Talk:Main Page/archive27

From Conservapedia
< Talk:Main Page
This is the current revision of Talk:Main Page/archive27 as edited by TK (Talk | contribs) at 04:53, October 3, 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Burma

Should we mention something about whats happening in Burma at the moment? Graham 18:33, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

The situation In Burma is a shame, but from a conservative viewpoint, getting involved there wouldn't be right thing to do when they pose no threat to us. -MikeZoeller 23:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Graham (or anyone else) was suggesting the US get involved directly in Burma, just that the situation there might be worth mentioning. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:36, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. It would make a nice change from the adolescent berating of Liberals to talk about something that actually matters in the world. Graham 07:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Ferret, I agree 100%! No need to "become involved" directly. We can do that from 30,000 feet! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 06:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Please Follow This Link For: A suggestion in regards to encouraging scholarship

Due to the fact that religious conservatives and the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community seem to be at odds in regards to some matters I wish to make the suggestion that Conservapedia make a short and reasonable request to this community on its main page or at least on some page of Conservapedia. However, before I state the nature of the request to the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community I wish to give some background material.... Conservative 22:09, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


PER SYSOP DISCUSSION, THIS RATHER LENGTHY PROPOSAL HAS BEEN LINKED TO ANOTHER EXISTING PAGE CREATED BY THE USER. THE DISCUSSIONS POSTED HERE HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE TALK PAGE THERE. JUST CLICK THE LINK ABOVE! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

A little confused

  • What do you mean when you say that the Bible is "hate speech" in Canada? Masterbratac 20:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes I would like to see a source or at least some type of justification for this statement, otherwise it should be removed. --BillOhannity 20:19, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Did either of you do a search? It took me less than 30 seconds to find this report on Canada and the Bible as hate speech there: [1] --Aschlafly 20:27, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
It wasn't a matter of me finding an article. If a claim such as "the Bible is 'hate speech' in Canada" is made, it should have a citation. And as for the actual content of the statement, this seems less an issue of "making the bible 'hate speech'" and more an issue of being tolerant of other people. --BillOhannity 21:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Even the worldnetdaily article says that opponents of the bill claim that it classifies the bible as hate speech, while the proponents deny it. The title uses a question mark to highlight that its not fact but opinion. Order 22:12, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

There have been confirmed stories of censorship in Canada since the bill was passed, such as the refusal to deliver mail that expresses Christian criticism of homosexuality. Often liberals will object to statements that they know are true, the objections here to the Main Page on this topic seem to fall within that category. I'm not going to waste more time proving what is plainly true.--Aschlafly 22:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
If there are court cases then link to those cases. The article by the worldnetdaily presents it as opinion, not as fact. It is fairly weak to call me liberal for pointing out that your source doesn't match your claim. Order 00:16, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
The WorldNetDaily article is from when the bill was being debated; its my understanding it was passed. So yes, we do need more current information. Rob Smith 00:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Hate crimes bill

According to the source, 10 Republican senators voted for the bill, and Republican Gordon Smith was one of the bill's cheif sponsors. Should that me mentioned? Maestro 11:22, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Day 1 point tally

Not that it matters.... but I don't think the numbers the main page take into account Learn together's edits(which would have tallied to a significant amount of points) for Team Airborne. I added up our teams points yesterday night (without Learn together) and I got around the number on the main page. Just for clarification :)--Tash 16:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Tash, that's great. Please post a revised total for your team on your Team Airborne and on the main page! Tracking the scores is part of the fun and competition.  :-) --Aschlafly 16:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I just finished updating Team Airborne's score after adding up Learn together's points. --Tash 18:04, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

University finally appologizes.

Duke University apologizes to white lacrosse players who were nearly lynched over false claims that they had raped a black stripper. Took the liberals long enough. CalebRookwood 19:44, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Third Party

I say take it down. This is just DNC subversion. Rob Smith 01:22, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Dr. Dobson and Tony Perkins are liberal lackeys? Huh...--PeteVan 08:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)