Last modified on 13 December 2007, at 22:24

Talk:Main Page/archive36

Return to "Main Page/archive36" page.

Possible Story

A possible Wikipedia story here --Pibu 12:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Here's another one - I wish I was making this up, but apparently Wikipedia is being sued for nazi sympathies:

TRipp 17:50, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I don't know if that merits front page coverage. On the one hand, Wikipedia has let the inmates overrun the asylum, and I do think anyone would be surprised if groups are trying to take over branches of it. On the other hand, Americans respect free speech, even loathsome speech, and most Americans are not fans of government censorship of bona fide speech. I guess the facts behind the story need to be understood better.--Aschlafly 17:57, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Well you can just say that people are finding wikipedia's nazi sympathies, not that the government needs to shut it down. TRipp 15:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I doubt that you'll find much true sympathy at Wikipedia for the Nazis. Left-wing totalitarianism is opposed to right-wing totalitarianism. This seems like a contradiction, and it is. Liberalism is hare-brained to the core, though much of it is well-intentioned, like the quixotic hope that we can make poor people middle-class by taking the rich, or the idea that you can reduce teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies by telling kids, "Go ahead and have premarital sex, just use contraception."
They just can't understand it, when their ideas don't work out, so they ignore the contradictions just as George Orwell predicted in 1984; see doublethink. --Ed Poor Talk 15:59, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Ed, I think you're missing the point on sex education. Liberals disagree with abstinence-only education because statistically it is proving to be ineffective. Pregnancy between ages 15-24 has been steadily decreasing since the 80s, and has recently started to spike only in the last several years. Also, liberal sex education is not about "go fornicate your faces off, just use a condom", rather, it states that abstinence is the best way to not have a baby, and condoms/other things reduce the risk. I remember my health classes. They specifically stated the percent-rates at which birth control is effective. Condoms were 90% (apparently people often put them on wrong? I dunno, that's the teacher's explanation), birth control pills were 99% effective, and so on. Finally, he mentioned that there is only one method that is 100 percent effective at avoiding pregnancy: abstinence. So y'see, it's not about discrediting abstinence, but truthfully telling students that other, less-effective ways exist, and it's up to us to make the call. And seven years later, nobody from my graduating class is pregnant yet.ABN 10:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Vaccine-Autism Link

At present, the front page reads:

Teachers are not required to be vaccinated, but New Jersey is about to add 4 more mandatory, often mercury-containing vaccines for schoolchildren, increasing the total above 30[. ...] Only homeschooling escapes the harm from this, which may include autism.

The idea that vaccination may cause autism is a very contentious one, and the statement should be modified to reflect this, properly sourced, or removed entirely. Many studies show no link between thimerasol and autism; at least one shows a negative correlation, with the incidence of autism increasing after vaccines were pulled. Even the article quoted says outright there is no evidence for the vaccine-autism link. If you spend a few minutes with Medline or a subscription-based database--many public libraries offer their members database access from home--you'll see that although this link has been pretty much discredited, it has in fact led to the reappearance of virulent diseases where they should not be found in this day and age. You can argue all day about fossils, water canopies, and hydroplates, and it won't mean a thing. But bad medical advice can lead to very real personal and public health problems.--All Fish Welcome 17:36, 9 December 2007 (EST)

You are indeed correct that the front page should give sound, correct statements and advice; so the questions in this case should be: 1) do the vaccinations mentioned actualy contain mercury? 2) If they do contain mercury, is there a link between autism (as well as other brain disorders) and mercury poisoning? 3) Does a child removed from such a situation in a public school in favor of either a private school or home schooling benefit by not receiving any of these vaccinations? Good source material to answer them would be welcome, as they would be immediately posted. Karajou 18:21, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Mercury is a known toxin. There's nothing contentious about that. Vaccines contain lots of mercury as thimerosal, and no one disputes that. Of course pharmaceutical-funded journals are going to dispute the harm. We're not funded by pharmaceuticals here, and we're going to exercise our rights of free speech in getting the information to people who can then decide for themselves. If you prefer liberal-type censorship, "All Fish Welcome," then you may like Wikipedia better.--Aschlafly 18:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I was under the impression that opposition to vaccines was something that primarily originated in hyper-liberal, über-hippie camps, not conservatives. --SimonA 18:55, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Sounds like you buy into the media's linear model of political views, where ultra-liberals are on one extreme and conservatives are on the other extreme, with the media (and yourself?) in the eminently reasonable middle. That self-serving media model is not correct, and if you stick around you'll see other issues where former hippies agree with conservatives.--Aschlafly 19:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I actually believe in xy-axis-curvature cylindrical politics :). --SimonA 19:08, 9 December 2007 (EST)

