Talk:Main Page/archive63

You guys are going to love this (unless you're liberals):

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/04/breaking-sarah-palin-winged-her-speech-bec/

Halfway through Sarah Palin's speech tonight at the RNC, people following the speech noticed she was deviating from the prepared text.

According to sources close to the McCain campaign, the teleprompter continued scrolling during applause breaks. As a result, half way through the speech, the speech had scrolled significantly from where Governor Palin was in the speech. The malfunction also occurred during Rudy Giuliani's speech, explaining his significant deviations from his speech.

Unfazed, Governor Palin continued, from memory, to deliver her speech without the teleprompter cued to the appropriate point in her speech.

Contrast this to Barack Obama who, when last his teleprompter malfunctioned, was left stuttering before a crowd unable to advance his speech until the problem was resolved.

That woman is going to be a great Vice President! Jinxmchue 11:34, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

"when last his teleprompter malfunctioned, was left stuttering before a crowd unable to advance his speech until the problem was resolved."

When did that happen? The article doesn't say.--Frey 12:06, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Could be referring to this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc Jinxmchue 12:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

How come this "miracle" isn't reported anywhere else? Also, why is it such a big deal that someone may occasionally blow a speech? Does it prove that person isn't qualified to hold office? MichaelAnderson 12:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Jonathan Martin of Politico claims he could see the teleprompter during the speech and that it did not malfunction. See here. He's a pretty respected guy and certainly no liberal hack. KimEide 13:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the post, Kim! I was just coming here to post the same thing. So someone at "Redstate" says that someone else in the campaign claimed it broke and she gave a fabulous speech without it. Real "objective" sources for the story! --Jareddr 13:48, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx, nice quote from the article, except you missed a part. The actual quote from Redstate: "Unfazed, Governor Palin continued, from memory [and relying on her printed text, clearly looking down occasionally at the printed page]..." Will the headline be updated to reflect that she had to rely not just on memory---but a printed copy of her speech as well? --Jareddr 14:10, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

This site does seem to rely too much on blogs for news. Was there ever confirmation of the boy scout bus attack story, or just one guy's blog? It seems there should have been many other testimonies. Even if the mainstream media were to ignore it, you'd think there's be at least someone else confirming it. It was a busload of people in broad daylight. ThomasG 14:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that Sarah Palin confirmed the bus incident. She saw it all with her X-ray vision! MichaelAnderson 14:33, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to cut pieces out of a quote you must indicate that words have been removed. A failure to do so is deceitful. The missing words are indicated with three dots, thus: "...". In addition you should not remove words that change the meaning or intent of the author. In my view it is somewhat misleading to suggest that Palin completed the speech from memory alone. --Horace40 19:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Although it's a lot harder to perform a speech well from memory or notes vs. a teleprompter, the fact is, she did have notes, and that part of the quote was excised. That's poor journalism, at best. Human 20:07, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

She didn't use her notes as she spoke.--Aschlafly 20:13, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the article linked to the Main Page story she did use her notes. That part of the quote has been removed. No doubt Palin did a wonderful job in difficult circumstances. I am simply saying that I expect higher standards. Particularly on the Main Page. --Horace40 20:22, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I've updated it, although the use of square brackets in the source suggests that the missing text was not there where originally posted here. But it's proper to update our entry in line with their update. Their use of square brackets caused a problem in me trying to use square brackets to indicate a change of wording (for brevity) in a way that clashes with their square brackets. To resolve this, I've changed their square bracket to ordinary brackets, then used square brackets to indicate our change. Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you protest (and quibble) too much.--Aschlafly 20:00, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. I think we can agree that she met or exceeded expectations in her delivery of the speech. What's missing from the conversation is any discussion over the content of the speech itself. Aside from presenting a brief bio/introduction that most people had become familiar with in the media blitz of the past few days, and the inevitable attack lines one expects in a VP's acceptance speech, what new things did we learn about Sarah Palin the candidate? I now know she plans on being an advocate for special-needs parents, but there were no specific policy proposals to go with that statement. We heard how she cuts costs in Alaska, but what are her plans for addressing the economy on a national level? Perhaps she's leaving the proposals for McCain to define, and I'm looking forward to hearing them. What I'm looking forward to with Palin are some substantive interviews where she will finally answer important questions on the issues herself. --DinsdaleP 21:55, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you've got to be kidding about demanding interviews! When Obama consents to a real interview then Palin will also. Did you complain about Obama reading almost only from teleprompters for nearly two years???--Aschlafly 22:22, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

You got a deal, Aschlafly. Since Barack Obama will be on FoxNews tonight being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly[1]---how about Palin go on Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann? Or This Week? Or Meet the Press? (Actually, those last two are booked this weekend with Obama and Biden, respectively. --Jareddr 22:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama ducked and prepared for that interview for many months, and even then one wonders how the questioning was limited. And Obama did poorly in the part I watched.

I'm sure Palin would debate, and defeat, Obama any time he likes.--Aschlafly 23:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Did you mean "she"? Personally, I don't expect this to go further, but I think that might be the "new" Phyllis Schlafly, conservative provocateur. She's got the goods. Human 23:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

No, I didn't mean "she". I meant he for Obama: he's the one who ducks debates and interviews, or anything without a teleprompter.--Aschlafly 23:53, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly, please do not employ Liberal Style #49. You are dismissing the legitimate lack of real interviews with Palin as a joke. The lack of interviews with Obama is not the topic at hand.--AndrasK 22:34, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Can someone explain to me how teleprompters work? I would assume that they are under human control, to allow for different reading speeds and for interruptions such as applause, in which case it would not have been a "teleprompter malfunction" that occurred, but a human failure. Correct? Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

You're probably correct, Philip. Teleprompters project scrolling text upwards onto a plate of glass angled so that the speaker can read the reflected text while appearing to look right through it. Viewers on the audience side of the glass cannot see the reflection. The text itself does not scroll automatically - that would destroy the ability of a speaker to make their speech with the timing and punctuation a good speaker uses, and make it impossible to handle audience interruptions, etc. So a teleprompter operator sits backstage and uses a scroll wheel to control the scroll live, providing the speaker with whatever text they need at whatever speed they're speaking at. So if Palin's teleprompter 'failed', perhaps the computer it was running on crashed or something, or else the operator was paying very poor attention. Either way, you can be sure some ears were red after the incident. Sadly for Palin though, no teleprompter was going to make any of the candidates better orators than Obama. BenHur 19:57, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

The teleprompter supposedly kept rolling (instead of pausing), so that seems to rule out a computer crash. But thanks for your reply; it essentially supports what I was thinking. Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Vanity Fair reports that the outfit that Cindy McCain wore on Tuesday night at the RNC cost an estimated $299,000-$310,000. The majority of the cost came from the three carat diamond earrings she wore which are valued at approx. $280,000. Link: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html --AndrasK 22:48, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

"The jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real." We had better wait for confirmation. HenryS 23:23, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition to HenryS's point, the issue here is sincerity and credibility. Cindy McCain does not claim to be something she is not.--Aschlafly 23:32, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I am not sure that its even relevant. I cant think of a president, Democrat or Republican, that has not been wealthy. At least not in the last say 30 years. I think that policy is what makes someone in touch with the working class. ClarkeD 23:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Our article is number 12 AT Google Mexico and number 4 in Yahoo.

See: http://www.google.com.mx/search?hl=es&q=Atheism&start=10&sa=N

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Atheism+&vc=&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fp_ip=MX

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:05, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh-oh. :( Any idea why it's dropping? Aziraphale 11:28, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

The conservapedia article is now rising for Google Mexico and it is now ranked #10 for the search atheism. see: http://www.google.com.mx/search?hl=es&q=Atheism&start=0&sa=N

...could someone fill me in why we should even care about search engine rankings? There are several reasons why such measurements are absolutely pointless. --DirkB 16:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin, might you be interested in translating the Conservapedia atheism article to Spanish? There may be some Spanish websites that might be interested in hosting a Spanish version of it as I have a Spanish pastor contact. Second, the conservapedia theory of evolution and homosexuality articles show that it is certainly possible that the conservapedia atheism article will climb higher for Google USA and Google UK. conservative 20:44, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Fine, good target. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:00, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Not trying to start an unproductive debate, but in the interest of fairness, this is the complete quote:

NEWSFLASH GLORIA:

Not all modern women are atheists, pro-abortion and man-haters.

