 
−
:::::::But the main argument for global warming theory is '''one article''', whose author Michael Mann made repeated efforts to '''prevent''' other scientists from checking his data and methods. Generally, for a scientific theory to be accepted, its proponents must cooperate with others who are trying to reproduce their results. The refusal to expose one's ideas to skepticism is a hallmark of [[pseudoscience]], and at least one major documentary has even accused Mann of perpetrated a hoax. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:51, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
That's exactly my point: Niamey is known for being hot (and 108 is a record high temperature for February 2nd). Conversely, International Falls is known for being cold. I don't see what the temperature at either city has to say about global temperature trends. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:27, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
: The liberal claim has been that the world is rapidly becoming dangerously warmer.  108 degrees in the desert does not substantiate the claim.  Record-breaking cold weather does disprove the claim.  The longer global alarmist liberals refuse to admit they were wrong, the more discredited they will become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::I don't think mainstream liberal global warming pushers claim rapid warming. In the lastest (that I can find) [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf IPCC report], they call for between 2 and 11 degrees of warming over the next 100 years, a change that would not truly affect day-to-day temperatures. I know I sound like a jerk, but can't we have more news about ''global'' temperatures, and how leftists are distorting the data? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:05, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::Conservapedia absolutely should not censor data such as this that disproves the global warming myth. Global warming has been completely and thoroughly rebuked, and with liberals censoring all reports against it in the MSM, the hoax continues.  There is no warming going on, the recent cold temperatures clearly show this, as does huge amounts of recent and not so recent data. The massive effects of sun spot activity that Karajou points out are also censored and played down by the MSM, despite it being well known to scientists that the reason the earth is warming is due to the huge thermal energy pumped out by sun spots, and nothing to do with man's activity.  Conservapedia should be proud to tell the truth on this important matter and simply repeat the lines fed to the MSM by liberals with an agenda to push.  [[User:KennethC|KennethC]] 16:16, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::Liberals are now revising their claims based on the obvious fact that temperatures are not rapidly increasing as they once insisted.  But liberals are not admitting they were wrong, so it's important that we do that for them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::Liberals have used "extra-warm" weather events, such as a glacier melting, or less sea ice at the North Pole, as evidence for global warming. If they say that "extra-cold" weather events can't disprove the theory, then what can?
 
−
 
−
::::By definition, any theory whose backers continue to defend it, no matter what counter-evidence is presented, is [[pseudoscience]]. A real scientific theory, on the other hand, is capable of being disproved. "All swans are white" falls the first time you produce a black swan. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:34, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
When liberals and conservatives alike speak of global warming, I do not think they mean that the entire planet will become warm and balmy. No, they mean that the average temperature will increase by a few degrees, which is enough to cause significant melting near the poles and a corresponding increase in oceanic depth, but not preclude snowstorms and freezing conditions in locations that are already very, very cold. [[User:NHope|NHope]] 19:38, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:The main point in regards to global warming is not that it's warm where it shouldn't be, but that it's caused by man.  It is nothing more than a gigantic grab for money - American money - and the political power that goes with it.  That is why we do our part here to sound the warning and expose it for the scam that it is.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:: But Karajou, the way to do that is not to cite examples of snowstorms as evidence against global warming, because no AGW advocate claims that snowstorms will disappear (at least in the short run). (Disclaimer: I do believe AGW is real, although not to such an extent as some people seem to think.) Don't you think it would be better to include a graph or something showing the average temperature of a place over the past hundred years? [[User:NHope|NHope]] 19:43, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== SD Headline ==
 
−
So, the funny thing about this is the state is legislating that all need to buy a good or service to poke fun at the mandate. What isn't addressed is that the state and most others in the union require people to buy liability auto insurance at the minimum. I guess, I'll cancel my liability auto policy and use the current court ruling to justify that.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 18:25, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:You're required to purchase liability insurance IF you want the ''privilege'' of driving a car. The health insurance mandate is different - there is no "IF". [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 18:39, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Also, many state auto insurance mandates have sensible exceptions to protect individual freedom, unlike [[ObamaCare]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Obama and his cronies are foist by his own petard on this one.  By crafting the bill as they did, they created an "all or nothing" proposition--either the entire bill is Constitutional, or the entire bill is un-Constitutional.  Thus, the judge had no choice but to strike down the bill in its entirety, even had he wished to do otherwise.  He ruled entirely correctly.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:33, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== More University Values: Fake University Used For Illegal Immigration ==
 