None of us here are opposed to vaccinating kids from disease; what we are opposed to is vaccinations that have a clear danger to them. As Aschlafly has stated, mercury is a known poison that can and does cause brain damage; I've known that since 1974. What should happen here should be people going out and stopping such contaminated vaccines from being injected into their kids. That's what the main page posting on this subject is all about: FAIR WARNING TO PARENTS! Karajou 19:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Right, Karajou. Parents who want to give their kids mercury-laden vaccines can do so. Forcing parents to do so is contrary to every conservative principle I can think of. It is amazing how many liberals insist on requiring this, however.--Aschlafly 19:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Andy I disagree - I mean the article itself says that there is no evidence to support the claim that there is a connection to autism.--IDuan 20:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Thiomersal, the compound used in some vaccines as a preservative, has never been shown to have any link to any disease despite some very vocal outcry by anti-vaccination groups. Mercury in its free form can certainly lead to heavy metal poisoning, but thiomersal contains no free mercury. Here's a study from the NIH which states that children are exposed to more mercury through breast-feeding than they ever would be from vaccination. Additionally, here is a table of all common childhood vaccines in the US. As you'll see, almost none of them contain thiomersal, and many of them have never been formulated with thiomersal. So, Andy, if your worry is thiomersal, then don't worry. Vaccinate away! Your kids will thank you for it when they don't have to risk suffering through Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Varicella, HPV, Haemophilus Influenzae, or Hepatits B. SSchultz 21:59, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Iduan and SSchulz, it's amazing how uncritically you accept and repeat information that (a) is implausible, (b) came from people who have or seek lucrative jobs from the companies profiting from the vaccines, (c) kow-tows to the basic liberal one-size-fits-all ideology, and (d) completely ignore and disregard the first-hand observations of thousands of parents who have no conflict-of-interest. I'm sure Wikipedia would be more receptive than we are to censoring those first-hand observations of parents when they conflict with liberal ideology.--Aschlafly 22:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Andy, it's wonderful to be in the presence of someone who can see past the liberal falsehoods thrown out by the National Institutes of Health. Now, the primary claim I'm making is that thiomersal is not present in most vaccines, and has never been present in many. Perhaps you can show how this claim is incorrect and not simply hand wave it away as liberal ideology. And is it more likely that health professionals and researches know more about the effects of vaccination and causes of autism, or is it more likely that parents who haven't studied anything beyond basic biology know more? Indeed, in the recent Autism Omnibus trial (which is still ongoing) the primary test case was for an autistic girl who the parents presented as perfectly normal prior to her vaccination. Examination of home movies of the girl shows classic autistic traits in her prior to her vaccination.
This really isn't an area you should continue to argue, Andy. I'm not just some interested amateur, I actually suffer from Asperger's syndrome which is a form of autism and I've done a great deal of study on the causes of autism and the treatment thereof. I've read the information put out by the anti-vaccination groups and despite a lot of sound and fury, the facts are that no causal link has been established between vaccination and autism. SSchultz 22:30, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Andy - if we're not believing what it says in the very article you the page links to - then who are we taking it from? You? Oh yeah, I forgot you had a degree in medicine, or was it chemistry? I hear that at Wikipedia anyone's comment is considered just as good as an expert's comment - but not here (I hope).--IDuan 23:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Something I think should be pointed out is the toxicity standards that are used (and are often what proponents of vaccine to autism link use to support their claims) for Thimerosal. The EPA only lists methyl-Hg toxicity standards not ethyl-Hg standards as such Thimerosal only contains ethyl-Hg which has been shown to be metabolized from the body much faster than methyl-Hg. Now, I am not claiming there are no possible issues with ethyl-Hg just that many of the claims used to support the anti- Thimerosal are based on the wrong form of Hg.--Able806 12:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Folks, the vaccine-autism link has been published in peer review journals and confirmed by thousands of parents. You're in the wrong place if you think we're going to censor that here. SSchultz, I've taught an Asperger's syndrome student and discussed the issue with other parents. Everyone here is free to disagree, but the plausible claim of a link is not going to be censored.--Aschlafly 12:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly, I would like to see some of these sources and research. Pubmed does not contain such research, and since I actually study Thimerosal crossing the blood brain barrier (in mice), I am interested in these studies. I have heard of Thimerosal having an effect on the myelin of neurons but have not seen any actual studies conducted. This is key since many people say things but it is important to see the experiment to support the claims.--Able806 13:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I agree. Thousands of parents believing in something means nothing. A hundred doctors believing in something means far more. If you could provide a link to one of these journals, or point me in the right direction, that'd be great! ABN 14:02, 10 December 2007 (EST)
And much confidence do you place in a few dozen people who are, or want to be, hired as consultants by the vaccine manufacturer??? That's whom several of the commenters are relying on above.