Funny you criticize Sarah Palin for killing animals (hunting) and at the same time condemn her for being against killing HUMAN BABIES.

You ARE a dried up old irrlevant hag.

GET A LIFE.

Had this been a pro-Steinem quote, I'm sure the last bit would have been included and identified as Liberal Style #32. My point is that manners can be lacking from either side. Kallium 11:09, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I left out the ending out of politeness to Steinem. You're wrong if you're implying that liberals do not have worse manners than conservatives. Sure, manners can be lacking from either side, but more often the bad manners are on the liberal side.--Aschlafly 11:44, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I made no statement regarding magnitude, just the simple observation that "manners can be lacking from either side", only because on this site it is usually broken down into the binary absolutes of "Conservatives are polite and respectful, Liberals are not" (not to mention that the categories "Conservative" and "Liberal" themselves are treated as binary). We both agree on my point as written, nothing else was implied or hidden; it wasn't necessary to go on the offensive. Kallium 12:16, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

It's misleading to insist that both sides have a harmful trait, which in fact there is a correlation between the trait and one side. For example, tobacco companies shouldn't be claiming that lung cancer arises in non-smokers as well as smokers, without adding that it is correlated with smokers.--Aschlafly 12:24, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Again, I made no statement regarding magnitude. In fact, I was making the same point as you just did, but in the other direction. On this site it is often implied that such a correlation is absolute, rather than a tendency, however strong or weak, as correlations actually are- i.e. it can also be seen as misleading in a number of ways to say that lung cancer arises in smokers without adding that it also arises in non-smokers or those who have been exposed secondarily. However, showing that two groups of any kind share any trait doesn't imply that they do so equally- that is an assumption often added by the reader when not taken at face value- all it says is that they both share it. Period. It is ironic that you say I "insist that both sides have a harmful trait" when in fact you agreed with my initial face-value point, and then went beyond it to introduce disagreement. As I said, I'm not trying to start an unproductive debate, but since we're careening towards that, I'm stepping off now. Kallium 19:40, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I think we shouldn't give extra spotlight time to internet trolls who resort to personal remarks in blog comments, regardless of whether they happen to agree with our view or not. The same point could (and should) have been made by Andy himself, in his words. This news entry would be stronger if the comment part was replaced/rephrased in that way. --DirkB 16:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been a big week one way and another, but surprisingly no change either way in how the market views each candidate's chances. -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 07:19, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Unless there's a major gaffe or revelation from either side, I don't think we're going to see a major shift in the polling until the debates start. --DinsdaleP 12:13, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm reluctant to state which one here because I don't want to give it any more attention until it's been deleted or approved by the administrators of this site. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 16:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

See Category:Speedy deletion candidates. --DeanS^talk 17:43, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Appreciated. --DinsdaleP 18:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Whats the reasoning behind the fact that only administrators can upload photos but not users like myself? I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but pictures make the articles look nicer and a lot more professional. There are a lot of long articles with maybe one picture. Lots of times I request photos for articles on the talk pages, but they usually don't get responded too. I know I probably wont convince you guys to change the rules, but whats you reasoning behind it?, Thanks. Chippeterson 6 September 2008

That privilege is earned. You're on your way towards that goal. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

The reasoning is due to prior vandalism. See Conservapedia talk:Uploading. As Andy has said above, the uploading privilege is earned. --DeanS^talk 17:15, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Just Re-read Editors Guide

I just re-read the Conservapedia contributers guide. It says "The right to upload images and to edit while editing is turned off can be granted to editors with a proven good record."

So I want to ask a Sysop, what specially qualifies as a "good record." Chippeterson 6 September 2008

Consistent quality edits. Basically, the same criterion that a real encyclopedia uses.--Aschlafly 21:23, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I luckily just discovered the Conservapedia:Image upload requests and put two suggestions for Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Chippeterson 6 September 2008

Dear God, I'm glad that this addition is so far at the bottom of the page. This way, we might have some credibility left at the end of the day.

I don't even know where to start. The image, the pettiness, the fact that this is about Google Cuba (Let me guess: you tried all regional Google versions and picked the best one?), the fact that search engine results are becoming more and more meaningless in such issues, or hey, how about this one: The advertised article is insanely long and made me facepalm several times - and I'm really no fan of atheism! If this article gets this reaction from people who agree with the "subtle" message ("ATHEISM BAD! BAAAAAAAAD!"), how will it cause anything more than deranged laughter from atheists?

So please... remove this section. I fear it's skewering Conservapedia's reputation as a serious resource. Ole, ole, ole. --DirkB 21:03, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I like it, gives CP a lively personality. -- jp 13:35, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

"There is a danger that girls will be lulled into a false sense of security and imagine that they can engage in sexual activity without any serious risk to their health," said Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust. "Giving the vaccination to girls without the consent of their parents is unethical and a recipe for disaster. It is sending out the message that girls under 16 have a right to a private sex life and treating with contempt the protection given by the age of consent." (The Independent on Sunday, 7 September 2008) 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 06:57, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

"..A handful of scientists believe that the experiment could create a shower of unstable black holes that could "eat" the planet from within, and they are launching last-ditch efforts to halt it in the courts. One of them, Professor Otto Rossler, a retired German chemist, said he feared the experiment may create a devastating quasar – a mass of energy fuelled by black holes – inside the Earth. 'Nothing will happen for at least four years,' he said. 'Then someone will spot a light ray coming out of the Indian Ocean during the night and no one will be able to explain it. A few weeks later, we will see a similar beam of particles coming out of the soil on the other side of the planet. Then we will know there is a little quasar inside the planet.' Prof Rossler said that as the spinning-top-like quasar devoured the world from within, the two jets emanating from it would grow and catastrophes such as earthquakes and tsunamis would occur at the points they emerged from the Earth. 'The weather will change completely, wiping out life, and very soon the whole planet will be eaten in a magnificent scenario – if you could watch it from the moon. A Biblical Armageddon. Even cloud and fire will form, as it says in the Bible.'" 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 07:07, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, a small handful of scientists do believe that. Their main problem (among others) is that the atmosphere is and has been constantly hit by cosmic rays of equal or far higher energy that will be produced in the LHC, thus it's nothing new to the planet. It's also possible that the next solar flare will trigger the launching of every active nuclear missile. Now I'm all for safety and caution, but for a site that considers a number of other much better-supported concerns to be "scientific alarmism", this is a bit ridiculous. (Addition 9 Sept: the first collisions won't be until October or early November- so we've still got a month.) Kallium 11:20, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Y'all are always railing against political correctness are you not? you actually had a debate over whether the term 'African American' was too politically correct for this site. you constantly cry foul if liberals try-in your opinion-to force their opinion. But THEN, if an art piece offends your religious sensibilities, you demand it be censored by the police! what's the deal? user:NoahH

Er, what's the contradiction? You haven't explained. Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe he's saying that liberals shouldn't complain about terms and images that offend their beliefs, then neither should conservatives. In other words, if it's okay for us to offend liberals with our non politically correct speech, liberals can offend conservatives with by not treating Christian images reverently. Blasphemy may be tasteless, but it's not illegal. CraigC 12:27, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

That seems to be a very relativistic view, that presumes that neither side is right. As a Christian, I'm not a relativist, and therefore don't find that argument convincing. Philip J. Rayment 06:04, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

This is ridiculous; both the woman trying to sue and this site for supporting her. Blasphemy is no longer, thankfully, a crime. Freedom of speech and, by extension, artistic expression is a UN human right and part of your constitution. It's people like this; heavily religious, dangerously reactionary and frankly riserable, that give the United States the repuation it has.

Considering the amount of flak everything takes from this site for trying to avoid upsetting people, this sudden attack on free speech is ludicrous. I don't expect you'll even reply to this, let alone remove the link, but I need to at least try to stem the tide of madness here.

KarlJaeger 16:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Why are you thankful that blasphemy is no longer a crime? Do you want to be disrespectful to our Creator? Do you want to foster a climate in which people can be disrespectful to our Creator? We disallow offending people of other "sexual persuasions", "races", religions, and so forth, but apparently it's okay to be offensive to our Creator, and by extension, Christians. As for the free speech aspect, see my essay: Freedom of speech. Philip J. Rayment 06:04, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the link; I read your essay and it makes a number of good points. In light of the fact you replied in a sensible and constructive way, I feel I should answer some of your questions: "Why are you thankful that blasphemy is no longer a crime?" - Because I consider theocratic laws to have a negative effect on society. "Do you want to be disrespectful to our Creator" - I'm an atheist, so it's not a case of disrespect. "Do you want to foster a climate in which people can be disrespectful to our Creator?" - Again, I'm an atheist, so I don't much mind.

