Talk:Main Page/archive65

("Pakistan" is a Muslim word.)

No more than "France" is a Christian word. As has been pointed out before, Islam and Christianity are religions, not linguistic groups. "Pakistan" is Urdu, I believe--and has its roots not only in "land of the pure" as someone else pointed out, but from the more practical fact that it was derived from an acronym of the regions it borders: Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir. How much more simply can it be stated--Islam is not a language.AliceBG 19:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I know that liberals like to deny the influence of religion anywhere and everywhere, but the truth is that some words have a religious origin. "Pakistan" is one of them.--Aschlafly 19:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, "Pakistan" has religious--actually, it would be far more accurate to say "religious/nationalistic" roots. There's a big gap between that and "Muslim pronounciation." Muslims from France pronounce it one way-Muslims from Nigeria another, Muslims from Sudan yet another, and so on. Thaat's my point. AliceBG 19:41, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

You couldn't be more wrong. As noted on PJR's talk page, this is simply an 'insight' from our dear leader, not a fact. As such, you would be wise to simply accept Schlafly's, and Bulger's, wisdom and actually add something of value to this site. DaneL 19:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Just to throw this out there, how do the people in Pakistan pronounce their country's name when speaking english? Would that not be the correct way to pronounce it?--Able806 22:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Some research:

• The name was coined by a Cambridge-educated Muslim from the region who based it on the Persian for land of the pure.[1][2] So does that make the pronunciation Muslim, Persian, or English?
• According to this Pakistani-American blogger, Obama's pronunciation is correct.

Philip J. Rayment 05:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, the word "Pakistan" is a Muslim word, and Obama repeats its Muslim pronunciation, just as the insight on the Main Page has indicated.

However, to claim that Obama's pronunciation is "correct" misses the point, obviously.--Aschlafly 08:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I apologise for interfering, but surely, as PJR just pointed out, the word "Pakistan" is either Persian, English or Muslim. Instead of explaining why you believe the word is Muslim, you simply state that it is. If you have proof, please show us because that would prove that you are correct rather then simply leading us to believe that maybe you are not. Bolly 22:53, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

Well, it appears that the pronunciation is correct, i.e. the pronunciation used by Pakistanis, even if that is not the point. But what is the point? What's so noteworthy about Obama using the correct pronunciation?

And Bolly is correct: simply repeating the claim that the word/pronunciation is Muslim is not evidence that the claim is true, and there's good reason to believe that it's incorrect. Where's your evidence, Andy?

Philip J. Rayment 09:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Pronunciation reflects one's culture, education and sometimes even one's beliefs. Whether you think one pronunciation is "correct" is obviously immaterial when hundreds of millions of people disagree.

I'm not interested in wasting more time trying to convince anyone who is determined not to be convinced. There are plenty of open-minded people out there who welcome insights, and even advance them. The insight as expressed on the Main Page about this is factual and informative. Everyone has a free will to refuse to accept it, so please suit yourself.--Aschlafly 10:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

And I'm not interested in wasting more time trying to research this when you offer no evidence that you claim of it being a Muslim pronunciation is correct, despite being asked to. You say that it is "factual", but plenty of evidence has been offered here that it is not factual, but wrong, and you've offered none to say that it is factual. Philip J. Rayment 10:26, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, PJR, for your commitment to the truth despite ideology. It's a real man who can admit the truth when he sees it.--IanG 11:11, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I am trying to understand your stance. Above you said that "Pronunciation reflects one's culture, education and sometimes even one's beliefs. Whether you think one pronunciation is "correct" is obviously immaterial when hundreds of millions of people disagree.". With that being said do you feel that it is important for people to use correct pronunciation of words? I would expect that you, as an educator, would champion the correct pronunciation of terms. As for hundreds of millions of people, many people in the southern US pronounce nuclear as (NUKE-yoo-lar) instead of (NUKE-lee-ar) so what would be correct, (NUKE-yoo-lar) or (NUKE-lee-ar)? Just because many do something, does not mean that it is correct.--Able806 11:31, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Able806, go tell Merriam-Webster that its primary pronunciation [3] is wrong if you feel that way. But don't continue to talk, talk, talk here or else your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 11:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama pronounces it the same way that General Petraus pronounces it. Lizard1959 06:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

The Merriam-Webster link shows that both variations are correct. --DinsdaleP 11:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And, from a technical standpoint, it's not pronounced that way in Urdu. The vowel that Aschlafly insists is "Muslim" is not even in the standard English vowel repertoire (aside from diphthongs) and was not the one Obama used. Let alone the fact that they pronounce the "t" in a different part of their mouths. And what exactly do Hindus in Pakistan pronounce it as? --IPaxton 12:37, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Dictionaries do not dictate which pronunciation is "correct". They simply acknowledge pronunciations which are in common use. So if there are two or three different ways to say a word, they'll list all of them. Note, for example, that Merriam-Webster acknowledges both pronunciations of "nuclear" including the popular but dubious "nucular" pronunciation highlighted by Able806. Usually the most common pronunciation is listed first, but this does not automatically make it the "correct" pronunciation, especially in the case of words or proper nouns which derive from another language and can be pronounced in varying ways in English. Sideways 12:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

On a shocking new [4]page, the esteemed Mr. Schlafly uses the Arabic numeration system instead of the old-fashioned European system. No doubt this is what he was taught as a child. Perhaps he is really an Arabic sympathizer.

LOL. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT) if you dont get the joke, see Arabic numerals--Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

That's witty. Thanks for the good humor, and also the clarifying link showing that "Arabic numerals" is actually a misnomer. That's an educational discussion at its best.--Aschlafly 13:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly is right to be looking into this issue: despite Obama's numerous gaffes and subtle clues to his Muslim heritage, no-one is looking into it. It may not end up being correct, but at least someone has the... uhh... you know :)... to pursue the story.-CMarius 18:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

How about this for an alternate viewpoint, if I may. Let's keep the wall between church and state erected, and stop bickering about his Schrödinger Religion and get back to what the man will do for the country. I can care less if he's an atheist, a catholic, a christian, a baptist, a buddhist, or a muslim. As long as he is willing to work for the people and defend his country, his religion should be a moot point. CodyH 19:24, 01 October 2008 (EST)

Perhaps you couldn't care less about their religion, but a person's religion defines a lot about who they are, and many of us do care about their religion for that reason. Philip J. Rayment 04:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

In addition, CodyH, even if you don't care about Obama's religion, you should care about his honesty.--Aschlafly 07:17, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Is General Petraeus a Muslim As Well?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I --KimSell 10:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

No, he is not Muslim. He just has more international experence.--Able806 15:35, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

It does not take oodles of international experience to know how to properly pronounce Pakistan, it takes a dictionary or perhaps 2 minutes on the internet. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Any individual can look up and learn how to pronounce words in other languages as they are in that language. --AndrasK 10:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Rant alert!

I agree with myself in that we shouldn't bash people for their pronunciation.

He pronounced a word differently, big whoop! Some people say "huge" without the "h" sound. I sometimes say "sai-roop" when talking about syrup. Some people pronounce "ruin" the same as "rune".

If you disagree with who he is, then just say you disagree and leave it at that--unless someone asks why. Don't make it your mission to change everyone else's views about him. Didn't you [Aschlafly] say something about there being some huge discrepancies about "Obama Nation"? If there are some discrepancies, then can't we also make the case about the whole book being a "book of lies"? Political beliefs [both liberal and conservative] say that we can.

blahblahblah... just read the first six sentences.

Tact, must remember tact. Umm, I withhold a bunch of my comments that I just want spout off.

Deceit, deceit, deceit.. uhh.. liberal bias in wikipedia.. uhh. I'm being brainwashed. Uhh.. I should sleep now, eh? uhh.. you get my point. The point is, uhh, the point. I'm dull and you can block me if you want. Sorry if I offended anyone here just now. 'tis not how I normally am. Probably because I keep stuff in my head until I can't hold it in much longer.