In merely five seconds I found this news article, with reference to a peer reviewed article, confirming the link: [1] Surely you can spend some time doing your own research rather than simply denying it.--Aschlafly 14:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you for providing the link. I had to go three layers in to find actual scientific data beyond association statistics. (A proposed mechanism as to how the Thimerosal induces the autism is what I am talking about). After reading the news release and then looking at the paper cited in the release there are still no hard facts as to the connection if there is one. This is what the issue is. For many years Physicians prescribed antibiotics as a propalatic for UTIs in infants. It was not until this year that the New England Journal of Medicine reported that not only is this form of prevention unnecessary but it is also harmful for the long term bacterial resistance in the child. The reason why I bring this up is that for a long time physicians assumed that because UTIs were a bacterial infection that by having a moderate dose of antibiotics in the system that the bacteria would not proliferate to numbers high enough to cause infection. It was not until a few scientists actually did the research and provided that the dogma I listed above would cause greater bacterial resistance not prevention therefore causing the child to be a higher risk for harder to treat infections. The autism and vaccine claims have been made but no hard evidence has been established if there is a link. The paper cited in the news release was just a statistical look at vaccinated children and autism. Considering that a high population in the US is vaccinated of course the numbers will be high, with this type of research I could link vaccines to poor vision and acute hearing. It was not until I went further in the article and found this source Teratogenicities of ophthalmic drugs. II. Teratogenicities and tissue accumulation of thimerosal[1] however this is a study looking into birth defects and not mental disorders, which it reported nothing statistically unexpected. After reviewing this article [2] the mechanism is still inconclusive. I am very interested in this subject since the standards that were used in past testing are based on the Methyl-Hg and not the Ethyl-Hg for toxicity and unfortunately led many people to believe that the levels of Hg in the antifungal of the vaccine (thimerosal is used as a preservative for vaccines, it can be substituted for another antifungal) were at a toxic level. This article Mercury concentrations in brain and kidney following ethyl mercury, methyl mercury and Thimerosal administration to neonatal mice[3] reviews the difference between the metabolism of methyl-Hg and ethyl-Hg which is an important factor in regards to the amount of Hg that actually passes beyond the blood brain barrier. I thank you for the link once again because it is helpful to see the other side but a proposed mechanism would be of better assistance. For what it is worth the article is just citing statistical data based on reported cases (both are considered high due to the increase of vaccination and better diagnosis of autism by pediatricians) without any conclusive links to autism and vaccination with Thimerosal.
Just to point out, I have done much research on Thimerosal (it is part of my thesis) but have yet to find conclusive evidence of a link other than speculatory evidence based on statistical data of cases reported vs vaccination. This kind of data in non-conclusive since the increase in cases of autism reported could be related to better diagnosing by physicians. We also have to keep in mind that not all vaccines have Thimerosal and not all cases of autism involve vaccination so there is a great chance that the cases that involve both autism and vaccination are just the luck of the draw. I would propose a look into the family history of those children with autism and would conjecture that there would be some direct relative that showed autistic symptoms.--Able806 16:26, 10 December 2007 (EST).
My question to this is pretty simple: is there mercury in the thimerosal? The point that we're making here is the fact that mercury is harmful to the human body, and there's just no excuse for injecting it in someone via a vaccination. Apart from what I read in a 1972 issue of National Geographic over thirty years ago, myself and other Navy personel received training on controlling mercury spills; this included venting the space, the wearing of respiratory equipment, special handing, etc, all for the sake of the potential spill of a bottle no bigger than many of the vials that this thimerosal comes in. So, it needs to be emphasized again that kids do not need this drug injected in them. Other flu vaccination drugs have worked in the past, and if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Karajou 16:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, there is Hg in Thimerosal as there is Cl in table salt. What matters is the form the Hg takes when it is metabolized in the body just as how Cl's form matters as it is metabolized. It really is not as simple as saying that Hg is bad therefore it should not be introduced into the body, Cl can kill us in its elemental form yet we have to have it to fuel many cellular processes. Hg is the same way. Hg bound to selenium is harmless to the body however, the issue here is: Can ethyl-Hg cause harm to the body in such a way to cause autism.--Able806 16:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Ethyl-Hg causing autism is something I cannot answer; only proper scientific research can do that. But as someone familiar with the properties of mercury and what it can do I can say there are certain elements that belong in, and can be used by, a human body. Mercury is not one of them. Because of that, I have to say no to this vaccine. Karajou 17:02, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Mercury is toxic. The burden is on those who insist on using it to prove it is safe. Able806, you sound like an apologist for the tobacco companies, claiming lack of direct proof that the carcinogens in cigarettes cause cancer.--Aschlafly 19:06, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Elemental Mercury is toxic just as elemental Chlorine is toxic, but we're not talking about elemental Mercury, we're talking about a Mercury compound. The compound itself has not been shown to be toxic or have any negative effects in a repeatable clinical trial. If you insist that thiomersal is not safe, then you need to show at least one case where thiomersal exposure has been proven as the cause of illness. You've shown one article which shows some correlation (though there are surely other factors that correlate), but correlation is not equal to causation. Moreover, it's basically a moot point at this stage since practically no vaccines use thiomersal at this point, and many never have. SSchultz 20:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