I should just clarify that I certainly don't advocate disrespect of Christians on the basis of their faith, even though I don't happen to agree with it. However, I think it is acceptable to say something that happens to offend Christians, so long as the intention was not to offend. For example, in answer to your comparison to "other "sexual persuasion"", (though I would prefer the term "sexualities") I think it is quite acceptable to present a case for the harm that, say, homosexuality does to society (I stress that this is not my view, but I understand it is the view of many), so long as the intention was not to offend, but merely to make a point. There are too many conflicting points of view to try not to offend anybody, but deliberate offence should be avoided.

I find people who deliberately go out of their way to attack Christians to be as bad as those who go out of their way to attack atheits (and to attack "liberals" as well. It's not a cipher for "devil-worshipper" and you're just going to have to get over that.) but I find it absurd that Conservapedia is attacking this artistic expression when the intention was not to offend. Thank you,KarlJaeger 13:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

And thanks in return for your civil reply.

Why do you think that theocratic laws have a negative effect on society? And what do you mean by "theocratic laws" anyway? I take that to mean laws given by God, but you don't believe He exists, so you wouldn't even recognise that such laws could exist.

I could try arguing that being an atheist is disrespectful to our Creator, but instead I'll ask why your beliefs about a Creator mean that we should not have blasphemy laws. I would have thought that your atheism would mean that such laws are a non-issue to you, rather than something that you oppose.

I wasn't directly addressing the incident that started this discussion, but as you have mentioned it, how do you know that it wasn't intended to offend? If someone does want to offend, it's very easy for them to play the victim and simply claim that they didn't mean to offend.

Philip J. Rayment 09:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

If I may chime in, and I may be missing an underlying issue not covered on this talk page, what exactly is meant by "blasphemy laws?" In any case, wouldn't that be a direct violation of one's freedom of religion? I don't see how a secular (for lack of a better term) court could write legislation against blasphemy without being considered a theocracy.

I'm not trying to start a debate. I'm merely looking for a little clarity on the discussion.

--Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 09:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Right. I consider a "theocratic law" to be one based on a religion. For example, a law against adultery would not be necessarily theocratic, but in plenty of cases (such as Iran), they have a theocratic law against adultery; the law is there soley because it is part of Islan.

I believe theocratic laws have a negative effect on society primarily from observing Europe during the Dark Ages, perhaps the low point of civilization so far (compare to the Roman Republic/Early Roman Empire, which was not a theocracy) and looking at places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I am sure that me being an atheist would offend a God, but since I don't believe in any, I'm not (from my point of view, obviously theists would disagree) offending him/her. I think an anti-blasphemy laws are an infringement of free speech that serves no purpose except to pacify Christians. Secondly, if we have a law against anti-Christian blasphemy, why not one against anti-Muslin blasphemy? Why not anti-whichever-crazy-cult-happens-to-have-the-media's-ear blasphemy laws as well? Obviously, you cannot legislate against anything that might offend somebody. Better to have no theocratic laws, but a law against speech designed solely to offend.

I cannot show that the intention was not to offend, but I like to assume good faith, unless the evidence is against it.

"In any case, wouldn't that be a direct violation of one's freedom of religion? I don't see how a secular (for lack of a better term) court could write legislation against blasphemy without being considered a theocracy." In my opinion, any parliament that legislates based on religion has theocratic elements.

- KarlJaeger 13:23, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Blasphemy laws are/were laws that basically declared it to be wrong to show disrespect toward God. "Theocracy" literally means "rule by God", not "based on religion", although an extended meaning is "rule by a religious body". "Secular" originally meant "not of the clergy"; it didn't mean "free of religion". So a secular government or a secular law can still recognise the existence of God.

Almost all laws are based on religion, or at least on religious views, whether they be Christian, Muslim, atheistic, or whatever. For example, why do we have laws against theft? Because we believe that stealing is wrong, and that thought comes from religion (Christianity in particular; atheism has no basis for right and wrong). If you protest that it's really because it is depriving someone of something that belongs to them, then you are simply begging the question: why do you consider depriving someone of something to be wrong? It's because of religion!

The Dark Ages (<-- read that) was a myth, so you had better brush up on your history and find another reason for your objection to theocratic laws.

Your (KarkJaeger's) question about "anti-Muslin (sic) blasphemy" presupposes that all religions (except atheism, presumably) are equal, a view that I reject.

I fail to see how laws against blasphemy are an infringement on free speech, unless you want to be free to malign a Being you don't believe in! Blasphemy laws are not intended to say that you can't criticise the idea of God.

Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

A view that you reject. You cannot make laws on the basis that "I'm right, you're wrong", which is precisely what you are advocating. Why should you discriminate against the Muslim or Hindu or Jainist or Scientologist minority on the basis that the ruling class happens to disagree with their views? You are saying that the ruling class, because they are Christian, should treat Christianity as superior and give it greater status in law! I can't decide what's worse; this idea, or the fact you seem to advocate it!

KarlJaeger 14:34, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

That I reject it means that your argument carries no weight with me, the person (or one of them) to whom you were addressing your remarks. (See my How to debate page.) It also means that your argument is based on a view, not an accepted fact. Therefore, just as we cannot make laws according to my views of right and wrong, neither can we make them according to your views of right and wrong, which is effectively what you are advocating (given that you haven't offered an alternative basis).

I never said that we should discriminate against Muslim, Hindu, Jainist, or Scientologist minorities "on the basis that the ruling class happens to disagree with their views". Neither did I say that the "ruling class" should treat Christianity as superior "because they are Christian". The basis I advocate for making laws is to (a) determine which view is correct, not just presume that they are all equal (which they aren't), and (b) make laws on the basis of that view. And basing laws on one's view in unavoidable. Because laws inevitably will be made on the basis of the views of the "ruling class", whether they be Muslims, Christians, or atheists. Everyone holds views on which they base their actions, which views are know as "religious" views (see Religion) despite followers of some of those views (e.g. many atheists, some Christians) rejecting that term for their views.

Philip J. Rayment 20:52, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

But you are advocating discrimination. You are wanting to protect Christianity agaisnt speech you consider to be offensive to it, but you oppose, for example, the protection of homosexuals from Christian criticism. As I understand it, (and I'm an atheist, so my apologies if I'm mistaken) what makes Christianity's view "correct" is a matter of faith, not of provable fact. Therefore, any government that chooses Christianity as "correct" (and not as equal to other faiths, as you said) and thus supports protection of it against blasphemous speech, is clearly one choosing it through faith, and not through evidence. Therefore, such a government is a theocracy.

Back to my point on the evils of a theocracy; look at Iran. It is an Islamic Republic, and, in my opinion, the worse off because of its theocratic nature.

On a slight tangent, you said that atheism has no inherent morality. This is quite true; atheism is not a religion, and expecting two atheists to have even a remotely similar morality is a poor assumption to make. I believe that stealing is wrong, not because of any God-given law, but simply because I would rather live in a society where I am protected against theft. I do not wish to be murdered, therefore, laws against murder are necessary for a society of people with the same view (which, I'd hope is everybody) to exist.

Thank you for remaining civil and for the advice, even though we disagree. :)

KarlJaeger 16:45, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

If you mean unfair discrimination, as opposed to everyday discrimination, then no, I'm not.

Perhaps you should read my essay: Freedom of speech again, because you appear to have missed the point. You are conflating "insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence ...[or]...claiming the attributes of deity"[2] (speech Christians would consider offensive) with reasoned criticism (of homosexuals). Two different things.

You are mistaken. "Faith" is trust based on evidence[3]. As for "provable fact", see my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. This also answers your claim about a government choosing Christianity not on the basis of evidence. And even if it was on faith, it wouldn't make the government a theocracy, as I've already explained. To repeat, a theocracy is, strictly, rule by God, not by a human government. The term is often extended to mean rule by the clergy, but we are not talking about that either.

You commit a logical fallacy with your mention of Iran. Just because a given theocracy produces a bad result doesn't mean that all theocracies will, especially one connected with a different religion.