−
 
−
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_university_immigration_fraud]
 
−
 
−
Textbook case of a liberal "university"--no credentials, no valid classes, simply an excuse to make money and funnel illegal aliens into the country!    --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:19, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
==Dilemma in Egypt==
 
−
I heard reports from Fox and CNN that many of the anti-Mubarak protesters are actually chanting for Mubarack and his newly elected vice president to leave for being too friendly to Israel and the U.S, Israel's biggest ally. If so, then Egypt is going through a dilemma. If Mubarak and Suleiman decide to step down, there will be a power vacuum and then a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or some anti-Semetic person will take over Egypt. If that happens, Israel, the U.S, and the rest of the world will be at risk and have every right to seriously worry. If Mubarak and Suleiman decide to stay, the deadly anti-Semetic protests will continue, citizens from other Middle Eastern (and it's almost starting to happen in Syria) countries will be encouraged to do similar uprisings, and Barrack Obama will be held more accountable on how he handles the situation in Egypt here in the U.S and in the rest of the world, which is serious for us. So far I believe that Barrack Obama and his administration aren't doing a good job in handling the Egyptian situation and sadly I believe that they're hurting the image of the U.S in the Middle East, but especially in Israel. A lot of the demonstrations in Egypt are partly rooted in anti-Semetism it appears, not soley in democracy [[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:16, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:I think you're overstating the influence of the Islamic (Muslim) Brotherhood. While certainly a rise to power in Egypt of a head of state with ties to that group would be undesirable for the United States, the chances of that happening have been vastly overestimated by the main-stream media, including, unfortunately, Fox News. If you had stayed up to date regarding the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt prior to the recent protests there, you would know that the Islamic Brotherhood did incredibly poorly in the most recent election cycle in Egypt. As a political force they are almost nonexistent now, and it seems as though the group is not going to attempt to capitalize on the current chaos. Based on what we've seen in terms of action from the Islamic Brotherhood - which is basically nothing - it seems like they are going to wait for the chaos to die down before making a move. To do otherwise could jeopardize what little influence they have remaining. I agree with your assessment of the Obama Administration's handling of the situation, but in our haste to acknowledge a possible threat to the United States' foreign policy, we've given that threat more credit than it is due. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 23:32, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== MITT ROMNEY= THE WORST POSSIBLE THING THE GOP COULD DO TO ITSELF ==
 
−
 
−
Conservapedians need to become aware of how much of a RINO this man is.  At times I feel as if he's almsot being endorsed above other candidates.  He is the most liberal of all the potential candidates and, if elected, would destroy the Republican image much worse than Bush supposedly did.  He recently joined Obama in calling the mob violence in Egypt "democratic" (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/110202), refused to back down on his horrendous failure of Romney care (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/110202), and continues to act as if he's entitled to become the Republican candidate just because he leads in some polls (not to mention that fact that any sane Tea Partier knows he's just another elite politician).  He continually flip-flops on his positions, especially social issues, and came in last in a values voter poll, a substantial part of the electorate (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100921).  He used to work in the Marriot and knowlingly allowed for his branch to prey on the human weaknesses of its guests by selling porn (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110124).  He has supported both abortions and homsexual unions in the past, and there's no reason to believe he won't do so again in the future.  Also, his Mormonism can also be unappealing to traditional evangelicals (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=257553).  So I urge Conservapedia to please get out there and lead the charge against this heretic.  The Tea Party formed because of men like him.  We need a principled conservative who excels on all three of the main pillars of our movement: fiscal, social, and national defense.  I'm not sure who the right candidate will be as of now but I am sure of one thing; It can NOT be Mitt Romney. [[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 19:26, 3 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:My brother-in-law calls him The Romney Unit. All you have to do is reprogram him with new parameters and then watch him go! [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:38, 12 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::The questions is not "who would you like to see run for the GOP" but "Would you support the GOP nominee vs. Hussein Obama?" I'll take anybody vs. BHO. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:01, 12 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Difficulty becoming a Conservapedia contributor ==
 
−
 
−
I've been following Conservapedia for months, and I hoped to become a contributor but I was unable to create an account for a very long time. The option simply was not there, and the "login/create account" option only read "login" for the past several months. Fortunately, I just came on Conservapedia and discovered that the "Create account" option was there, so I was able to create an account. I'm not sure if this is a website error or intentional. I also tried to email the webmaster at two separate addresses and never received a reply from either.
 