Is 6% chance a high percentage? Hunh?

I do not recall! o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 22:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Putting a little qualifier like "Rant alert!" doesn't make you seem any less whiny. You use sarcasm ("He pronounced a word differently, big whoop!") to try and make some point about how insignificant you find this to be, but why the rant then? Then you said: Some people say "huge" without the "h" sound. I sometimes say "sai-roop" when talking about syrup. Some people pronounce "ruin" the same as "rune"." Correct. And I'm sure if you investigated those fully, you would find they are derived from particular linguistic and etymological differences in the population. Obama's pronunciation happens to be Muslim in origin. That's all the Main Page said. It made no reference to whether that was a good or bad thing. If you want to be paranoid about it, I'm sure there are some Wikipedia articles you could glitz up to show us all how serious you are. PCarson 10:43, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't say that Obama's pronunciation is Muslim in origin. Of his pronunciation, it just says that it's not the normal American one. It also says that the name is Muslim in origin, and even that is a stretch, as the name is a coined word from the early 20th century, based on Persian words for "land of the pure". The only Muslim connection was that the person who coined the name was Muslim. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Exactly: Muslim origin, Muslim coiner, Muslim speakers, Muslim population, and you're STILL trying to tell me there's no chance Obama is a Muslim? Please, stop guzzling Kool-Aid and open your eyes. PCarson 17:03, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

PCarson, get your terms correct. "He pronounced a word differently, big whoop!" is not sarcasm. I'm just pointing out how people are quick-to-criticize. I think a befitting quote goes something like this:

"Why are you so concerned about removing a speck of dirt from your neighbor's eye, when you have a log in yours?"

o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 14:16, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's "Sensational" Comeback

I'm not surprised to see that Obama's hesitation and multiple instances of "uh" is considered "sensational" and newsworthy here, unlike Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. I suppose that there's nothing sensational the latter's performance being so appalling that Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker said, "Palin's recent interviews ... have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league".[5] Nope, I guess that won't be mentioned here. --DinsdaleP 10:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Did Palin also make a somewhat disparaging remark about a bracelet? Also, I'm not sure why you call Kathleen Parker "conservative". I doubt your comment is based on a review of her work and positions.--Aschlafly 10:51, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I think Obama's bracelet-response during the debate was faltering, and had a "me-too" tone that didn't play well - if it was also "disparaging" I guess I missed that aspect. You're right about my not having reviewed Kathleen Parker's work and positions to judge her to be a conservative columnist myself. I was using Fox News as my source (link above), and they seem to be pretty consistent with Conservapedia in terms of who the consider conservative or not. That said, do you yourself believe that Palin has been doing a good job in her unscripted interviews? --DinsdaleP 11:04, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, at your suggestion I went past the Fox News reference and checked Parker out myself. She's a regular columnist at TownHall.com, one of the approved conservative references sources for news stories here on CP. The line I mentioned above from the Fox story is from her September 29th column titled "The Palin Problem". Here's more of the context that the quoted line above appears in:

"Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League. No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there."

This is a bright, articulate conservative woman commenting on someone she sees as a fellow bright, articulate conservative woman, who unfortunately has been summoned to perform at a tier she is not ready for, and who is not handling that inability well. I have no personal dislike for Palin, but I resent the idea of someone as unqualified as she is being our president if something happens to McCain. --DinsdaleP 12:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to point out that besides Townhall.com, Parker also writes for The National Review which Conservapedia identifies as one of the three most important conservative periodicals. --Saxplayer 13:22, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles

First time CP user, here! Are featured articles locked to prevent vandalism that is likely to be focused on them, or are their locked status/featured article candidacy both based on their level of quality, and they don't need any more editing? (Note, I was listed as "Avenger" previously. I didn't know the rule regarding first initial/last name, so I'm just updating this edit.) PCarson 10:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

There is no policy to lock featured articles. Locking is usually done to stop or prevent vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Pelosi headline

Why does the main page say that Pelosi is trying to funnel this money? The "Republicans" in Congress were accusing her of leading to the bill's defeat just yesterday! I agree that that the 100,000 dollars of PAC money being given to her husband is shameful and a really bad example of power corrupting absolutely, but you can't tell me that McCain isn't pushing for this bill even stronger than Pelosi is. I know the headline isn't marketed here as being the whole story, but maybe the point should be made that the leadership and presidential candidates of BOTH parties are doing a real disservice to true conservative values. PCarson 13:43, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree, but the point of the headline is to highlight the fact that Pelosi is for taking taxpayer money and giving it to unworthy causes. She needs to be removed from office, along with the other corrupt members, whether Democrat or Republican. Karajou 13:46, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree too - the story is important and Pelosi should be ashamed (she's a miserable Speaker, too), but there's no need to have a headline that inserts falsehoods about her trying to channel the $700 billion bailout fund to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nothing is gained, and credibility is lost. --DinsdaleP 14:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

She is part of that bailout problem. She was there when it was proposed by Bush; she was part of the negotiations; several members of her party added earmarks to it (aka pork) totaling in excess of $70 million; and when this bailout failed Monday, she blamed Republicans for it, so clearly she was for the bailout as it was. Karajou 14:07, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

No one is saying she's not behind the prior or current versions of the bailout bill. The falsehood is the statement "while Nancy Pelosi tries to funnel $700 billion of taxpayer money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". That is not what the bailout bill calls for, and since that connection is not mentioned in the article either it's just a distortion of the truth added for effect. The story about funneled PAC money is important enough to stand on its own without such distortions. Since McCain was for Monday's version of the bill, would you agree with saying "McCain wants to funnel $700 Billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"? --DinsdaleP 14:13, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes I would agree that McCain is for it; but I'm with the 80-90 percent of the American people who don't want it, and I'm glad it's been defeated. Karajou 14:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay, so why not pull the part of the headline that's inaccurate and unrelated to the actual story? --DinsdaleP 14:42, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgraceful video

This disgraceful video should be stopped. It is a hideous example of paranoia and typically delusional left-wing scaremongering. I intend to start a campaign against it and its ilk - Sarah Palin is a fine candidate and this kind of propaganda is not only ridiculous and unjustified, but should be banned. RobCross 00:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

It's scaremongering, sure, but McCain's health and Sarah Palin's ability to deal with Russia are legitimite concerns. If the events of the first part of the video do happen, will Palin be able to handle it? Personally, I have yet to be convinced.--Frey 08:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I certainly think more than just liberals have their concerns about the Republican's VP nomination - her appalling performances in the two Couric interviews gave me no confidence that she could become 'Leader of the Free World' at any time in her career. Perhaps she'll prove us all wrong tonight. BenHur 11:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I saw a flash video along those lines back in 2000 about what would happen in the Middle East if George W. Bush won the presidency. In short, it said that the Middle East conflicts would erupt into World War III, destroying much of the world. This was a totally serious video from some nutjobs on the left. Ban these sorts of videos? No way! Let everyone see just how kooky the left has become. It will only turn people off from their side. Jinxmchue 17:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm older than you. I saw a commercial by LBJ against Barry Goldwater in 1963 that was similar. Unfortunately, it worked. Johnson won. Socialism won. America was under socialist rule until President Ronald Reagan started us down the path to responsibility and strength. Good times. --AdmiralNelson 12:13, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Main Page typo

"Dutchman Martin Rynja, a publisher in the Britain " - please remove 'the' before Britain. BenHur 11:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --DeanS^talk 11:39, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

In the news typo. "One out of every five college-educateds.." --Jpatt 09:20, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Grammar and Quotation Issues