Atheism is a religion (<-- did you read that when I last linked to it?), depending on which definition of the term you use. You would rather live in a society where you are protected by theft, but others in that same society want to steal, so what makes your preference the "right" one? You are effectively saying that it is "wrong" because you don't like it. Since when does your opinion make something right or wrong?

Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree, just because one theocracy is bad (and I presume by your comment that you agree that it is) doesn't mean the concept is inherently flawed. But it does cast doubt on the concept. Give me an example of a positive theocracy in the modern world. And I am aware that a theocracy is (strictly) a "rule by god", but I think any law based on a religion, rather than on what is good for society, should be considered a "theocratic law". If you disagree with my definition of a "theocratic law", that's fine. Call it a "religious law", but the point stands.

Atheism is not a religion, any more than "bald" is a hair colour or "black" is a colour. (Yes, I know it's referred to as such in normal usage, but technically, it isn't.) Their is no unifying belief system beyond "there is no God" that unifies atheists. For example, I am an atheist who believes that it can never be right to take a human life. Josef Stalin was an atheist who evidently believed it could be right to murder for some reasons (namely, his own power and the security of the USSR). I am an atheist who believes in Darwinian evolution. Trofim Lysenko was an atheist who did not. And the list goes on.

In order to argue that a religious law is a good idea you must accept: a) that this religion is true, b) that the religion has actual evidence that implies that it's true. It should be acceptable as true through evidence, not through blind faith, but on the evidence. The consensus of the scientific community is that the evidence does not require a God. In fact, I was under the impression that most religious people accepted that there is not evidence; I understood it to be a matter of belief. If it is a question of faith, rather than through evidence, how can you argue to those who do not agree that you're making a law for all the people, not for the pious ruling class?

If you believe there is real evidence for the existence of God, then I can make no further case. My argument is based on the fact that a religious group has no right to make laws based on its own faith. If you disagree with my assumption above, then I must cease to make my case. You can go on preaching to the choir if you like.

KarlJaeger 16:05, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I can see why you would think that bad theocracies cast doubt on the idea. Just like most republics have been unstable governments, whereas monarchies tend to be more stable, so I guess that casts doubt on the idea of a republic (says I, living in Australia under a monarchial system!).

I do disagree with your definition of "theocratic law", and don't particularly like "religious law" any better, given that I've pointed out that most laws are based on religious views. And I asked if you'd read Religion, because you appeared to have not. You didn't answer that question, and you still appear to have not read it, because you simply deny that atheism is a religion without addressing the points made in that article. There may be no unifying belief system beyond "there there is no God", but that is an unifying belief! Okay, perhaps in a sense atheism is not a religion, any more than theism is a religion. That is, theism is a category of religions, that includes Christianity, Judaism, etc., and atheism is a category of religions that includes Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. But that doesn't change the basic argument.

Lysenko was a Lamarkian. Lamarkianism is a form of evolution, so your claim that he wasn't an evolutionist is incorrect.

The majority opinion of scientists possibly is that the evidence does not require God, but science doesn't work on majority opinion! And there are a large number of scientists who disagree (at least to some extent), so it's not a consensus. As for your view that Christians accepted that there is not evidence, did you read the link in my last post about faith? It appears not. Why bother discussing evidence if you don't read the evidence I provide? Are you just trying to waste my time?

I most certainly do believe that there is real evidence for the existence of God. I'm not claiming scientific proof (which is an oxymoron anyway), but I do claim evidence. And given that, your final comment was an unwarranted rude slur. An apology is in order.

And can you please answer my questions in the last paragraph of my previous post?

Philip J. Rayment 10:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

P.S. It looks like you might be British, so my comment above about republics and monarchies may not have the same impact as if you were an American! Philip J. Rayment 10:41, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Right, I'll try to answer as many of your questions as I can.

Firstly, yes, I'm British. I agree that republics are more unstable than monarchies, which is why I consider constitutional monarchism to be superior to both. I'd like to add that if you live in Australia, you live in a constitutional monarchy, just as I do.

Secondly, I disagree quite strongly that most laws are based on religion. For example, a law against murder is not based on religion. It is based on the fact that if murder were allowed, society would quickly break down. Same goes for theft; in a world where theft is allowed, there would be no incentive to work (because you can take off others, and if you earn for yourself, it'll be taken from you) and so, once again, society breaks down.

Thirdly, I find your ad-hominem attacks to be rather unfair. I do read the articles you keep throwing at me, but I don't agree with some of them. As you pointed out in your "how to debate" page, you must start from an assumption that we both share. You appear to be attempting to start with the assumption of "if it's on Conservapedia, it's true", which I definitely don't share (any more than I agree with "if it's on __________, it's true"). I see your point; you extend the term "religion" to other belief systems, such as Leninism or Blarism. I don't consider this to be the case, but I'll try to answer your points nonetheless. For example, Margaret Thatcher believed that free-market capitalism was the best system. She thought this because she saw the damage done to the British economy by constant socialism and unionisation. By contrast, a religion believes something without evidence to back it up. If you disagree with this divide between ideology and religion, and you wish to extend religion to all of these beliefs, that is fine. However, it is still true that a law banning blasphemy doesn't have the same legitimacy as a law banning murder. You can see what happens in a society where murder is allowed; society will break down. The same cannot be seen as true for blasphemy.

My last comment: I presume you mean the one about "preaching to the choir". I did not intend this to be "a rude slur". I meant it to point out that your arguments don't seem to be able to convince somebody who doesn't accept your basic assumption that there is evidence for the existence of God (which I don't). Therefore, you can only convince somebody who accepts this view, and thus you are "preaching to the choir". I apologise for unintentional offence caused.

Fourthly, I notice you've selectively misrepresented my comment about Lysenko. I said (and I quote): "I am an atheist who believes in Darwinian evolution. Trofim Lysenko was an atheist who did not." You then said "Lysenko was a Lamarkian. Lamarkianism is a form of evolution, so your claim that he wasn't an evolutionist is incorrect." I am a Darwinist; Trofim Lysenko was a Larmarkist. We are both evolutionists and both atheists, but we disagree, which was the point I was making. You have attempted to claim that I said that Lysenko was not an evolutionist, which I certainly did not say. I find it difficult to believe that this misrepresentation was deliberate, but I will assume good faith and assume it was a simple misunderstanding.

Fifthly, I agree that a majority is not a consensus. Plenty of scientists call themselves creationists as well, and plenty do not. Therefore, I believe that government should stay clear of religion; freedom of religion should be present, but just as a government should not persecute the religious (one of things that I find wrong with communism and fascism) it should not persecute atheists with laws derived from a religon, such as your cries to prosecute this artist based on blasphemy laws.(My definition of religion here. Substitute: "ideology not based on empirical evidence" if you will.)

I think I've answered all of your points; If I missed any, this was certainly not intentional.

KarlJaeger 12:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

"For example, a law against murder is not based on religion.": Actually, historically, such laws were based on religions.

"It is based on the fact that if murder were allowed, society would quickly break down.": Not so. I'm not denying that if it were allowed, there would be problems, but if it was allowed but limited, society would survive. In some societies murder of people considered lesser, for example, has been allowed, yet the societies survived. An example might be the murder of slaves. In any case, the argument is logically fallacious. A society is not going to break down just because there are some examples of, for example, murder. But we don't have the attitude that because there are not many murders, and therefore not enough to cause the breakdown of society, that we can tolerate the few murders that exist. Rather, we consider that murder is inherently wrong, and even those few examples should be eliminated. So if there is a loophole in the law, for example, that loophole will still likely be closed, on the basis of it being wrong, not on the basis that the loophole will lead to a breakdown of society. Similarly, we enact laws against killing whales not because killing them will lead to a breakdown of society, but because a majority (or noisy minority) consider that killing whales is wrong.

I made no ad hominem attack. I pointed out that you appeared to have not read the links, because you repeated your claims without addressing the opposing reasons those links contained.

"You appear to be attempting to start with the assumption of "if it's on Conservapedia, it's true"": On the contrary, I'm merely pointing you to the sort of argument that I could make here, but don't because it's pointless repeating it here when it's already said elsewhere.

"...you extend the term "religion" to other belief systems...": It's not just me that "extends" the term. That is one of several legitimate and accepted uses of the term.

"By contrast, a religion believes something without evidence to back it up": Simply not true, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, and I've already pointed that out in discussing "faith".