User Javascript

Is there a reason why this doesn't seem to work? --SimonA 20:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

If you're using the default theme (Conserv), then it's likely that your User Javascript has to go to "conserv.js" instead of "monobook.js" (Go to any page, view the source, and search for ".js"; you should see one import line that imports a Javascript from your userspace - that's the one you want). --Jenkins 20:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Jenkins would be correct, if you are using the default theme. Otherwise, have you forced a reload of the page? I can't see any other reason; I have javascript working, and I have a section 0 edit (although with an [Edit] link, not a tab). Philip J. Rayment 20:37, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Section editing can be toggled through your user preferences. Jallen 22:36, 9 December 2007 (EST)
That doesn't allow you to edit just section 0—the section before the first heading. Philip J. Rayment 00:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Does this website distort conservative ideology?

I have friends who consider themselves to be conservatives, but {{Remove personal remark}} In my debate with him I brought up three key points; 1) The French education system is secular, yet produces no mass murderers on the scale of the US. 2) The French have tight gun control laws. 3) All the young mens fascination lay in guns.

Yet Mr. Schlafy didn't respond to my points, instead dragging the word Liberal along the floor as if it was a bad thing. I have learnt a lot about American conservatism in my brief time here. MarcusCicero 09:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Marcus, don't get too hung up over it. First, all groups and organizations tend to make themselves out to be more important or significant than they really are. You'd be surprised how few people share their ideology. Second, this website is far less about conservatism as a whole and more about American fundamentalist Christianity. If you look at all of Mr. Schlafly's talking points (as well as most of his sysops') you'll find that most of them revolve around his religious affiliations. So just take his claims of conservatism with a grain of salt, and also always remember that American conservatism, especially when tied in with American evangelism, is very much a different animal from any other conservative ideologies.
Remember -- the web is full of groups like Conservapedia all saying that they are in the right. Use your own judgement -- can you trust a website that politicizes the smallest items and, by their own admission, provides the idea that there are two sets (liberal and conservative) of facts for everything? Just roll that around in your head and you'll realize that Conservapedia is far less important than they make themselves out to be. ABN 09:51, 10 December 2007 (EST)
This site sees through liberal bias and is not shy about conservative principles. We don't expect everyone to be thrilled about that. There are many enemies of conservative values. France has gun control, but it also has terrible street violence. A little more self-defense there might help. Apparently voters agreed in electing a conservative president, despite media attempts to support his liberal opponent.--Aschlafly 12:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I didn't know that. Could you share some stats? What kind of street violence is this? Gang wars, rapes, etc.? If you could point me in the direction of your sources, that'd be great ABN 13:53, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Street rioting and severe vandalism, including destroying numerous cars, in France has been widely reported in the past.
Yes, I remember the riots. But do you think a bunch of angry, disgruntled protestors would be calmed by giving them all guns?? If each of those rioters had more "self-defence", there would have been far more carnage than there already was! And besides from those riots, there really wasn't much else in the way of "street violence". Correct me if I'm wrong, but with some proof this time, please. ABN 14:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Street protesting has been a feature of France since the revolution. Even the violence isn't a new phenomenon - intimidation of the powerful by the people has been a feature of French politics for a long time. The recent street protests by predominately Arab and Muslim immigrant communities is something a little different compared to, say, the student riots of the 60s. But it is very localised, sporadic and well contained by well trained riot police.