"The U.S. Senate Wednesday night approved a $700 billion financial-rescue plan that funds the biggest government intervention in the markets since the Great Depression. The package now goes to the House of Representatives, which rejected an earlier version of the measure. The bill, a bipartisan effort to restore confidence in the nation's banking system, passed 74-25 with 41 Democrats and 33 Republicans voted voting for it. The two presidential nominees, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, returned from the campaign trail to cast votes for the plan." In addition, this is surrounded by quotation marks the main page, implying that it is a direct quote from the cited article. However, the text is not in the cited article, and it doesn't quite seem to be a match. Perhaps the link no longer goes to the original article? We need to either remove the quotation marks or cite the original article. (We should NOT remove the quotation marks unless we are sure it was not originally quoted from a different article - it could still be a quote, just not from the cited article.) If it is indeed a quote, and the error noted was in the original, then the original should probably be maintained, with a (sic) notation added. --Hsmom 13:20, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Lesbian Moms

Lesbians give five tips for propagating their lifestyle in the public school culture, starting with "Be out!" I think this headline is pretty misleading about the content of the cited article. The article is about how one lesbian mom (not "lesbians") is planning to address the issue as a parent sending her son to school. It does not state whether the child is going to a public school or a private school. In addition, the tips given are pretty low-key. For example, the author warns against "coming across as one of those over-privileged moms demanding special treatment for her child". If we use sensational headlines for rather mundane articles, we lose credibility. --Hsmom 13:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

As I recall, the link contained comments by more than one. Also, it must be a public school because it references a "PTA".

As to your thinking it's "low-key", you're welcome to your opinion but other readers are welcome to conclude otherwise.--Aschlafly 13:34, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Re-reading the article, I can't see quotes from other people; it is all the opinion of one author. (There are a handful of comments from readers - is this what you were referring to?) The reference to a PTA doesn't, for me, imply public school. PTAs affiliated with the national organization can be set up at public or private schools. In addition, the term "PTA" is often used generically for a school's parent association, even if it is not affiliated with the national PTA organization. (Aschlafly, I'm assuming your kids haven't been to public school, right? So you may not be aware of this generic usage.) Since the author's child is only just starting kindergarten, and the article was published in early September, I believe she is most likely using "PTA" generically. Most schools, whether public or private, have some sort of parent association. I don't have a problem with this article being on the main page. I just think the headline is not accurate. It's probably more accurate to say One lesbian mom gives five tips for working with her child's school, starting with "Be out!" Of course, that's not as sensational. --Hsmom 14:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Sharon Stone bit

Did you really need to put the title of the X-rated movie? Just because you shouldn't look at it, doesn't make people curious about what it is. "Don't push the red button" or "Caution! Wet paint" seem to have the opposite effect. Can't we just say that she starred in an X-rated film? o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 14:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Especially as she has been in quite a few films. --Hsmom 14:18, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

A much bigger point, Basic Instinct is not rated X... It was rated NC-17 in it's original cut, and recut to gain an R rating for general release. More to the point, the MPAA has no movies rated X because the X rating is no longer active in their system. In 1990 they switched to NC-17. They failed to trademark the X rating (or maybe they couldn't because it's a letter, I don't remember which) so producers of pornography started latching onto in and using it without the MPAA's permission. To avoid conflict, the MPAA discontinued the use of it. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a case that the name of the movie could have been omitted, but it is probably Stone's most (in)famous role and the one she is most associated with. The quibble over whether the term 'X-rated' is applicable is just liberal literalism. In most countries the movie was given an "adult only" certificate of some kind and as different classifications are used in different countries X-rated is an accepted term for obscene, sexually explicit, or vulgar material. An NC-17 rating in the US or 18 rating in the UK is adult only and therefore equivalent to the umbrella term of 'X-rated'. BrianCo 16:27, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not, nor does it have anything to do with Liberal anything. The MPAA is a board that assigned trademarked name protection to films. Other countries have different systems, but in America, the MPAA rating represents the opinion of the board as to how the film is classified. Therefore, the film was not rated X, the film was never rated X, and the film will never be rated X. This was specifically chosen to infer that Basic Instinct was a pornographic movie (an argument which has merit). However, the official rating is "R/NC-17" and should be reported as such. By the logic following this, I can claim that any movie was rated X because X is a meaningless term in America. Anyone can assign the term X to their movie. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 16:48, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

No one was fooled by the "NC-17" rating when it came out - not filmmakers, studios, theater owners or moviegoers. Everyone knew it was the "new X" and it was the death of a movie if it got the rating and wasn't cut to get an "R" rating. Jinxmchue 17:40, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberals typically adopt an over-literal approach when trying to disparage Conservative values. Please read the dictionary definitions for X-rated; it is an accepted term that implies sexually-explicit or graphically violent scenes and does not necessitate an explicit certification from the MPAA to qualify. The X-rating was for movies with content unsuitable for minors, just because the X-rating was superceded by NC-17 doesn't mean that the term can no longer be used. Hard-core pornography was never classified as X-rated as the MPAA which would not even issue a certificate for that. Although some commercial pornographers adopted the term to make their products seem somehow more outré that does not mean that the term is no longer valid. In effect NC-17 is equivalent to the older X-rating as both were the most extreme rating in their system. Although Conservapedia is a US-based web-site it has a global audience and insisting that the movie be labelled with its US classification is extremely parochial. The breaking news items cannot be comprehensive in dealing with their subject matter, they require a certain amount of short-hand terminology to keep them concise. By referring to the movie as X-rated, readers in all English-speaking countries will have an understanding of the meaning. Further belaboring of the issue here will be construed as trolling. BrianCo 18:16, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

You'd have a point, except that the film was rated R, not NC-17. I think it would be most accurate to replace the reference to the rating with the term "sexually explicit", which no one will be able to contradict. Reynard 18:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

The movie was cut so as to achieve an R-rating in the USA. In the rest of the world it was released uncut and was given an 18 (equivalent to X-rating) certificate. BrianCo 18:37, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

But the US rating is irrelevant even in its cut version the movie still contains nudity, sex and violence. The MPAA rating that the movie was issued with is immaterial. Dictionary definitions already accept X-rated as covering sexually explicit material. It is not necessary to spell out the details. BrianCo 18:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

But you'd think that, as a web site that ostensibly considers itself an encyclopedia, the facts would matter. If the movie was released as R (or NC-17), referring to it as anything else is not just non-encyclopedic, but just wrong. "A trustworthy encyclopedia" that knowingly posts something incorrect has no credibility.--KathrynMonroe 18:52, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Not only are you trolling but you obviously haven't read my previous comments. The term X-rated is independent of the MPAA certification. Period. BrianCo 19:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you're going to call any R-rated movie containing sex and nudity "X-rated", well that's a large, large number of mainstream movies. Reynard 23:29, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo, although you make a good argument, it's not good enough. In Australia, "X" is a specific rating that is not the same as "R", and the movie concerned would not be rated "X". Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Move Requests

I notice that there are a number of articles in [[Category:Move_requests]]. Is there someone willing to address these, or is there some way I can take care of them? I don't believe I have the ability to change page titles, merge content, or move/delete pages. -DrSandstone 15:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

You can link to categories without categorising the page by typing [[:Category:Move requests]]:Category:Move requests

I have a page for listing needed moves, which also has a place to mark when the links to the page have been updated. It was intended for renamings account the Manual of Style change to lower-case names, but can also be used for any renaming that there would be no dispute over. If, on the other hand, there might be disagreement about a name change, that should be discussed and agreed upon on the article's talk page first.

Anybody can merge content, however. It's just a matter of cutting from one page and pasting on another (assuming the destination is not locked).