"However, it is still true that a law banning blasphemy doesn't have the same legitimacy as a law banning murder.": According to you. I disagree.

"You can see what happens in a society where murder is allowed; society will break down. The same cannot be seen as true for blasphemy.": It can't? Societies that have rejected God (of which blasphemy is a symptom) have a much poorer record that societies with a Christian basis.

I accept your apology, thanks. But I'll explain why it was a slur. First, the existence of evidence for God is not a "basic assumption". It's something that can be demonstrated (else it wouldn't be evidence). As my essay points out, there are common points that we can argue on the basis of, and your comment implied that I was totally unable to make a coherent argument that could possibly convince anyone that didn't already agree with me.

"Fourthly, I notice you've selectively misrepresented my comment about Lysenko.": Sorry about that. I would, however, point out that Darwin accepted the Lamarkian view to some extent. Also, I had in mind a separate discussion I've been having about atheists necessarily believing in some form of evolution. Sure, different atheists will have beliefs that differ in some small or not-so-small details, but it's more than just "there is no God", if for no other reason than that other views are necessarily derived from that view. So it appears that I was getting two different conversations confused.

" Plenty of scientists call themselves creationists as well, and plenty do not. Therefore, I believe that government should stay clear of religion...": I fail to see how the latter follows from the former. If plenty believe A, and plenty of others believe B, why should the government necessarily stay clear of one and not the other (without considering other factors such as which makes the most sense)?

"[Government] should not persecute atheists with laws derived from a religon, such as your cries to prosecute this artist based on blasphemy laws": Who's asking for persecution? We are simply talking about restricting certain actions on the basis of them being unacceptable, as any law does. Further, some laws necessarily favour one religion/worldview/philosophy over another, simply because in many cases there is no neutral ground. For example, if you allow abortion, you are siding with those who say that it should be an option. If you ban abortions, you are siding with those who say that it should not be an option. There is no neutral position.

You didn't directly answer my questions, but they were asking for justification for the basis of your views, and you have now changed the basis, so I guess the questions are moot now.

Philip J. Rayment 09:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It might not be entirely YouTube's fault. It's highly likely that anti-life activists targeted the videos and flagged them multiple times. YouTube probably then simply responded to the large number of flags without really looking at the videos. Jinxmchue 15:50, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't seem like much of an excuse. Looks like Wikipedia-style mobocracy, and it's no excuse to say that the mob made its decision by majority vote.--Aschlafly 16:14, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe Jinx wasn't trying to offer this as an excuse, but as an explanation. Allow me to offer my own two cents, which should at least partly overlap with what Jinx meant (assuming that I didn't misunderstand him, of course).

YouTube has often caused outcries after hasty or odd cases of video removal (for example when certain TV stations or producers simply searched for names of their Intellectual Property and got all results deleted via DMCA, regardless of fair use or anything - even videos that didn't use the property but simply discussed it were pulled and had to be restored through lengthy processes), so I fully agree with Jinx that this isn't necessarily YouTube Bias or anything - it's just that YouTube is so large that it is community-driven or, as you put it, a "mobocracy". It relies on user flagging and decides to play it safe by removing first and checking once there is a protest. In this sense, "mobocracy" isn't an excuse, but an explanation. I'm sure that Jinx wasn't trying to excuse YouTube's actions, just like I don't try to excuse them.

Moving a bit away from what I think Jinx meant, I find the "Censorship!" cry a bit over the top. YouTube is not some sort of public service, and being allowed to post videos there is not a right, but a privilege granted by the site (same deal as with Conservapedia member "rights" - if Andy says that somebody has no right to be here, then that's it, regardless of whether or not that somebody technically violated the rules or not). You can argue back and forth whether or not the video violated the rules or not, but at the end of the day, it's the decision of YouTube what goes and what stays, and there are countless other video sites out there. So even if there was YouTube Bias (which I still doubt), then this would be a minor blip on the News Radar, IMHO. --DirkB 16:50, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

DirkB, you misstate the rules here, and I don't have time to correct and respond to all your talk, talk, talk. 8 out of your last 10 postings are talk. We're building an encyclopedia here. Participate and learn, or find a real blog or forum if that's what you're looking for.--Aschlafly 17:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't offered as an excuse or an explanation. Just a likely possibility. I think YouTube relies heavily on viewer feedback to determine the appropriateness of each video. If that feedback is abused by, oh, say certain left-wing activists, YouTube doesn't appear to have any safeguards in place to identify and prevent such abuse. Only after the fact can someone who uploads a video get it reinstated by contacting YouTube. It's a kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" deal. I don't know if YouTube actually did look at the videos, but I suspect they didn't. I don't know if it's entirely fair to say they censored the videos, but they certainly are responsible for not weeding out the likely abuse that got these videos removed. This happens with comments about the video that get marked as spam. That function is often abused to hide legitimate comments that some people don't like. Jinxmchue 19:26, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Given that this links to a 13-second video clip, is it at all possible that the clip is taken out of context?

Obama: You’re absolutely right. John McCain has not talked about (camera cut) my Muslim faith. And that is absolutely right that that is not …

Interviewer: (Interrupts) Your Christian faith.

Obama: My Christian faith… Well, what I’m saying is he hasn’t suggested that I’m a Muslim. And I think that his campaign upper-echelons haven’t either. Eoinc 17:52, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Here is more of the interview: [4]. HenryS 18:05, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Guess that means someone's guilty of quote mining, gossip, pushing ideology, and posting false information. HenryS even proves it - so will the changes be made? Or double standards prevail? SamuelHTD 18:59, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Or it means someone is guilty of a Freudian slip. Jinxmchue 19:27, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

You know, personally, I don't care if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. In either case, I'm still not voting for him and will never, ever vote for him. I just wish that if he is a Muslim, he'd stop lying about it. Jinxmchue 19:30, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm certainly not buying the excuses. He obviously made a freudian slip and then attempted to covered his butt by saying he was actually talking about how McCain wasn't suggesting he was a Muslim. It's so transparent. However, Liberals will gobble it up in a heartbeat. -- Jose83

SamuelHTD, Obama and his supporters aren't fooling anyone here, and over time fewer and fewer voters will be fooled. Barack Hussein Obama is no more a Christian than Saddam Hussein was. No Christian would say "my Muslim faith," even when tired or confused.--Aschlafly 19:41, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

In case you've forgotten, Andy, it was precisely that kind of assertion that made DanH quit this project in disgust. You would do well to reflect on that for a day or two. --JohnZ 19:50, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

As for myself, I am glad he finially confessed, and I almost breathed a sigh of belief, untill he started lying again and tried to "cover" himself. JakeM 19:52, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

JohnZ, you claim to know a lot for someone who presents himself here as new. We're not fooled by Obama and we will continue to tell the truth here. Be truthful to yourself and you too will be free.--Aschlafly 19:54, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

If we're all for truth then shouldn't the news article link the youtube of the entire question/answer that is linked in the israel insider article HenryS linked above rather than a 13 second "sound bite" which could be claimed to cloud the truth by not providing any context to the quote? --SCarter 21:09, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, I added the longer video, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama said something that no Christian would ever say. Note, by the way, that the odds against a Muslim converting to Christianity (as Obama essentially pretended) are greater than 100 to 1. See Barack Obama.--Aschlafly 21:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of opening up another can of worms, that assumes that he was Muslim in the first place. And that assumption is what this debate is all about.--Frey 22:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama's name "Hussein" means "descendant of Muhammad", Obama had a Muslim father, and he attended a Muslim grade school. But even if you absurdly deny all that, and its obvious meaning, you can't deny that no Christian would say "my Muslim faith," as Obama just did. Obama is lying when he says he's a Christian, and Islam permits such lying to advance its cause.--Aschlafly 23:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

You should all just drop this and realize that small minded people will hear or see only what they want to hear or see and as soon as they think they heard or saw it, boom case closed and nothing before or after matters at all. Let them believe what they want... In the end it makes no difference really.Jros83 23:39, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

(Opens mouth to say something, but reads Jros' excellent point and changes mind.) What can I say? When you get good advice, you take it.--Frey 14:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

But, of course, that information is conveniently buried at the bottom of the article after they refer to other statistics:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