−
 
−
Just sharing some issues I've had with the site; otherwise everything is great! --[[User:Kody|Kody]] 22:45, 5 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:Welcome!  [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 20:42, 7 March 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== In the news ==
 
−
 
−
Keith Olbermann (aka Bathtub Boy) got hired by Al Gore's [[Current TV]] network, which by the way is partly owned by Comcast. Not only while he host a primetime show there, but he will hold the executive title of Chief News Officer of Current TV!!!! [[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 14:26, 8 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Juan Cordero ==
 
−
 
−
It should be noted that, according to Elisa García Barragán (author of "El pintor Juan Cordero: los días y las obras") there was a great rivalry between the painter Juan Cordero and his teacher Pelegrí Clavé. Clave was Spanish and conservative and Cordero was Mexican and liberal.
 
−
 
−
: Should be noted that a liberal Mexican in that time has nothing to do with a present liberal in US. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:21, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Creationist science fair ==
 
−
 
−
I don't know how to add things to the news section, but several people forwarded this to me just recently, someone must have blogged about it [http://www.tccsa.tc/fair.html Creationist science fair] --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:14, 9 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Cristopher Lee ==
 
−
 
−
Shouldn't the Cristhopher Lee scandal be covered in the news section of the front page? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/09/rep-lee-declines-comment-report-claiming-sent-shirtless-photo-craigslist/). He's a congressman and should have known better. So should the people who read this blog and elected him.--[[User:CaueCamp|CaueCamp]] 14:12, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:The first thing here is that no member of Congress should engage in the behavior that Lee engaged in.  That's why he's been caught, that's why he's now gone.  The second thing here is that nobody who voted for the man has ESP; they couldn't have known better because they didn't know at all.  This blows away your statement.  And that mindless assumption on your part is why you're gone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:57, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::As a side note--while I certainly don't approve of marital infidelity in any form--it should be noted that, when he was caught doing something wrong, Lee promptly resigned from his position...as opposed to, say, [[William Jefferson]], [[Charles Rangel]], or that other fellow who got caught doing inappropriate things with a woman other than his wife...what was his name?  Hinton?  Blinton?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:47, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Mubarak headline ==
 
−
 
−
I'm listening to Mubarak's speech and it seems like he's not stepping down. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:52, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:...annnnnnd you can change it back to "Mubarak steps down, hands power over to the army." Looks like JPatt/CP was ahead of the learning curve.[[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:27, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::It's about time. Perhaps the Egyptians will elect a democratic leader now. [[User:TerenceR|TerenceR]] 19:30, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::Democracy ... like in Iran?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::::That is a truly excellent point, Andy. It's going to be an interesting progression of news. Astute observation about Russia, by the way! Bless [[User:TerenceR|TerenceR]] 19:26, 12 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::There's a common pattern in history: the "people" will declare their leader a tyrant and force him out; then the new leader becomes a worse tyrant. It seems [[regime change]] is not always for the good.
 
−
 
−
:::::Note also that the term "[[reform]]" carries a good connotation, but in Communist-controlled countries [[land reforms]] which imposed [[collective farming]] on the people have typically increased poverty. We might also learn from California's experiment with how electricity is sold; I recall that their reforms led to shortages. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:35, 14 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Typo in news column. ==
 
−
 
−
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but there's a typo in the entry at the top of the page about Oprah.  The word "here" is used when it should be "hear".  --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 11:13, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Good catch!  Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Yes, this is constructive [[nit]]-picking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:49, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== England ==
 
−
Can I just point out that England is just a part of the United Kingdom? The UK is the official name. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 15:09, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Sure, you can point that out.  And can I just point out that the 2012 Olympics are being held in England?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Actually Mr Schlafly, the Games were awarded to the [[United Kingdom]], not [[England]].  For example some events are being held in [[Scotland]] [http://www.london2012.com/games/venues/hampden-park.php] [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:52, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
::: The Millenium Stadium in Wales is also being used for, I believe, the football events. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 15:55, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::: Bids for the Olympics are typically by cities, and London is in England the last time I checked.  Of course, England is part of the [[UK]], and the UK is merely a bit player in the [[EU]], but no one would say that the Olympics are being held by the EU in 2012!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::That is correct Mr Schlafly, however as I said the IOC specifically awarded the 2012 Games to [[London]], [[UK]], ''not'' [[London]], [[England]], hence other UK countries holding events too.  [[England]] is ''not'' running the games.  That said, it was a simple mistake to make, however to maintain the accuracy of the main page it would be a good idea to correct it.  [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:25, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::::The [[UK]] reference appears to be for identification purposes.  The national government has little involvement in the Olympics in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:27, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::::Except when they are getting down on their knees begging the IOC to bring them to Chicago that is... --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 19:33, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Is that snow picture really from NOAA? ==
 