Philip J. Rayment 04:15, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden's Debate Lies

No equal billing for Palin's? How trustworthy. --DinsdaleP 11:21, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Palin's what? She didn't lie, Biden did. Is it possible you're referring to her misstatements or the incorrect name she gave for the general in Afghanistan? Those don't count as lies. Mcliff 14:17, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

What she said about Afghanistan and elsewhere in the debate went beyond "misstatement". I don't suppose it would be considered a reliable source around here, but factcheck.org has a lengthy list of debate falsehoods for both Biden and Palin.--Frey 17:15, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

My point was along the lines of Frey's response. If we're going to call misstatements lies, then call them that way consistently when either candidate does it. Otherwise, apply some fact-checking and call them for what they are, whether mistakes, misunderstandings or just plain lies. --DinsdaleP 23:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

No, no, you're missing the point. Biden has 36 years of Senate "experience". Palin doesn't come from the same world as he does, she's younger, and she shouldn't be held to the same standard. Biden has more years in Congress than Obama and McCain combined and he's still making these, um, "gaffes" as the media calls them. Please. When the bottom half of the conservative ticket has more experience than the top of the liberal ticket, then maybe you're problem isn't with Palin, it's some dissatisfaction with the deceitful candidates the liberals nominated Mcliff 09:21, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

It's because of Palin's "executive experience" that I don't want her as VP. When she started as mayor of Wasilla the town had a long-term debt of zero, and when she was done they carried a debt service balance of over $20 million for a town of only around 7400 people. She incompetently rammed the sports complex construction through before making sure the land rights were fully secured, and it's cost the town $1.2 million in unnecessary legal and interest fees. Tax cuts followed by irresponsible spending leading to an onerous debt for her successors to deal with - sounds a lot more like the continuation of the policies of George W. Bush than "change". At least the ice rink has heated seats for the hockey moms. --DinsdaleP 11:32, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Barney Frank headline

I'm no fan of the way this headline is written, because it seems to imply that all deregulation is bad and inherently involves cronyism, when in fact it only operates that way when Democrats take the lead. This is the key problem of the liberal's economic machinations: They're so bipolar and misguided that they only seek deregulation as a mean's of helping their friends, and push for nationalization in hopes of bailing out those same friends. Shameful. Mcliff 10:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

My problem with it is that it needs to be clarified that "partner" refers to his gay lover. Jinxmchue 17:22, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! Jinxmchue 18:21, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Error

The Berg/Obama headline is wrong; it's just a rumor. See [6] AlbertT 10:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that we simply take your liberal BLOG'S word for it on this important issue?!?! I know nothing about who runs that site, but I know that the owner of this site is a succesful attorney who is the general counsel for what is, arguably, the most important physicians group in the country. He would have to be pretty imcompetent to allow the item on the front page to stay up as long as it has if it was incorrect, so pardon me if if I choose the word of Andy Schafly over some random blog.KevinG 10:43, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm thinking AlbertT is some wayward RW drone sent to dry and fog up CP's good record on unmasking liberal "hijinks" (they call lies "gaffes", so let's make their other crimes seem cute, eh?). If you're going to try and crash Conservapedia's stories into memory holes, then please, please, make sure you're using a credible source. Ugh, maybe liberals are the reactionary ones. Mcliff 11:01, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

As AlbertT said, "obamalies.com", which appears to be Berg's own site, has stated that the ruling has not yet been made. Regardless, the document cited on the headline (specifically the first page) does not contain the judge's signature. The headline is therefore premature. Kallium 12:22, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This is very typical it seems. An error on the main page is pointed out, and it is completely ignored, with only parodists responding. I would like to think that there is someone in a position of authority on the site who actually cares that a statement on the main page is completely untrue. But I guess posting information that espousing a particular viewpoint is more important than the truth. So be it. SamuelO 17:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

And as long as we're pointing out errors, the statement that Biden doesn't know the difference between the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. The elections he was referring to in 2006 were held in both Gaza and the West Bank, it was in 2007 that Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza. So if he made an error, it was saying "The West Bank" not "The West Bank and the Gaza Strip", which is hardly an egregious mistake. If you guys ever linked to anything other than uninformed bloggers you might not make these mistakes. I mean, why does something that bills itself as trustworthy constantly use blogs (who have zero accountability) as sources? You do know that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can write anything in a blog, right? SamO 18:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

American Gothic

Is it just me or do Palin & McCain look unusually thin in that picture? It's unusual to see him with a pitchfork too!  ;-) Sideways 12:52, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

NYT + Ayers

Fantastic article. It is just awesome to see NYT reduced from prominence to a liberal tabloid.--Jpatt-- 13:54, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Vandal: Breadman

Someone please block User:Breadman. See e.g. Conservapedia authors. -Golfpro 21:45, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Wall street

May be worth changing the bit about Wall street (top news item), a drop of 300 points isn't much of a recovery... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joldy0 (talk)

McCain's chances slipping

With four weeks to go, the betting market is showing McCain with a lot of work to do. See here for an update. -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 07:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The Palin investigation report won't help. As a mayor she left a town of 7,000 over $20 million in debt, and as governor she had the right to fire members of her staff, but now has been found to have done so for reasons that included personal grudges and bias. When you look at her record instead of her talk, people see someone more like George Bush (increasing the debt and having U.S. attorneys fired for political reasons versus performance) than a "maverick" who would do things differently.

This week McCain and Palin tried switching their approach from explaining the positives of what they offer America to discredited negative attacks on Obama, and all it's done is incite anger, hatred and viral videos on YouTube making conservatives attending their rallies look like hate-speaking racists. Now McCain has to waste time at his rallies trying to defuse the racist hatred he inspired just days earlier, and he's being booed by his own crowds for doing so. I used to like John McCain, but this campaign has become an unraveling disaster. Positive news stories on Conservapedia about the McCain/Palin have become scarce, so I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments. --DinsdaleP 11:51, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Dinsdale, you must be liberal parodist. McCain is a hero and Palin is the nearest thing to an every woman that we have seen in politics. McCain is not the racist, how about Obama supporter John Lewis, who compared McCain to George Wallace?? In fact, in his book McCain wrote very positive things about Lewis??? So who is the racist here?? After all, it is a well known fact that liberals tend to be 43% more racist than conservatives.--Saxplayer 11:30, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to add that McCain's being nice to Lewis (describing him as a hero in his book) points out the sheer folly of trying to be nice to liberals. As soon as they get a chance they will stab you in the back. --Saxplayer 12:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Saxplayer, go easy on Dinsdale. He is a good person. I don't agree with his Democratic support, nonetheless, we all hope he becomes a conservative citizen one day.--Jpatt 12:18, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, you are right. Dinsdale is a reasonable person (very rare in a liberal) and I am sure that one day he will conservatism.--Saxplayer 13:58, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Sax, how on earth does camparing mccain to george wallace make john lewis racist? and where do you get this "well known fact" about liberals being racist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoahH (talk)

Noah, you really do not see the racism in Lewis' comment??Lewis (an Obama supporter) is the one who injected the issue of race. Comparing McCain to Wallace, a Democrat and segregationist, is obviously a racist ploy. As far the fact that liberals are more racist than conservatives, you need to open your mind and embrace conservative principles.--Saxplayer 14:45, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

You dodged my questions. you gave no solid argument that lewis comments were racist. what lewis said was that mccain is stirring up hate, something which got people killed when wallace did so. Lewis said nothing negative about McCain's race. as for liberals being more racist, where can you show me a statistic that says liberals are 43% more racist than conservatives? if it is such a well known fact, you shouldn't have a hard time. -user:noahH

A black man comparing McCain to a white racist(Wallace), IS RACIST. The only person stirring up hate was Lewis. As for the stat, I don't have one. But by this election cycle alone, the GOP has been quite on race issues, attacking Obama on credibility. The only people pushing the race card, the racist Democrats. Says alot about the left. --Jpatt 11:55, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

And a white man (mccain) comparing a black man (obama) or trying to connect him to a "racist" black man (Wright) isn't racist? i don't think it is, but by your logic, it would be. and you all are pulling the race card pretty darn hard calling Obama and "affirmative-action candidate". not to mention pulling the religion card by trying to reveal obama's "connections" to Islam. I wouldn't talk about distracting from the issues if i were you, because the mccain-palin camp is doing a lot of that. by talking endlessly about Bill ayers this, Acorn that, you are hoping to scare people from voting for him without talking issues. -user:noah