Jinxmchue 23:06, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

*BOING* (the sound of McCain's convention bounce). The reason they put that number at the bottom is because it's among most likely voters, whereas Gallup publishes (regardless of who's leading) as their main results those of registered voters. Without seeing the specifics of the poll, from the reporting I'd guess that the 10-point lead is amongst a subset of the greater registered voters sample. To Obama fans, I'd be completely astonished if McCain has a 10-point lead a week from now, once the convention bounce is behind him. --Jareddr 09:30, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

So Obama gets to keep his convention bounce, but McCain doesn't? Jinxmchue 14:58, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

My guess (and that's all it is) is neither will keep their convention bounces. In a week and a half it will be back where it was before the conventions: Somewhere between a dead heat and a tiny Obama lead. But McCain supporters should take heart, national polls are almost completely meaningless. KimEide 15:47, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Correction: national polls are completely meaningless. For indications as to the course of the election, I prefer state-by-state polls. Using those and their trends to extrapolate the Electoral College data is far more revealing than 800 random Americans. --Ampersand 18:01, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe just me but I think 'join the fighting' is a stretch. Biden's son or is it son-in-law , will be doing administrative duties as a military lawyer. Palin's son, his job is far more dangerous, defending top brass. Besides, the fighting seems to be over. -- jp 13:10, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I think any member of the military who is deployed to a war zone should be respected no matter what their role, military is military when you start drawing distinctions you start dishonouring troops in my mind. --SCarter 13:46, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. The U.S. military is a role model for teamwork, and to start splitting hairs over which role in a team is more or less valuable is to look down on the concept of a team being able to achieve more than the sum of its individual members. --DinsdaleP 20:41, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

You two's are right. They are both Patriots to have joined. If it had said 'joining the fight' as in a cause instead of 'join the fighting'. Join the fighting makes it sounds like, here's your weapon, now go attack terrorists.-- jp 20:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyone who uses their skills, whether doctor, lawyer, fighter or commander, to protect their nation in war is a patriot in my book. ClarkeD 21:02, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if they're liberal or atheist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanG (talk)

I read several print periodicals, mostly moderate-to-conservative ones, but also three liberal ones. I monitor a couple of conservative web sites (including this one) and CNN online. My spouse monitors several liberal blogs. We don't listen to talk radio of any kind and we don't watch news on television, so I'll admit that there's a whole big world out there that no one in this household hears. However, in my periodicals & print newspapers and both my and my spouse's online monitoring, absolutely no one--repeat, no one--has made any comment on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy except to report that Palin had announced to the press that her daughter was pregnant, that her daughter had chosen (sorry, that's word that Mrs. Palin used) to keep the baby, and that her daughter would marry the baby's father, and then to report Mrs. Palin's statements of family support. That's it. That's all. There was only one periodical or web site or blog that carried any critical comments about the situation; that was, of course, this site, in the chatter above. The liberal gnashing of teeth and rending of Mrs. Palin seems to be a non-starting issue, at least in the part of the liberal and moderate-to-conservative world that my spouse and I follow.--Leansleft 18:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. I consider myself a pretty avid follower of political news, and I have yet to see any actual criticism of Mrs. Palin and her daughter, mearly criticism of the supposed criticism, of which, as mentioned before, I have yet to see any. ZTak 19:55, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

My belief that they are reporting on supposed criticism (mearly criticism of supposed criticism) is just an excuse to be negative on Palin, deceptively. The media's bias against conservatives is oh so crafted. She 'has-to-be-perfect' in the eyes of the media because of her religious stance and since nobody was perfect but Jesus, find a way to wedge-in criticism. -- jp 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

JP, I am not denying your main argument, but the people who are "reporting on supposed criticism" are people like Peggy Noonan. In other words, conservatives are reporting on the supposed criticism of liberals. In this particular instance, since the reporting is conservative, there is no deceptive negativity.--Leansleft 08:12, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Or as Rush calls them PMSnbc. I wish it were true that they fired them as anchors. Unfortunately, they still have their biased day jobs. No longer doing political coverage, demoted to commentary, due to their last place ratings for both DNC and RNC events.-- jp 20:50, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

A Rush Limbaugh quote? Talk about snatching hot air from the jaws of righteous indignation.

That being said, I'm a KO fan, but even I have to admit that the indignation is righteous. I heard his little speech on the 9/11 video, and I just did a double take. I can see his reasons for doing it, but it was out of line.

In terms of coverage, not much will change, though. He's the host of the most popular show on MSNBC, he's going to be prominent during political coverage.--Frey 21:58, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

"Out of line?" You could've called his tirade "Meltdown with Keith Olbermann." Jinxmchue 11:20, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he hasn't really been fired. He (Olbermann) will still appear as an analyst for the conventions and elections and he will continue to host Countdown daily. As for the comments against him, I don't see why there is such anger directed at him. He is simply entering an area that Conservatives claimed many years ago. I see nothing that Olbermann says that isn't matched (at the other end of the spectrum of course) by Conservative hosts. I will agree, however, that he is not anywhere near objective enough to act as an anchor for convention and election politics. NateE 13:57, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

"he is simply entering an area that Conservatives claimed many years ago" Come again? Conservatives have never entered the 'I hate America' zone of thought. -- jp 14:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm reminded of a recent joke on the Daily Show "(Republicans) don't hate America, they just hate 50% of the people living in it." On a more serious note, I never said they (Conservatives) did, but specific commentary and analysis about political issues for a targeted audience has largly been the realm of Conservatives for many years through talk radio and, more recently, television. That said, I have never heard Olbermann or Matthews say they hate America. NateE 14:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, when has Olbermann or Mathews ever said, or insinuated, that they hate America. I am a big fan of KO but even I admit that what happened at the conventions, while it was almost as much fun as watching the Daily Show's coverage, was still not very good journalism, it was excellent commentary but not dispassionate, detached, non-partisan and fair journalism. I agree that the headline is quite misleading, I thought they had actually been fired from MSNBC. The Brian Williams interview referenced in the article can be seen here. Enjoy! DLerner 19:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, they never said they hate America. At best, they are 'fair-weather' Patriots. Meaning when Democrats control the presidency, they champion America. When the GOP controls the presidency, they rail against America, it's leaders and policy, much like the partisan Barack does. You can split hairs over their brand of Patriotism. When you speak far from dissent (zone of thought), with inappropriate comments, praising other countries instead of your own, in my book its called being a hater of America.-- jp 14:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) attacking a policy, even publicly and bitterly, and hating a country are two different things. I disagree with everything the current regime in Iran stands for. However, I do not hate the people of Iran (that majority of them don't even care about America, they just don't want us to invade or tell them how to run their lives) and I certainly don't hate the country. I hate their leader, their system and their atrocious(sp?) record on human rights, but I don't hate the country. I disagree quite strongly with the Bush administration. That does not mean I hate them or the country. NateE 15:30, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I just watched the "tribute" video and frankly that was propaganda at it's worse. It tried to link the Iranian hostage crisis, which was not insinuated by al-Qaeda, to terrorist strikes by al-Qaeda. It also showed much too much of the actual attacks, it was hard enough to see it then, what makes it alright now? I hate being reminded through painful video footage that I remember something. As for Keith Olbermann, I see him as the answer to personalities like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. In fact between those three programs I think his has the most actual news, not fan mail reading ( Mr. O'Reilly) or conservative v. liberal argument (Mr. Hannity). Anyways Mr. Olbermann gave a powerful (at least in my eyes) speech today (Sept. 10) about the politization of 9/11/01, particularly by the Republican party ( you have to admit they do love to bring it up, espescially Rudy Giualiani). He also semi-jokingly criticizes McCain for saying he "knows how to do it[get Osama Bin Laden]" but not planning to tell anyone until he's elected, I mean if he does know why doesn't he tell us? Anything is better than what we have (wait in Afghanistan until he decides to come out of the mountains). User:Snotbowst (sorry for the crude link but signature doesn't work on an iPod and I don't know it off the to of my head)