−
 
−
That picture looks odd to me. For one thing the snow and ice isn't really that far South,  it looks like a regular year, with snow in maryland and accross the northern states but no snow south of the mason dixon line. Secondlt where there is snow there seems to be too much. There is a forest called the [[Taiga]] that stretches across the whole northern hemisphere (that is many orders of magnitude more productive than the beloved amazon) that you can see in the winter because the snow falls off the trees. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/cityx/Other/Decembersmall.jpg Here] you can see what a picture of the taiga looks like from space in December of 2004; 2004 was a very mild winter, but the taiga should still show, this winter has been pretty mild for the far North. Does anyone know where that picture came from? --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 18:40, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:It came from a news article that cited NOAA as the source.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::It looks like that image has been showing up on a number of news sites and blogs over the past couple weeks, [http://constitutionclub.org/2011/02/02/noaa-map-most-of-northern-hemisphere-covered-with-ice-and-snow/ some] using it to logically illustrate the fact that scientists were wrong about global warming, and [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353073/Winter-storm-Map-shows-Northern-Hemisphere-covered-snow-ice.html some] presenting the photo alongside Al Gore's nonsensical explanation that "global warming causes the bitterly cold weather" somehow. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 20:02, 16 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Response to In the News: Liberal values ==
 
−
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
[[Liberal]] values: "Wounded [[Iraq]] vet jeered at [[Columbia University|Columbia]]. 'Racist!' some students yelled at ... a Columbia freshman and former [[United States Army|Army]] staff sergeant awarded the [[Purple Heart]] after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran."
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
[[Tea_Party_Movement#Education|Therein lies the problem]]. I cannot accurately express how bothersome and saddening it was for me to read [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN#ixzz1EXSCFhfM this story]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 20:25, 20 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
: Thanks for your link to the source of the problem.  The section in the [[Tea Party Movement]] that you reference describes it well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:13, 20 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== World news ==
 
−
 
−
Conservapedia is a great source of news about the US for those of us thousands of miles away but is ita s good the other way around?  I write this because there has been sparse coverage of events in north Africa and the Middle East over the last few weeks - arguably the most important international news since the fall of the Soviet Union - and I'm surprised there's nothing up about events in Libya over the last four days.  If Gaddafy has left Tripoli, this could be another Mubarak moment. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]]
 
−
 
−
: The [[lamestream media]] like to overhype individual government officeholders, as though we should be watching every newscast to learn the latest about so-and-so.  In fact, the replacement of Mubarak by the military in Egypt does not seem to have resulted in the huge change predicted by the [[liberals]].  So I'm not sure what you mean by "another Mubarak moment," because that "moment" seems to have been much ado about nothing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
Its your website, Mr Schafly, so its your call.  As I said, I find this an excellent site to find out what is going on in the US on the political and personal level - like the inspiring NASCAR winner piece - and just thought your US readers would appreciate some insight into a critical moment in global power.  Both the new Egyptian and Tunisian transitional governments are already in talks with western govts - Britain's Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, is in Egypt right now - about how to manage the the change from dictatorship to fledgling democracy.  Western governments are also in talks with opposition groups from Algeria to Iran to make sure our interests are represented.  Played well, this could be a flowering of democracy for hundreds of millions of people in strategically significant countries; played badly and we have hundreds of millions of people under Sharia law.  Gaddafy's involvement with terrorism is well known and the idea that he could be in Venezuela - as suggested by British Conservative foreign secretary William Hague - could have serious implications for US security.  I got this not from the lamestream media but in person from an established analyst who I almost convinced to draft an essay for this site - but that's another story! [[User:Rafael|Rafael]]
 
−
 
−
: Rafael, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this and it's not so much my "call" as what logic dictates.  I am surprised by your statement that "a flowering of democracy" would have a different result from Sharia law.  I thought an overwhelming majority of Egypt and Libya ''want'' Sharia law.
 