Noah,you really do not see the difference??? Lewis tried to compare McCain to George Wallace--a man that John McCain has nothing to do with. By contrast, Obama attended Wright's church for years and listened to his hateful "sermons." Obviously, there is an enormous difference, and if you do not see it, you are probably like most liberals and are intellectually deficient.--Saxplayer 19:36, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Look, we're not going to agree about wheyher or not Lewis's comments were racist or not, but i'd REALLY like to know where you got the "fact" the liberals are [exactly] 43% more racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoahH (talk)

I think there is a parodist or two here, but I don't think that DinsdaleP is one of them. Philip J. Rayment 21:10, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Tee hee. HelpJazz 21:11, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Long-winded, yes. Parodist, No.  ;-) --DinsdaleP 21:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Parodists we can cope with - they are easy enough to spot for anyone with a nose. Liberals are a more pernicious evil, especially when they are protected by our 'Useful idiots'. Bugler 10:36, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not so sure that they are easy enough to spot. For example, are you one or not? I honestly don't know for sure (although I lean to "not"). Of course you could always say that I don't have a nose, I guess. Who do you think are the useful idiots here? Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm hurt that you would even suggest such a thing, Philip. As for the useful idiots - well, some of these Liberals are very thin-skinned. Better, perhaps, to keep my powder dry. Bugler 14:27, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think anyone here is a useful idiot, following the definition in the article. HelpJazz 19:58, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Our idiots aren't useful, is that what you're saying? Surely we can find something for them to do?-- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 07:15, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

My own read was that Philip was the useful idiot, protecting you (Mr. Jazz) despite your sins. I suspect that it wasn't meant to be a topic for conversation, though. Regards, Aziraphale 13:17, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Troopergate

thought this was some interesting news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7662820.stm

That is so ridiculous it's not funny. The liberal media will go to any length to smear this woman. When will people realize that??? It doesn't matter what the report says, it was clearly initiated by Obama supporters and I can't believe mindless liberals would swallow it. Stop looking at the past. Obama always brings up the past in debates... doesn't he realize that we have a huge crisis on our hands, and if we don't do something NOW it won't get solved! At least McCain is making proposals! Obama hasn't made a single proposal!--Claypool 20:11, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's scapegoating is getting old.--Aschlafly 20:57, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

OBAMA is always bringing up the past? have you paid attention to the current tactic of the McCain campaign? continuously harping on Bill Ayers and trying desperately to attach Obama to someone who was part a group that damaged some property in the seventies . Palin clearly abused her power. McCain is the one trying to distract, not Obama. why would he need to? he's clearly ahead. McCain's actions are clearly those of a desperate person.

The "scapegoating" is not from Obama - this was an investigation that was approved unanimously by a bipartisan panel of the Alaskan State Legislature based on the evidence available, all before she became a VP candidate. This investigation was also approved by Palin and had her full support until her nomination. Palin is a savvy politician, and probably figured that since no laws were broken it would be better to have the investigation resolved, even if it found her actions ethically questionable, so she'd appear accountable and move past this as Governor. The investigation only became a real liability when she was nominated. Like McCain and his involvement with the Keating Five, her actions were not illegal, just ethically questionable. Unlike McCain, who admitted he was wrong afterward and learned from it, Palin is adamant in refusing to admit any lapse in judgment despite the investigative panel being bipartisan and composed of her fellow Alaskans. Her refusal to cooperate with the investigation she initially authorized, and her subsequent denial of the ethical lapses identified in the report, are going to remind a lot of voters of Dick Cheney and the Plame affair, and Alberto Gonzales and the improper U.S. Attorney firings. If you want to say you're a maverick offering change from the Bush/Cheney legacy, then you have to demonstrate it, and Palin lost a chance to do that with this investigation. --DinsdaleP 23:02, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Dinsdale, I don't think you're fooling anyone here. How about you go to wikipedia and argue for Barack Hussein Obama and his terrorist colleagues. Sarah Palin is a remarkable woman, and she was well within her powers when she made that decisions as governor. At least she made a decision. Can you name a decision that Barack Hussein Obama made as a leader???--Claypool 10:51, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Forget it, Dins. It's Conservapedia. (Cue music)--Frey 21:08, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, this weekend the atmosphere on this site has been partly cloudy with an 80% chance of parody. --DinsdaleP 21:40, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The report in no way claims she broke the law by firing that man. I does how ever say she was unethical in applying pressure to him to fire her brother in law, I don't eve think it says that the firing was unethical. She really just needs to admit she was wrong and will blow over quickly. People forgot the Keating Five didn't that? --Snotbowst 15:23, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

If the firing was ethical, how can suggesting it be unethical? She has no cause to admit wrongdoing: the whole thing is a Liberal invention. Bugler 16:18, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a bipartisan (in fact, 70% Republcan) committee. It isn't a "liberal invention" by any stretch. And it's been ongoing for a lot longer than the 5 weeks that Palin's been in the public eye. Get over your partisan paranoia. Oh, and Jesus doesn't like liars. Lizard1959 06:00, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Financial crisis

I'm astonished that there isn't more mention of the current financial and economic turmoil. I came here looking for this particular US conservative viewpoint and there's hardly anything on the Main Page at all, except some oblique references made in passing on other news.

Surely this is a major story that deserves comment from a conservative viewpoint. The financial markets and the economy more generally are very visible aspects of capitalism, which in turn is a major feature of conservatism.

Whether defending capitalism and the free market from criticism, applauding the Bush administration's rescue package, attacking de facto nationalisation of private banks, or even attacking Obama's reactions to the crisis, there should at least be something. I feel that CP is missing the opportunity to comment on what is one of the most important current events closely related to some of the fundamental issues of US conservatism. Ajkgordon 06:47, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Here's my comment, starting with a couple of quotes:

Free enterprise has a strong Biblical basis. Of course, unchecked by Biblical ethics/law, it is easily corrupted into ‘evolutionary economics’—survival of the most ruthless, as in post-communist Russia.[7]

Darwinism was critically important, not only in supporting the development and rise of Nazism and communism (and in producing the Nazi and communist holocausts), but also in the rise of the many ruthless robber baron capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kittlewell concluded, social Darwinism has led to many evils, including ‘the glorification of free enterprise, laissez faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology’. A major aspect of this form of capitalism was the Darwinian belief which concluded that it is natural and proper to exploit without limits both ‘weaker’ persons and weaker businesses.[8]

Although these are not referring to recent events, the same sorts of things could probably be said. Yes, in one sense it is a failure of capitalism, but because of the lack of standards, either self-imposed or government imposed. See also my earlier comments here (search for "05:08").

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

Hmmm... thanks Philip, but a sideswipe at "Darwinism" doesn't do this current crisis justice.

What is needed is a right-wing US conservative recognition on the Main Page that the current financial turmoil is a "big deal" and merits comment or links to news stories that support or demonstrate the Conservapedia position.