Doesn't mean it's a good thing but very few people are effected by it. It doesn't qualify as a national characteristic. But it is taken very seriously and major steps are taken to both treat the cause and to prevent the symptoms. The fact that it is so rare compared with, say, the gang street violence in LA, is why it's such a big deal and reported as such. Ajkgordon 14:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

<-- MarcoCircus, Please aquaint yourself with CP's basic civility clauses. [2] Thank you. Rob Smith 15:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I meant to say this earlier, but I wasn't even talking about your right to have this place to counteract what you perceive to be Liberal bias. What I was pointing out was your unwillingness to countenance my arguments whatsoever - a hypocrisy now slowly been revealed with the revelation that the Colorado murderer was homeschooled. Also, Sarkosy is surprisingly secularist. A person on the religious right won't get you too far in Europe. Christian Democrats in Europe are more akin to the US Democratic Party that the Republican one. MarcusCicero 22:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, no, it's not surprising that Sarkozy is secularist. It would be highly unusual, not to say illegal, for an elected or non-elected government official to be anything but secularist in his public work. While he may well be privately religious, he would make little or no mention of it in his public capacity. Ajkgordon 11:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Although I should add he caused quite a stir a few years back when arguing for some sort of state funding for some religious institutions. I can't remember what the outcome was though. Ajkgordon 11:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia editors revolt and refuse to donate! SkipJohnson 14:52, 10 December 2007 (EST)


I'm confused - in the past have Peruvian sitting heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office? Or is the story that, for example, Bolivian ex-heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office, but never a Peruvian? How about Mongolian PM's? Or Japanese? This is the first time it's happened in Peru, right? What is the news story - the 'first time' bit, or the rest of it? I'm not sure what purpose the "first time" has in the sentence? Reasonableperson 20:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Discussion on the nature of the word 'Liberal'

The truth is that all members here are Liberal; You all support freedom of speech, democracy, a free press, equal treatment by the law etc. etc.

Why do you therefore insist on using Liberal in a derogative manner? Is it not a rather childish act to constantly slate and insult what is in reality the triumphant political theory? (IE, Liberalism)

We are all friends, regardless on our positions on how much extra freedom we believe every individual deserves. JosiahB 10:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Hold on, neighbor. A conservative support equal treatment under the law. A liberal--at least in the United States--supports special treatment for artificially defined classes of victims.
A conservative supports freedom of speech. A liberal calls for the suppression of speech by those who disagree with him.
A conservative supports a truly free press, with no barriers to entry. A liberal wants to erect (or I should say re-erect) barriers to entry and get back to the days when they had the monopoly in deciding what "news" was "fit to print," to paraphrase Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Junior. (For those of you in Rio Linda, California, he's the publisher of The New York Times.)
Now maybe I quarrel with just one word: democracy. I don't know any pure democracy except for Switzerland. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy that tends to govern itself under (mostly) republican principles, and most members of the Commonwealth of Nations are republics, too.--TerryHTalk 13:59, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Terry, he was using the word liberal in the old-fashioned sense of, e.g., a liberal arts college. Perhaps he was unaware that the term now means "leftist" and that left wing in the US is now against what classical liberalism was for?
Josiah, it's not an insult to point out the truth. Today's liberals have betrayed the gains of the past. --Ed Poor Talk 12:26, 1 December 2007 (EST)
The definition of liberal only changed in America. In Australia out equivilent of the republican party is the Liberal Party. Monkey998 23:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Saddening to Read