Two things about the "lipstick on a pig" quote. First, it's an aphorism, meaning the same as "mutton dressed as lamb". If Obama had used that aphorism instead, would the Republicans have accused him of calling Palin "lamb" or "mutton"? It's completely obvious Obama was making a political point, suggesting the Republican's were dressing up policies he disagreed with. To wedge together three completely unrelated quotes is disgracefully irresponsible. It makes McCain's campaign look rather stupid and quite ridiculous. Second, it's unfortunate that the McCain people didn't think to clear the Couric material - as CBS have pulled the ad. It's a shame they don't have much respect for copyright. BenHur 14:32, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I also agree that the headline is misleading. Obama's full quote was "John McCain says he’s about change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush.’ Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics … That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing, something different... you know … you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know, you can … wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years,” Both of those are very old analagis and have been used for years. If the situation were reversed, and Palin had said that, or McCain, it wouldn't even be a story. NateE 15:30, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. Sarah Palin had made the well-received joke about rotweiler/lipstick. Had Mrs Palin never made that remark, it would be different. But she did. This was an obvious and grossly insulting attempt to turn it, and Obama well deserves the criticism that is coming his way. It also displays his woeful lack of experience and judgement. Bugler 15:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So when McCain uses the exact same phrase when talking about Hillary's health care plan (which he did during the primary season) it's a simple folsky analagy. But because Palin mentioned wearing lipstick, it's now a sexist insult against her.... how does that pass any test of logic? NateE 15:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It was clearly done in a knowing and referential (NOT reverantial) manner, Nate - Senator McCain's ref was prior to Governor Palin's joke. Senator Obama should apologise and back off. Bugler 16:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is his use acceptable in similar circumstances, but Obama's isn't. Because Palin made the joke? So if Barack Obama makes a campaign stop at a BBQ pit, has some ham, maybe some pork chops and makes a joke this proving he's not Muslim, everybody would stop trying to raise debates about his religion? No of course not (and for the record, I hope he's not stupid enough to make a comment like that). Why should people check their language because Palin made a joke? NateE 16:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Why acceptable? Because it came before Palin made the joke about lipstick/rottweilers/hockey moms. That (Palin's) joke changed it: Obama's mention was obviously referring to that (IMO, but clearly not IYO). But equally, it would be for Obama to joke about his race/religion/ethnicity, not anyone else (and the same goes for McCain too). We might hope that the campaign is conducted in a mannerly way, however politically bruising it might be. Bugler 16:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin used the word 'the' too. Obviously when Obama referred to "the failed policies" he was making fun of Palin's use of the word. Such an argument would be just as irresponsible. Anyway, Katie Couric and CBS are probably suing them. A disgraceful episode. BenHur 17:05, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure she's used words like "I" and "myself" too. Obama should be ashamed of himself for hijacking these self-referential terms and using them during his speeches. Instances of this can be found starting on the day of Palin's announcement as VP pick. When Obama woke up that morning, he was asked "How are you?", to which he replied "I'm fine." Such underhanded swipes are completely inexcusable, even more so because he was taking them out of context to refer to his own condition of well-being. The left strikes again, and as usual, they always strike out. OtherSide 17:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

(minor point: the Palin joke compared herself to a pit bull, not a rottweiler) Human 17:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh who cares? This election should be about issues not "he said, she said" rubbish. ClarkeD 18:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

You're absolutely right. Except the McCain campaign made a cheap shot ad about exactly that. That's the highest quality of dialogue they can muster. BenHur 18:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Hit the nail on the head with that one (Can I say that without being killed?). Politics in this country have gotten to be practically a farce. The average voter seems to be enthralled with stupid little things like this rather than the actual things that matter: the issues. Obama's use of a common phrase, or McCain saying "I am a proud conservative liberal Republican" is not important. People seem to forget that though politicians are extremely experienced in public speaking, they are STILL HUMAN. They make verbal slipups just like the rest of us. The media and the nation as a whole really has to stop focusing on such stupid, insignificant incidents such as this and focus on the actual issues. --AndrasK 18:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It was a cheap shot sure, but this is politics - cheap shots are abound from both sides of the fence, particularly during such a tight race. I think both camps should move on from this. ClarkeD 18:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

The McCain campaign has a specific strategy in all this, as verified by campaign manager Rick Davis when he insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues. The strategy at this time is to distract the voters from any serious examination of what John McCain's actual policy initiatives and plans are, and instead keep the press and public focused on Sarah Palin and a string of incendiary ads being released almost daily. Each day spent fact-checking and replying to the McCain ads, rehashing the "Bridge to Nowhere" denial, and arguing over nonsense like their feigned offense over pigs and lipstick is one more day run off the clock. McCain's acceptance speech was long on character and short on agenda, and subsequent ads talk about positives like "character", "leadership" and being a maverick without actually addressing what policies we're getting when we vote for McCain/Palin. Sarah Palin been a tremendous boon to the energy of the campaign, and they are drawing ten times the attendance compared to when McCain spoke solo. This is why she's being kept at his side - the campaign doesn't want to show that she's the bigger draw of the two, and that the man who'd actually be President is not the one firing up the party and pushing up the poll numbers. That's also why Palin is still being sheltered from the press - they are campaigning on a marketed image of her, and want to get as much mileage out of it as possible before the inevitable reality check when she starts facing serious questions in direct interviews. Ironically, McCain, the maverick and reformer who inspired me in 2000 has disappointed me in 2008 by being 90% aligned with a failed administration, and now campaigning based on the Karl Rove playbook, not the John McCain one. It could have been so much better. --DinsdaleP 21:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Just to note, McCain said the same exact line about Hillary Clinton a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM . Watercracker 21:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

May I suggest to our friends in America that you don't worry too much what the liberals say about Sarah Palin? Look at how they criticised Margaret Thatcher when she first appeared on the national political scene in the UK and look what she went on to do. If I were an American I wouldn't be worried if Mr McCain were not to survive a full term and Mrs Palin took over. Look what Mrs Thatcher did to the UK; Mrs Palin could do that for you as well. Malakker 09:06, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

My thoughts: I think this was a calculated stunt by the Obamessiah. He could use this phrase, allow his mindless followers to interpret it as a slam against Gov. Palin (which they did and are still laughing over it on far-left sites like DailyKossacks, Democrat Blunderground and Huff-n-puff Post), then proclaim innocence and wash his hands of it. If it wasn't a calculated stunt, then it was an incredibly, incredibly stupid faux pas to use the phrase after Palin's RNC speech. The Obamessiah may be a stuttering, hemming and hawing nincompoop when he doesn't have a teleprompter to read from, but I don't think he's that stupid. Jinxmchue 12:32, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

What is truly amazing is that Obama not only used a phrase that McCain used, one that McCain's former Press Secretary used as the title of a book, it is also a phrase that Obama used last year, this showing that Obama may well be using some sort of evil prescience to start making fun of Sarah Palin almost a year ahead of time (the comment was about Gen. Petraeus, but that can only mean that he was not only calling Palin a pig, he was also making fun of her pre-emptively by calling her a General, back in 2007, to make light of her commanding the Alaska National Guard.) There is no limit to the powers of these liberals. If only they could only use their powers for good! Yes, I understand that sarcasm and humor are a liberal deceit, but this discussion is just begging for it. Boomcoach 16:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue, please explain to me why we should not interpret your post to be Liberal Style (overuse of mockery) not that Boomcoach above me is not doing the same thing, but he's making a very liberal point. This type of unneeded hate is exactly what lowers political debate to disgusting terms. NateE 16:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Let me get this straight, NateE, John McCain makes a completely unfounded attack on Obama, in which he merges different sentences together and pretends that Obama called Palin a pig. I point out that the "lipstick on a pig" is quite common in political jargon, and is in fact a phrase that Obama has used before, and I am the one lowering the debate? McCain runs a campaign based almost entirely on lying, and I am lowering the debate? Where is the article on pseudo-Conservative two-faceness when we need it? Boomcoach 17:28, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Look, the fact of the matter is that it was a mistake on Obama's part. He knows by now that the Conservative media is looking for any slip-up that he makes. Even if they're taking the quote out-of-context and miscontsruing it, he knew—or should have known—that they would make this an attack on his character. Yes, it's a euphamism, and had he said it any other time, there probably would have been nothing said about it. It was just a case of (very) bad timing on the Obama campaign's part. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 17:47, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Jeffrey, who else are we going to get mad at for things they should have known? OtherSide 23:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

The Obama campaign jumped on any and every comment by the Clintons that might be interpreted or misinterpreted as somehow racist, to use it for Obama's advantage. The Obama campaign can hardly complain now when the shoe is on the other foot.--Aschlafly 00:04, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)What's your stance on this, OtherSide? Are you saying that he didn't realize what he was saying, or that he did? Anyone who heard that statement, especially the crowd he was speaking to, inferred a connection between what he was saying and the comment/joke by Gov. Palin a few days before. There is no way he would have received such an ovation for that statement if they had not.
I'm not too sure who you mean by "we", but I'll assume you mean the conservatives. It's just a bit of campaign mudslingling, that's all. I don't think the comment was that offensive personally, but you should concede that the timing of the statement was very bad. Once again, conservatives are looking for any chance to attack Obama.
For the record, I'm pretty sure I would get angry at an ignorant (in the true meaning of the word) mother who didn't feed her baby because she should have known to. It's a faulty analogy, but you weren't very specific, now were you?  :D Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 12:00, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Oy.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=171523

So to recap, "Palin = governor = Pilate" and "Obama = community organizer = Jesus." Showing once again that the left doesn't have a clue who Jesus is. And can there be any question anymore that he is the Obamessiah to these clowns?