It seems incredible to me that virtually no mention of it is made or has no place alongside the usual Obama, homosexual, liberal, atheist and evolution obsessions. It makes Conservapedia look very out of touch. Ajkgordon 16:36, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I realise that my comments would not be all that you were after, particularly as it was just my view rather than an "official" Conservapedia view, but I suspected that your enquiry was prompted by the thought that, as conservatives, we would side with free enterprise, and therefore the apparent failure of free enterprise in this case is a black mark against the conservative viewpoint. (And even if that wasn't in the back of your mind, it is in the minds of some others.) So I was pointing out that, for this conservative at least, unbridled, "survival-of-the-fittest", selfish free enterprise is just as wrong as socialism, so the current situation does not therefore count as a black mark against conservative views. But as for the lack of "official" comment, yes I agree with you on that. Philip J. Rayment 22:04, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, thanks, Philip. But you're from Oz so you don't count :)

I'm not actually making any criticism of capitalism, the free market and conservatism myself. I'm simply trying to provoke CP coverage and critique of the current crisis. Ajkgordon 07:19, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Columbus Day

Suggestion: Can someone add a reminder on the main page that today is Columbus Day, so that those who haven't received a reminder in their liberal schools and institutions can remember that we're celebrating a great Christian today? Thanks! Jinkas 12:20, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

(are you kidding me?! columbus didn't set out to discover a new land to spread the Word, he was looking for a trade route! one he didn't find, mind you! oh but i suppose i learned that in some liberal institution... which is amazing that i know anything about columbus at all...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jros83 (talk)

Done!! ;-P Thanks for the reminder!! ~Beth^Talk2ME 12:30, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

You are aware that most public schools have Columbus Day off right? --AndrasK 14:16, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

DUH!!! ~Beth^Talk2ME 16:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry...that was rude. Yes, I'm aware, why did you ask that? ~Beth^Talk2ME

I think it was to show that kids at "liberal schools" know it's Columbus day, since they notice that they don't have school. LiamG 16:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

In New Jersey, public schools are not required to recognize the Columbus Day holiday. Rather, they have the option of ignoring it.[9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

The district where my sister teaches in NJ did not have off, because they had off the Thursday the previous week for the Jewish holiday... now I dare you to make an issue of that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jros83 (talk)

I believe the number of public schools recognizing Columbus Day dropped when Martin Luther King Day became a national holiday. Instead of adding an extra day off, they opted to observe the Federal one in lieu of the non-Federal one. When I was a kid my (NYC) school observed both Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays, but at some poiny only the consolidated "President's Day" was observed, probably as a trade-off for some other day being taken instead. --DinsdaleP 16:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Even if a public school has the day off, how many of those children are actually told why they have the day off and are taught to appreciate Columbus's contributions as a devout Christian, lead by God to this land? That's the reason for the reminder. Jinkas 16:59, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

He wasnt led to "this land" (by which I assume you mean the USA). And if God led him, then he would have wanted a refund on his prayers since he died convinced that he had made landfall in Asia! --KimSell 14:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you on drugs?! He was looking for a western route to the Indies!!! Religion was secondary. He was Christian so he brought it with him, it was not the primary reason! Good God how deluded can you be?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jros83 (talk)

(Unindent) We actually learn, at least I have, quite a bit about Columbus in public school. Granted it was back in 9th grade in World History so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I recall reading quite a bit of his own journals and the writings of historians, both those that saw him as a positive and negative force. I know that I learned quite a bit that I did not know and my learnings debunked some of the most held assumptions regarding Columbus. --AndrasK 22:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberalism and Exaggeration

This site is one based on a Christian, American and conservative point of view, and I respect that. You do not agree with "liberalism" (Liberalism and socialism are often confused here, but I'm going to use your definition for the moment.), and that's fine. You honestly believe that conservatism and conservative values are better for the country than more liberal/socialist ones. That's fine too.

The trouble is, you're not trying to portray liberals as people you disagree with; you're trying to portray them as people who are out to activley harm your country. That is absurd; you simply disagree about the best way to help the country. Calling them "liars", "sociopaths" and "anti-Americans" (all quotes from the news pages) does absolutely nothing for your cause, except make you look like politically unaware maniacs with a riserable understanding of the world, or indeed the USA.

Thank you,

KarlJaeger 14:18, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

KarlJaeger, you are obviously a liberal masquerading as a "moderate." Has Barack Obama told the truth about anything??? We are not even sure if he is really an American. What about Bill Clinton's well documented lies??? Or Hilliary's lies??? What about Obama advocating American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq??? That does not strike you as anti-American??? You should learn to open your mind and embrace true conservative principles.--Saxplayer 08:00, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is nonsense. Everyone does what he thinks is right, even a liar, and has the right to his opinion, even a liberal. To respect someone's right to express an opinion doesn't imply you should also respect his opinions or beliefs themselves. Liberals do actively harm our country and Barack Obama is a liar. Is that not so? Pila 11:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

News?

No mention on main page of Harper leading Conservative party to Canada election win? MTaylor 08:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain's odds after final debate

With the dust settling after the final debate, the betting market has not yet seen fit to view McCain more favourably. Update here. What should his next move be? -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 07:11, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Well the general agreement (from voter panels, polls etc) seems to be that McCain lost last night's debate, so I'd imagine his odds will be unchanged or will get even worse. As for what his next move should be, unfortunately I don't think it matters anymore. Unless the campaign can dig some sort of dirt up on Obama, I think the election is pretty much over :(.

And even that is not necessarily going to work. I don't think it's any coincidence that McCain's poll ratings slumped when he really started to push this negative campaigning about Obama's past. Accusing Obama of having terrorist links or being a Muslim just made the Republican campaign look desperate, and I don't think people are in the mood for it at the moment. People want optimism right now, and McCain should have picked a more stable running mate, distanced himself as far as possible from Bush, and oncentrated on telling everyone how he was going to take the country forwards rather than simply running attack ads MikeR 10:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama likely is a Muslim and a Marxist

Your continuing to post nonsense articles like this shows an utter lack of character and at this point, wreckless behavior that could provoke violence. Even John McCain has made an effort to squash this type of fear mongering. You know the truth. I can only assume that since you do and you can see the potential for violent action that spreading these falsehoods creates, that you in fact welcome it. MickA 09:28, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

If you are referring to the item on the Main Page news, it doesn't say that he is a Muslim; merely that he is from a Muslim background. Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Gimmee a break. That is your defense of the article? It basically says that he is not a Christian, he is a Marxist and (wink-wink) he has a Muslim background. Let's not be cute about what the implication is. MickA 09:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

MickA, you're not fooling anyone here, and neither is Barack Obama. Read his entry and learn something.--Aschlafly 09:40, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Which "article" are you talking about? The Main Page entry is not an "article". Are you talking about the article that the Main Page entry is based on? If so, then no, it does not imply that he is a Muslim. Rather, it indicates that he is a person who believes that all religions are equal; that his claimed Christianity is more in line with an agnostic view of Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

The article says that his sister (I think stepsister, actually, but I'm not sure) said the whole family was Muslim. It says that Obama studied the Koran extensively, and only a Muslim would do that. It says that him claiming to have always been a Christian is just a ruse (so what was he before, a Druid?) I'd say the article very strongly implies, if not outright states, that he was a Muslim, which, by the logic I've seen here, means that he probably still is.--Frey 13:50, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it would be fair to conclude from the article that he was a Muslim, but when you are judging an off-site article, you should judge it by its logic, not Conservapedia's, which means that you have offered no reason for claiming that the article indicates that he still is. On the contrary, it puts a fair case for him being more of a nominal Christian who's really more of an agnostic. An agnostic Muslim is a contradiction in terms. Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is a Muslim and a Marxist, then he is either an atheist Muslim or a devout theist Marxist. That seems like a contradiction in terms, in either case.Leansleft 12:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

The Black Power movement and the Nation of Islam are apparently Marxist. Wow, who knew?--Frey 13:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually Frey, the NOI has nothing to do with marxism. they are simply a religious group, albeit a radical, controversial one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoahH (talk)

I have been reading Conservapedia for a while now and appreciate your honest info on Obama. An Obama presidency is really scary. The fact that people like MickA make light of it is even scarier. My husband and I think a civil war coming and we are getting ready to be on the right side. What do other Conservapedia readers think? CarrieThomas

I think that America's commitment to democracy is too strong for that, and I also suspect that you are a parodist. Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia has the most honest article on Barack Obama anywhere. It is time for liberals like MickA to open their minds and embrace conservative principles.--Saxplayer 14:00, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