−
 
−
: We report real news here, not gossip or overhyped events.  So far it looks like the publicity about the events in Egypt was overhyped.  If David Cameron is speaking with Mubarak's successor, so what?  There has not yet been the fundamental change that the [[lamestream media]] was predicting.  If and when there is such change in Egypt or Libya, why not simply report on it then?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::By your standard, Andy, the [[Declaration of Independence]] was overhyped, since one month afterward America was still under British rule. Real and fundamental change doesn't happen overnight, but all lovers of freedom have to be inspired by a people taking to the streets to take charge of their own destiny. This constant downplaying of the events in Egypt and Libya from some commentators has been curious to me, because it's coming from many of the same people who claim to be on the side of freedom. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:22, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::JDWpianist, it's great to see you back!  Your analogy is a thoughtful one, but it does not withstand closer scrutiny.  The Declaration of Independence was indeed remarkable in itself because it displayed a commitment to religious, political and economic freedom.  Has there been a similar such declaration in the recent protests in the Middle East?  Please explain if you're aware of one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:43, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::I think it is illogical to compare such events as the Declaration of Independence with the latest riots overseas.  The DoI was a significant event, a cornerstone in our history - it directly and immediately lead to the formation of the United States of America!  These riots are simply the latest violence in very unstable and violent countries.  [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:58, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::Thanks for the welcome, Andy. My point in bringing up the Declaration of Independence was not to compare the two events, but to point out that the spark which instigates fundamental change in a society only looks impressive in historical hindsight, after other events conspire to make that change a lasting one. The DoI, for example, would not have made any lasting impact on history had the American colonists lost the war. After all, English and continental philosophers had been basically saying the same things all throughout the Enlightenment and even before, but it was only when early Americans put it into action and succeeded that it inspired similar movements in Europe.
 
−
 
−
:::::As for valid historical comparisons, I read a very plausible article yesterday comparing the protests in the Middle East to the 1848-9 revolutions in continental Europe; revolutions which although by any standard a failure also resulted in meaningful, albeit slower and more painful change. I also think that we Americans have to admit that as outsiders who know little about the hearts and minds of the average middle easterner, we can't understand the meaning of these events anymore than the Chinese under the Qing dynasty could have understood the events of 1848. I'll admit to not having any idea how this all will play out, but the part of me that loves freedom is inspired and hopeful for the best, even if I can also envision many scenarios where this ends badly for all. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Global "warming" ==
 
−
 
−
While I admittedly haven't been following this controversy for very long and cannot add much to the argument (on either side), it ''does'' occur to me that while global "warming" might be a canard (from my word-of-the-day calender), perhaps the atmosphere (being a giant "heat sink"), is holding more ''energy'' than ''normal'' (that is, holding more energy than anything human beings have seen in the last 4000 years). If this is the case then one would expect to witness more and more severe weather: More energy ''into'' a system means more energy can be ''taken'' from a system. More snow than would otherwise be expected may actually play into the hands of the (A)GWers? Just a thought. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 14:43, 21 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Global warming is my main scientific interest, because of the political and economic implications. It's not a canard. All scientists agree that the last century and a half has seen a modest degree of warming. The dispute is over the cause.
 
−
 
−
:If the atmosphere is "holding energy" then it will be hotter: that's the definition of [[heat]] (see also [[Boyle's law]]).
 
−
 
−
:However, you did not explain why more energy in the air should cause more severe weather. You seem merely to repeat a "canard" (to borrow your own word) promoted by the warmers. Hasn't the trend of Atlantic hurricanes over the last century actually shown that a modest warming has been matched by gradually '''less severe''' storms?
 
−
 
−
:Think about it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:16, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
 
−
== Cut-n-Run Democrats ==
 
−
It seems like a D.C. directed strategy to abandon democracy. Democrats lost the midterms but they still have their socialism ideology in tact. Wisconsin now Indiana, what a travesty for liberty.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:40, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:They declared war on the taxpayer a long time ago, and now that the taxpayer is fighting back they can't take it.  2012 is less than two years away.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Main page headline ==
 
−
 
−
[[Barack Obama]] has decided to stop defending [[marriage]].[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOhX7cwG-1kiqqRgNx44WTqGtrig?docId=1ca2f2178af94bff942108243da56a3c] --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:57, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== New Zealand ==
 