How sickening is that? These people are going off the deep end really fast. Imagine if a Republican Senator had compared McCain to Christ. Liberals everywhere would be bursting blood vessels in their outrage. Jinxmchue 15:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyone know what, if anything, prompted the comment? Was he responding to someone else, or was this a speech in isolation?--Frey 22:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

The joke has been all over the place since about last Thursday. It was a "response" to Palin comparing her and Obama's relative political experience in her convention speech. It does not "compare Obama to Jesus." It compares "governor" and "community organizer" in a religious, albeit humorous, context. Human 22:22, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

The only Palin that was Pilate is Michael Palin (youtube link to obligatory Life of Brian clip) DLerner 22:32, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

If the breaking news section claims that Obama "lets the truth slip" when he made the comment about his "Muslim faith", then why does the article only contain allusions and implications of such beliefs on his part? If that's the truth, and this is a trustworthy encyclopedia, then what's trustworthy about letting the truth go unstated in his article? OtherSide 18:05, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

And, not quite on the same topic, if hypothetically, Obama really isn't a Muslim, what would he have to do to prove it? Eoinc 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Is Conservapedia's problem that they think he's a secret Muslim, or would they take him to task if he were a Muslim, and open and public about it? It seems that when Christian public figures say they don't want to discuss their faith, they cast as "devoted", "private", etc. But if if if if if IF IF IF he were a Muslim (which he's not. Did you know that?), would followers of "Internet conservatism" be probing and demanding an audit to check for links to 9/11? I know this is all hypothetical, but let's consider it a thought experiment. By the way, if enough people have opinions about this, I may consider adding it to the list of Debate Topics. Thanks, hope to hear some good responses to this one. OtherSide 20:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think anyone expects Obama had any ties to 9/11. I think the main fear is that he's going to lead some sort of theocratic revolution and replace our current legal system with Sharia law. I don't know what the guys faith is, and frankly I don't care. His gravitation towards one religion or the next is a non-issue in my opinion. There's plenty of other reasons not to vote for him. (-;.

Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 17:53, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, of course there are. And you seem reasonable enough to judge him based on his positions on issues and other things perfectly worth (insert even-handed continuation of sentence here, I'm too lazy to write one). Unfortunately, putting a dimmed Bat-Signal that says "Muslim! Muslim! 9/11: The Sequel!" right on his face seems to be the entire point of the Obama article. OtherSide 20:18, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm at work, so I have to make this quick. No need for a continuation, and thank you for the compliment. I haven't heard anyone come out and say that they believe there is some Obama conspiracy theory for 9/11. However, I have heard certain talk radio DJs blame the entire nation of Islam for 9/11, and also claim that Obama is a Muslim. So, in a roundabout way, I see where you're coming from. The "Bat-Signal" as you so humorously put it (I laughed out loud) is very depressing for me. I want to see the media and this site going after Obama's policies, not his supposed link to the nation of Islam.

Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 11:36, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to make a point about the osmosis of Obama -> "Muslim" -> 9/11, but that's definitely a stealthy rhino is this theopolitical mix, isn't it? I'm merely trying to say that there are certain elements out there (okay...on here) bringing up really tacky, pathetic evidence that he's a Muslim. And basically my point is, if there are any people reading this who believe that, I need to ask them, or at least need them to tell me, why it would matter. If he had been openly Muslim the entire time, would that be worse than hiding it? It's really a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, that's what it is. If someone is a Muslim candidate who is private about their faith, they get called every short of a sleeper cell. If he (not Obama, but rather the "someone" I meantioned in the last sentence) were public about it, would he still get criticized for it? Sigh. Okay. Here ya go: Is the problem that they think he's lying about his religion, or that they think he's a Muslim? I apologize for how redundant these all are. OtherSide 21:08, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

This story isn't exactly recent. The incident described happened in July. On top of that, it has already been discussed at length in his article. Keeping this story alive only helps gain him publicity and fame. NateE 11:53, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Has he apologized? If not, then forgetting about it is inappropriate.--Aschlafly 12:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

No he didn't, and he probably never will. But I didn't say anything about forgetting about it. I said that keeping the story alive only prolongs his share of the spotlight, I'm always amazed at how people fail to see that by protesting and continuing to discuss a story doesn't help their cause. Terry Rakolta(sp?) and Married with Children is a great example of this. Not only did her personal campaign fail to acheive it's cause (getting MWC cancelled) in fact the success of the show despite her well known cause only inspired other writers to imitate the success, which has led directly to the increase of offensive material broadcast these days. In fact, the humorous thing is that by todays standards, Married With Children appears tame. NateE 12:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't see the point in posting this old news now. The item it references gives the incident as background to discussing a "recent" (actually a month ago) interview he did on the matter and where his hostility to religion comes from. Philip J. Rayment 19:53, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Newsworthy items are not always about things that just happened. Indeed, an offensive stunt like this is better presented some time period later, after the perpetrator has had an opportunity to reflect on and apologize for his actions. The lack of apology becomes more significant as more time passes.

Anyone think that PZ Myers would have offended another, more aggressive or powerful religion? I don't, and I find his stunt to have been a cowardly act in picking on a religion that is peaceful and forgiving by nature.--Aschlafly 20:15, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Umm, the very definition of 'news' is that it's new, either that it's just happened or there is new information about it.[5] This fits neither case, so it is not "newsworthy". What religion is more powerful than Christianity (although admittedly it's only one part of Christianity—Catholicism—that he's offended)? Aggressive? You mean like Islam? He reportedly also tore pages out of a copy of the Koran. So yes, he did deliberately offend another religion, which means that, even though he's offensive, illogical, and close-minded, he is not a coward by that criterion. Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

The Church of Rome isn't aggressive and powerful? Since when? DLerner 22:34, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not going to belabor the obvious further. Philip, you'll see in any newspaper lots of important stories about things that did not just happen. DLerner, Christian churches (including Rome) are relatively peaceful and forgiving. PZ Myers's actions were cowardly in not defiling other religions that are not so tolerant of insults.--Aschlafly 23:40, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

He did insult the "other religions that are not so tolerant of insults." It's as factual as anything else about this story. Aziraphale 23:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

No, he didn't treat the religions in a similar manner. He did not simply tear pages out the Bible, for example. Instead, he defiled the most peaceful and forgiving religion in a way that he did not dare do with respect to other religions that do not take so kindly to such levels of disrespect.--Aschlafly 00:04, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Pardon? It's hard to compare the two—destroying a communion wafer or tearing pages out of the Koran—but I'm sure that Muslims would be aghast at having pages torn out or the Koran; far more upset than Christians would be at tearing pages out of the Bible (Christians will often, for example, lay their Bibles on the floor, say during a Bible study, but Muslims would never do that, because it disrespects the Koran. So think how much worse tearing out pages would be).

The point is, though, he did do something disrespectful to a religion that does not take kindly to disrespect, even if not in exactly the same way.

Philip J. Rayment 02:20, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. It was definitely an act of supreme blasphemy, and we can criticize him for that. However, for credibility's sake, we should keep the facts accurate. He also tore out pages from The God Delusion and poured coffee grounds on both that and the Koran.--IanG 09:36, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Kind of an odd thing to write, but I just wanted to note for the record that I didn't concede the point by dropping out - I just think Philip's already handled it as well as, if not better than, I would've, so why dogpile? Aziraphale 12:31, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Err...I'm not really comfortable with the implication that there are religions more powerful than Christianity. Would it be possible to rephrase? --Benp 16:35, 12 September 2008 (EDT)