No offense intended, of course, but just thought I'd observe that it's comments like that that give CP such a sterling reputation.--Frey 13:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

People like you better watch out. Barack Hussein Obama and his supporters are being watched. Carriethomas

They're being watched? LiamG 15:00, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

In this conversation, parodists abound! But who's who? --IanG 15:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Hard to tell sometimes, isn't it?--Frey 16:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

'donars' -> 'donors'

Jinkas 12:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I noticed that myself, and fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

New Evolution Lies

Look what drivel the evolutionists are churning out now in the (of course) liberal New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/science/16fossil.html?ref=science RodWeathers 13:58, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Those silly scientists, finding and evaluating new evidence, rather than just looking in the Bible. When will they ever learn. Boomcoach 14:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

hmm. can you please elaborate on how this report is "drivel" or a lie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoahH (talk)

fossil millions of years old. ! Bishop Ussher determined that creation was 23 October 4004 BC. That clearly shows the fossil date false. Taking a different view its interesting that the Mother of Hamsters was sort of a fish. anyhow , have a nice day , I forgot my medications , better go take them . Markr

What cracks me up about articles like this is how evolutionists accept the "just so" story in the article without question -- almost Usshurian. How do we know the age of the fossil? The article doesn't say! You certainly can't directly radiometrically date a fossil, so that's out the window -- how did they determine the age? Evolutionists don't care -- it feels good to believe. This also raises the ever-present question -- how did this evolution occur? It certainly could not have been "survival of the fittest," because classic fish are still around (and were therefore not replaced by this guy). In fact, this little guy is extinct, while animals on both sides are still alive -- so where's the "fitness" that allowed for more survival than the fish? Without the help of "survival of the fittest," the only way this evolution could have taken place is if a particular population of fish became isolated from the main population in a different niche and gene pool, and then made a rapid jump without the aid of natural selection. But evolutionists don't care about that either -- the picture looks kinda like a land-fish, and that's good enough. Then there's always the classic -- how can you "scientifically" conclude that different fossils are related unless you begin with the assumption that they're related? You can't. That is, unless you already want to believe. You evolutionists never cease to amuse:). Ungtss 22:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

How is it "drivel"? Well, if I recall correctly (from an article in New Scientist that you need a subscription to read, which I don't have), the fossil concerned was supposedly on a side-branch, not in the supposed evolutionary line leading to land creatures, yet the New York Times article describes it as "a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans". That's what passes for an evolutionary "intermediate fossil" these days—creatures that were not actually intermediate! And by the way, Ussher was an archbishop, and there's nothing illogical about taking his date (based on the account given to us by the Creator who was there and therefore is an eyewitness) over the dates of scientists who were not there and who are basing their views on their philosophies. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

To clarify that post of mine, as others elsewhere have misunderstood a point and thought that I misunderstood another point, it wasn't a case of the NYT claiming one thing (that the fossil was intermediate) and the scientists claiming another (that the fossil was on a side branch). The fossil has generally been claimed as an intermediate form (and the NYT is just one example of this), whilst the New Scientist article I referred to claimed both things: that it on a side branch and that it was an example of an intermediate form.

My reference to Ussher being an archbishop was simply correcting a mistake (yes, he presumably was a bishop at some stage, but he was an archbishop when he wrote Annals of the World in which he gave the date of 4004 B.C.), and I was not pointing this out as an argument by authority. Rather, the opposing view is an argument by authority. An "argument by authority" as a logical fallacy is when one quotes someone as an authority that they are not, such as quoting an astronomer as an expert on palaeontology; it is not a logical fallacy to quote as an authority someone who is an authority. I was pointing out that Ussher was basing his date on the testimony of God (Who, if you accept that He exists as the Bible describes, is an authority), yet the opposing view is based on the views of scientists who are not authorities on what happened in history (they are scientists, not historians, and weren't there to see what happened). And referring to the biblical account as a "dodgy set of inconsistent genealogies" is basing an argument on a throwaway line with no substance.

Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Enabling outside internet links

This used to be done by completion of a simple sum. Now it appears to require typing in a word displayed in an adjacent box. I have just been asked to type in the 'word' ghoulmoses - as a Christian, I find this highly offensive. And who is to say that even worse terms - sexual and the like - might not come up? Can nothing be done about this? Bugler 14:40, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Poe strikes again. Ungtss 15:05, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Poe wrote some pretty weird stories, but I don't think any of them actually had a ghoul Moses. Googling the word "ghoulmoses" only brings up Uncyclopedia. I haven't made any external links since the new system came in, so I haven't seen this box yet. There's a discussion about it all on Aschlafly's talk page, so maybe you should add this there if it's throwing up disturbing words. Sideways 15:17, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Like eight-year-olds poking sticks at the monkeys in the zoo. Ungtss 15:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

What? Sideways 15:44, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

The parodying, man. Ungtss 15:46, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

these systems generally do not use 4 letter words because of the unfortunate combinations that can occur, but there may well be combinations that some find objectional. If it uses a word list it could be edited to remove specific words. Discussion of a 'trusted editor' group that bypassed this check is discussed on aschlafly talk page Markr 15:53, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Hahahaha that's hilarious!--IanG 17:01, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

What is funny about insults to faith, IanG? Bugler 17:07, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

That a pair of random words generated by a machine is taken as an insult.--IanG 18:43, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

if you just press the enter key you will get a different word Markr 18:58, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Markr, I thought there would be a way to get a new word. If I found the word so offensive that I couldn't type it into a CAPTCHA, neither would I type it on this page to complain about it. Philip J. Rayment 19:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is not the worst epithet, perhaps, but offensive nevertheless. If I hadn't typed it, I would have had to put up with people of bad faith, of whom, regrettably, there are one or two involved in this project, accusing me of lying or exaggeration. It is a shame that Philip couldn't have responded in the positive Conservapedian spirit of Markr, to whom I extend my thanks. Bugler 06:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Reading this discussion, my first thought (or one of the first) was that there would be a way to request a different word (I've encountered that on other sites). But (A) being an Administrator I don't encounter this one, so couldn't readily try it out, and (B) reading further saw that Markr had offered that answer anyway. That's why I thanked him for providing the answer; it saved me investigating further. My point is that if I could have given the answer that Markr gave before he gave it, I would have. Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

And since he did before you did, one would have thought that the normal thing to do would be to remain silent, rather than have a totally unprovoked and unnecessary swipe at me. But oh no, it's clearly open season on Buglers on Rayment Island. Ah well, such is life. Bugler 08:34, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Slight inaccuracy

Regarding this news item:

"The censorship dreamed of by Democrats and their supporters has begun with a radio talk show host pulled from the airwaves for criticizing Obama"

The WND article itself says: "Some online rumors even suggest Miller could be taken off the air."