−
 
−
There was a very large earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand yesterday. Hundreds of people are missing and many dead. My cousin's family moved there from Ireland several years ago. They're fine but badly shaken. Houses in their neighborhood are collapsed. They are all in my prayers. This is international news and should be covered on the main page. Here is a recent article about the recovery today: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/23/75-dead-300-missing-new-zealand-quake/?test=latestnews. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:06, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Pell Grants ==
 
−
 
−
Generally I find the Conservapedia news feed extremely interesting and informative, but I believe that the piece about the cuts to the Pell Grant may be slightly mistaken. See, Pell Grants go to low income college students. Professors don't see that money at all. Of course this is just my experience, maybe there is some level of corruption that isn't apparent to me? Thanks again to everyone who works so hard on the news feed! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 14:54, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:The money funds payments to universities, which funds (and thereby tends to increase) liberal professors' salaries.  I don't know if the money is paid directly to the universities, but I expect it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:09, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::As I expected, Pell Grants are paid directly to the universities.  A student depends on the university for forwarding any of the money to him or her, and presumably in most cases that never happens as the high tuition soaks it all up for liberal professor salaries and other exorbitant costs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::Thank you for the explanation. I would have guessed that the universities would be legally required to forward that money to the students, but I could certainly see how they could find some loophole to keep it. Thanks again, [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:58, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::Seems that when it comes to Pell grants getting cut, no liberal wants to discuss how Obama suggested it in his budget. It's not enough that there are one-thousand different grants given out each year. It's the taxpayer funded grants that shouldn't be cut. What part of "we're broke" doesn't the left get?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:57, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::Also, I think the Pell Grants reward people for not working.  Take a job, and one might lose eligibility for it.  It's the very worst kind of government entitlement, which deters people from getting jobs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
=== Carefully considering whether you go to college and picking the right college and major ===
 
−
 
−
[[Gerald Celente]], [[Vox Day]], Molotov Mitchell and others have made statements which were good warnings relating to making an investment in college carefully and picking a good major and price/value shopping for your college education if you choose the college option.  Conservapedia made warnings in 2010 that an educational bubble may burst in the future and cited good sources.
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=254821 Dark lords of student loan debt] by Vox Day
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyONmsSknOM Celente: Students getting degrees in "worthlessness"]
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/september-october-magazine/are-too-many-people-going-to-college Are too many students going to college] by Charles Murray (I don't agree with his thoughts on some points, for example, Big Bang cosmology)
 
−
 
−
*[http://newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php/Real_Education:_Four_Simple_Truths_for_Bringing_America%27s_Schools_Back_to_Reality  Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality]
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJwTkALDKpY Who Needs College Anyway?] by Charles Murray
 
−
 
−
*[http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/2010/08/college-giant-scam-by-molotov-mitchell.html College is a scam] by Molotov Mitchell
 
−
 
−
 
−
Will higher education be the next economic bubble that will soon burst?
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1536 NAS education bubble]
 
−
 
−
*[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/why_corvettes_cost_less_than_college Rasmussen education bubble]
 
−
 
−
*[http://chronicle.com/article/Will-Higher-Education-Be-the/44400 Chronicle, education bubble] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:44, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::::By the way, various bastions of liberalism - primary school public education (Wisconsin), newspapers (declining readership and profit margins), Keynesian economics (Britain abandoned it and Keynes was British) and higher education - are showing signs of strain.  I believe other bastions of liberalism are going to suffer a similar fate. Liberalism doesn't provide good value and when it infects sectors of society the value of services/goods rendered goes down. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:07, 27 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Potential News Story ==
 
−
 
−
Anti-Lifer was arrested for making threats to pro-life advocates: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/26/pro-choice-extremist-reportedly-arrested-by-fbi-for-threats-to-p/
 
−
 
−
''"This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, a prominent anti-abortion organization, said in a story on the group's website. "He often posted threatening comments to our website and called me on my cell phone too many times to count."'' [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 17:43, 27 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
I think this might be Theodore Shulman's website, but I'm not 100% sure.
 
−
http://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com/ The content speaks for itself.
 