I will admit, when I first found this website I thought it was hilarious. I still do, to a certain extent, find it amusing, but as I kept reading, I was astounded and saddened by how close-minded people can be. No matter how you define your purpose, this encyclopedia is overwhelmingly biased. I will not go into detail on this subject or on my opinions, but I will only say that this web site does NOT reflect the views of most Christians and Republicans. While reading this, I honestly felt almost ashamed to call myself American Christian. I am writing this in the hopes that a non-American or non-Christian might understand that not all of us are like the people who write Conservapedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tylerr395 (talk)

The purpose is not to reflect the majority but to provide trustworthy information. Rationality is better than emotionalism. --Ed Poor Talk 12:23, 1 December 2007 (EST)
While we do not try to represent the views of a majority, we are closer to the views of a majority of Americans than Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. See Bias in Wikipedia. We remove that liberal bias here, and if you visit here with an open mind then you will benefit from this site.--Aschlafly 12:32, 1 December 2007 (EST)
While you should keep in mind that the six-times figure is based on raw data of a self=selected sample of Wikipedia editors. Order 01:07, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Of course no one said the views of the majority of Americans are correct. Infact I would sugest, as an Australian, that more and more of the world disagrees with the majority of Americans. If the USA didn't have such a massive army it would have little influence on world politics. Soon when America stumbles see how few countries and their people are there to catch it. Also I thought this was a bit of a laugh. The laughter has been replaced with a queazy feeling in my stomach. You people really need to get out and see what the rest of the West has to offer.Monkey998 23:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I've not noticed any evidence that disagreement with America is growing overall (although perhaps over particular issues). America's influence is not just due to its army, but also its economic strength. So what you are really saying is the self-obvious if America wasn't so big, it wouldn't have as much influence! Duh! But I agree that Americans can be rather ignorant of the rest of the world. Philip J. Rayment 00:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)
What a coincidence. The was an article on the love-hate relationship of Australia with the US in today's SMH [3]. Order 01:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The "hate" of America in Western countries is mostly a hatred of Christianity and conservative values. It's deceptively represented as a dislike of America.--Aschlafly 09:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, perhaps we should examine the motives behind this hatred. Why would anyone hate Someone Who loves them? --Ed Poor Talk 09:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
To be honest, much of Europe is, fortunately, Christian, either Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. I'd say that there are more atheists in America than in Europe. You must concede that the current U.S. President is the reason for much of the less-than-friendly sentiments towards the US in Europe. Rightly or wrongly, that is debatable. Leopeo 11:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)
And when I talk of the current U.S. President, I'm not referring to his religious and conservative beliefs, but to some of his decisions in Foreign matters. Whether the Iraq war is a good decision or not, it wasn't warmly welcomed in Europe. Let me add that many leaders in Europe are expression of Christian and/or Conservative Parties, the most eminent being Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany. Leopeo 11:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)


We hate You (And you specifically, not Americans) We hate the religious Right and what it stands for, yes. MarcusCicero 09:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Come off it, man. Don't be hatin'! He has a right to his opinions, no matter how misguided people think they are. I think you're assuming Conservapedia has more pull in the world than it actually does.ABN 10:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Cicero's comments are ironically proof that militance is visible on both sides of the political spectrum. I think this aggression between left and right is more than just principles, but is more about the raw and naked exercise of power. When you have a man who believes he is absolutely right over everybody else, you have trouble, regardless of his political standpoint. ABN 10:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I would never demand he not have his opinions. In fact, I don't hate conservatism, that was the heat of the moment when I was incredibly frustrated with Mr. Schlafy; that anger is passed. Unfortunately, despite all this it will only be a matter of time until I am banned, despite really looking forward to writing some non-partisan historic articles. MarcusCicero 15:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)