−
[[User:BFleming|BFleming]] 08:58, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Oscar winners ==
 
−
 
−
I was just wondering about the piece you've posted about the Oscars. They've received almost non-stop coverage in virtually every media outlet. The King's Speech in particular has been talked about almost endlessly. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 15:18, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:In England, perhaps?  The [[lamestream media]] in the U.S. are disappointed that Facebook did not win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::It would seem to be the case in the US just as much as in Britain. Even using Google.co.uk most of the results in a news search for The King's Speech and the Oscars are from US media outlets. I don't think there's there's been much in the way of politicization of either film. They've both received almost unanimous praise from the conservative and liberal media. If it was a conservative film, surely the notoriously liberal Hollywood elite wouldn't have voted for it? Indeed, I find it hard to see how The Social Network is 'liberal', I've seen it and its portrayal of the website's founder isn't exactly flattering. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 15:52, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::I don't know if I would want to label The King's Speech as Conservative. The King did swear a good bit in the film (which I highly doubt he would have done), and it almost felt like the film was sending the message that swearing is okay and helped the King to speak better. I also found, as an Anglican, that the portrayal of the Archbishop of Canterbury was insulting. To me it felt like just another "hollywood" way of making something that had potential to be great and twist it to send a Christian-unfriendly message and that swearing is acceptable. Just my personal thoughts. --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 17:44, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::Folks, we often see denials of politics by visitors here, but George Orwell put it best:  "All issues are political issues."  ''The King's Speech'' is far more [[conservative]] than the movie about the gossip website.  Liberals promoted the [[Facebook]] movie ''ad nauseum'' but even liberal Hollywood couldn't stomach it.  Yes, even the liberals in Hollywood can get fed up with the Left, and picked something on the Right this time.  You won't find much bragging about ''The King's Speech'' in the [[lamestream media]] the day after.  The USA Today website doesn't it mention its name on its top screen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::::There is more to politics than liberal vs conservative. Orwell was not suggesting that any issue can be boiled down to one or other of these (very broad) ideologies, nor that we should attempt to do so. Politics in the broadest sense is about the distribution of social goods - things people consider to be valuable - and it is using such a definition that Orwell's statement begins to make sense. The world is not neatly divided into things that are either liberal or conservative, nor is there anything inherent in either film to suggest this. I'm sure anyone, were they to look hard enough could discern from either film ideals they can relate to and which they consider to belong to one of many possible ideologies - but that doesn't make either film in itself 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
 
−
 
−
:::::For one thing, I find the assertion about The Social Network quite odd. You seem to have simply taken the subject matter - Facebook - and determined the films 'politics' based upon that. That would be like someone making a documentary about Ronald Reagan and assuming it to be conservative based solely upon this fact - in actuality the film maker could be highly critical of him; would the film still be conservative? The Social Network is most certainly not a glowing homage to Facebook nor its founders - indeed the website itself is not really the subject matter - the film is more about the human relationships, the treachery and deceit that lie behind its creation - surely not something a 'liberal' would want to show to an audience of millions?
 
−
 
−
:::::And the fact that the USA Today website doesn't mention The King's Speech at a certain point on the screen is hardly supportive of the argument that the media has ignored the film. There are literally tens of thousands of articles just within the last 24 hours, let alone over the past few weeks and months which contain glowing reviews of the film and extensive coverage of its Oscar win. I think it would be far easier to list the US media outlets that did not cover it. Indeed, given the media's usual fascination with all things 'celebrity' the Oscars is basically like Christmas to them.
 
−
 
−
:::::I have seen both of the films in question, and although they are of course very different, I consider both to be excellent and worthy winners of the various awards each have received recently. However, to try and label one or the other 'liberal' or 'conservative' is to downplay both their quality and their complexity. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 19:47, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::::I haven't watched either film, but wasn't George the VIth kind of a Nazi sympathizer before the German war machine really got rolling? --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 17:33, 2 March 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::::::No, not at all. Though it's strongly suspected that his brother, Edward VIII, had Nazi sympathies and there are persistent rumours that E8's wife, Wallis Simpson, had an affair with Ribbentrop when he was German Ambassador in London. There's a theory that Prime Minister Baldwin engineered E8's abdication in favour of George VI for that reason. [[User:HFlashman|HFlashman]] 18:22, 4 March 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
=== The Social Network: A Conservative Film? ===
 
−
 
−
While Facebook, the company, is no doubt liberal and causes a great deal of societal harm (as correctly noted in the headline), I would argue that the film ''The Social Network'' was actually quite conservative in its outlook: it was an occasionally shocking expose of the liberal deceit of Mark Zuckerberg which allowed him to build a business empire.
 
−
 
−
A brief summary, highlighting this political narrative: two conservatives (the Winklevoss twins, who aspire to be "Harvard gentlemen" in the true sense of the term) have a strong entrepreneurial spirit and come up with an idea for a lucrative website.  So far, so good. They hire a programmer, the liberal Zuckerberg, to help them with technical aspects of their site.  Zuckerberg's disgusting history of violating privacy and objectifying women is illustrated in detail.  In a masterstroke of deceit, Zuckerberg turns around and steals their idea, starting his own competitor.  They complain to the school, but its liberal administration (headed by none other than Obama appointee Larry Summers) refuses to enforce its own policies.  Morally depraved activity ''at the company's business headquarters'' is revealed, including rampant drug use and cavalier sexual activity.  Zuckerberg then stabs his own friends in the back whenever it will help him with his business, even cutting out his best friend and first investor in favor of a drug-addled twenty-something who made his fortune from the pirate website Napster.  Make no mistake, this was not a film that praised the liberal company for its innovations.  I understand that Zuckerberg refused to even watch it. --[[User:DanN|DanN]] 19:53, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:It's funny that you mention that Zuckerberg had a history of objectifying women ... how did the Social Network not objectify women? It glorified parties, drug usage, and underage drinking. And Zuckerberg, while he didn't agree with his portrayal or the facts (and to be clear the facts were skewed - Eduardo Saverin's percent of the company, for example, was not dwindled down to .03% ... but to 10%) still watched the movie (and admitted as much in the episode of Saturday Night Live that Social Network star Jesse Eissenberg hosted.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:02, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::The film didn't glorify parties.  It showed them, to be sure, but it showed them in an extremely negative light.  Only bad things came out of the parties in the film as far as I can remember.  So to your question I respond: the movie illustrated the objectification of women, but was not itself guilty of it.
 
−
::It appears you are correct that Zuckerberg watched it after all, but it's not really important to the argument.  He was certainly very displeased with his portrayal. --[[User:DanN|DanN]] 20:09, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::I think there's a common misconception that simply because something is depicted in a film that it is being glorified. By showing the parties, the drugs and the drinking, the film was not depicting them in a positive manner. It was tying them in to the deceit displayed by the characters. Taking just a few examples from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:20_Greatest_Conservative_Movies_of_the_Last_20_Years here:] Air Force One depicts a significant amount of violence - few would argue it glorifies it. The same goes for The Dark Knight. The mere presence of something is not enough to say it is being glorified; that depends on the context. The context set up by the rest of The Social Network portrays the lead character in a negative light, and the events you mention are present are a continuance of this portrayal. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 20:11, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::I'll certainly challenge your claim that only negative things came out of parties - or that they were shown in a negative light. To my memory one party had a negative consequence - the last party. The initial party scene - shown simultaneously when Zuckerberg was working on the facemash site - had no negative consequences,  the party scene where Parker (Timberlake) and Zuckerberg discuss Victoria Secret's history had no negative consequences. At the house is California underage girls are shown to be drinking and smoking marijuana - with no negative consequences. One of Zuckerberg's chief complaints with the film was that the picture added gratuitous amounts of partying to the real story.
 
−
::As to the objectification of women - besides for the one attorney - women either fall in to two categories: crazy (the one who set saverin's trash can on fire) or party-goers. The movie has even been called misogynistic [http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/68725/ (see here)].
 
−
::There's really no argument to be made that this movie - which distorted facts, showed a gratuitous amount of partying - and underage drinking - without consequences, and arguably objectified women - is a conservative movie.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:21, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::I hardly think one can equate a simple distortion of the facts in a film with it being 'liberal'. The King's Speech contains a number of distortions itself. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 20:35, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::::Thanks for the links about misogyny in the movie, Iduan -- interesting reading.  I do still believe however that partying and drug use was shown in a negative light: it appears as the preferred mode of relaxation for liberals, and the moral depravity of the attendees is no secret.  The Winklevosses, among the only positive characters in the film, are never shown engaging in drug use. As for distorting facts, I think that's probably the case for movies of all political stripes, as Brit correctly points out.  While I concede that it's debatable, certainly there is an argument to be made that it is a conservative movie, as the overall storyline is nothing more and nothing less than an expose of liberal deceit and misbehavior. --[[User:DanN|DanN]] 20:45, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 

Revision as of 03:13, March 18, 2011

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/archive91&oldid=857617"