The host was not pulled from the air, he was reprimanded on his show by an exec. producer, who also apologized to any offended listeners. I think better wording would be along the lines of:

"The censorship dreamed of by Democrats and their supporters has begun with a radio talk show host reprimanded on-air by his producer for criticizing Obama"

It's more accurate, but still tells the story. Human 18:45, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain and DMCA Takedowns

CP takes flak for many of its News items, so it's only fair that the item on DMCA takedowns is complemented. This is a deep and complex issue that deserves more attention because, frankly, abusers of the DMCA thrive in an environment of confusion and/or ignorance. Here is a link to the story from a source that covers the issues in more depth; you can follow the related links to learn all you'd ever want to know about takedown abuse and what to do if you're the target of an inappropriate takedown. Regards, Aziraphale 12:49, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Africa Asia

Asia and Africa need urgent improvement. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:55, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama as the first person linked to a terrorist to gain access to the atomic bombs

Is there a source for this?--Saxplayer 09:49, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The linked Barack Obama entry.--Aschlafly 09:54, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes. Even if it's true, what's it doing in the news section? It doesn't refer to any of today's news stories. It's just a disembodied campaign slogan.--KeithJoseph 15:03, 20 October 2008 (GMT)

It is true, and it is news to most people, as illustrated by Saxplayer above, who is more informed than most.--Aschlafly 10:13, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Would you count George H.W. Bush, provided he knew about the Iran/Contra scandal? Corry 10:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly is right. I went to the article and followed the links. It leads to a Cleveland newspaper and an article about Obama's pal, Bill Ayers. Could you imagine what would happen if Bill Ayers bot an atom bomb? Thanks for posting this Aschlafly!--Saxplayer 10:18, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Let's not forget Bill Clinton "palling around" with Gerry Adams. He personally arranged for that terrorist mastermind to get a visa into America.--KeithJoseph 17:25, 20 October 2008 (GMT)

"Just more proof that Obama will win the presidency through outright fraud"

Why come to this conclusion when the cited article does not? It doesn't actually mention Obama at all. It indicates that a few of the registration anomalies may be down to voter fraud (not party fraud), but most are either due to data entry and administrative errors, or using non-residential addresses to register homeless voters. Sideways 09:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

In case you think all alleged voter fraud is on behalf of Democrats: Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California --DinsdaleP 11:12, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

"Republican" in California more often than not indicates a fiscal stance, not a social stance. See: Ah-nold. Anywhere else, such people would be called "Democrats." Jinxmchue 12:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Right, no true Scotsman would do that. Corry 13:45, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Cute. It always amuses me when people misuse that fallacy. "Scotsman" is not defined by behavior or beliefs, but by where a person is born, thus making it a fallacy to say someone is not a true Scotsman based upon their behavior or beliefs. However, being a Republican, Democrat, Independent, libertarian, conservative, liberal, environmentalist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. IS based upon behavior and/or beliefs. In California, the majority of people who call themselves Republicans only do so for fiscal reasons. Socially, they are as liberal as any Democrat there and, in fact, would call themselves and be called Democrats everywhere else in the country. Jinxmchue 16:15, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

That's not true. No True Scottsman specifically refers to disqualifying from a group based on a single factor. A hypothetical example: If I said "No Christian would ever steal." Then a case comes up showing that a Christian did in fact steal, and my response is "He's not a true Christian." That is falling into the No True Scotsman falacy. Now, an argument can be made that the theif was not living by Christian rules (obviously he wasn't) but Christiany is hinged upon one single factor, and that is beleif in Jesus Christ being the son of God. Anyone who follows that belief is a Christian, whether or not they follow various rules is irrelavant. The Scottsman fallacy is not limited only to geographical location. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 16:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not so much about whether the fraudster in this case was a RINO or not - when you offer people money to register voters, human nature (sadly) is that a certain percentage of the registrations will come from fraudsters more focused on generating money for themselves than generating legitimate voters. I hope anyone who's caught doing this, no matter who they do it for, is given the maximum penalty allowable. --DinsdaleP 12:39, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

To latch on to what Sideways said, there's no indication that the probable fraud was perpetrated to help Obama. When you consider that Bush won by almost 25,000 votes, the Democrats are going to need a little more than 17 Ohio river addresses to swing the election. Additionally, in Ohio (and I think the whole nation) you have to show ID to vote, so unless you also have a fake ID with a matching address (which is not touched on anywhere in the article), those nonexistent addresses can't be used. I think instead of making this a partisan issue, we should make it a national issue. HelpJazz 14:18, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama endorsed by Republican former Secretary of State Colin Powell

Isn't that newsworthy? ColonOwl 11:54, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

No, it isn't. It's a pathetic attempt by Obama to make it look like Republicans support him. In fact, they are against him by huge margins.--Aschlafly 12:17, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Why would anyone be expecting significant numbers of Republicans to suddenly support the Democratic nominee because of an endorsement from a Republican? What matters is what the undecided voters think. --DinsdaleP 12:22, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict over and over again, haha) I don't think anyone thinks Republicans as a whole or en masse support Obama. I don't think Powell is indicative of anything, he is just a notable person in the political sphere. I don't understand how it's an attempt by Obama, though. Didn't Powell choose him of his own accord? LiamG 12:29, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. What I found more significant are the latest endorsements from newspapers that historically did not support Democrats, like the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin figured prominently into both endorsements of Obama. I wonder what the polls would be saying today if McCain had truly been the maverick he claims to be, and picked the running mate he wanted instead of the one his strategists calculated would be better. --DinsdaleP 12:35, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Hold on, I wasn't saying I agreed with you (please don't take offense at that!). I didn't really mean to make a point at all, really. I was just trying to understand. I was kinda more asking for clarification from you and Aschlafly. Sorry for any confusion :-) LiamG 12:42, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, the Chicago Tribute and L.A. Times are left-wing newspapers. Read them if you like, but don't deny their bias. Their endorsements of Obama -- and the endorsement by Colin Powell -- are as predictable as the sunset, regardless of Obama's lack of qualifications.--Aschlafly 12:47, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Interesting that the Tribune, according to you a left-wing paper, has never before endorsed a Democratic candidate for President. Of course, on CP, "left-wing" and "liberal" have become simply "anything Aschafly doesn't agree with". The Tribune has usually been the conservative paper in Chicago, arguing for fiscal responsibility and limited government. But since they disagree with Andy, they are now left-wing. Boomcoach 13:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can you explain your basis is for calling the Chicago Tribune a left-wing newspaper? As Boomcoach mentioned, the paper has never endorsed a Democrat for president until now. More to the point, the paper's Statement of Principles embodies values that they (and most editors here) could consider conservative, as this excerpt shows:

"The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas."

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't sound left-wing to me. --DinsdaleP 13:38, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

It's rather simple, if they don't support The Party, they are liberal leftists who lust for the destruction of America, there is no middle ground.--TyroneC 14:34, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

"Statement of Principles": Citizen Kane strikes again.--TerryH^Talk 15:41, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Leftist is as leftist does, Dinsdale: whatever fine words they come up with are irrelevant if they then lend active support to the most left-wing major party candidate in a generation. Bugler 13:42, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

This has the makings of a new "Mystery" essay - the inexplicable reason conservatives like Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, and Kathleen Parker are abandoning the idea that they should set their personal convictions aside to support whoever is the Republican nominee, and instead stand on those convictions by honestly questioning whether the McCain/Palin ticket is really in the best interest of the U.S. at this critical time. --DinsdaleP 14:05, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe muslims have secret hypnotic powers. Dat ol' black majic. ColonOwl 14:10, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy,

• How is Powell's endorsement "predictable as the sunset?"

• Is Christopher Buckley now a leftist for endorsing Obama?

• Is Peggy Noonan a leftist for blasting the McCain-Palin ticket?

• Is Lieberman, on the other hand, a conservative for supporting McCain?

I know this is a multi-part question, but I think it's important to consider a more complicated system of political views than a liberal/conservative dichotomy. Corry 13:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, you always have your "summer soldiers," ready to flee when the going gets tough. Powell was always a lukewarm Republican and not much of a conservative. As for the rest of the "Republican intelligentsia" who are jumping ship, such as David Brooks, Noonan, and young Buckley, they will come crawling back in a few years, realizing they were wrong to support the man who will easily be the worst president in US history.--Saxplayer 14:24, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

If Obama hasn't put them in jail for violating Sharia. BHarlan 14:27, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Just read Colin Powell's Conservapedia page. He supports abortion, affirmative action, etc. BHarlan 14:27, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Here is why Powell supported Obama. Quid pro quo! [10]--Saxplayer 14:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Added to Powell page. Good work! BHarlan 14:50, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

This article has no mention of Colin Powell. Corry 19:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh yeah, Colin is out of work. I saw him at the subway playing on old paint cans with his hat out for money. No wonder he endorsed Obama. ColonOwl 14:51, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Typical liberalism. Just because someone isn't poor doesn't mean he has nothing to gain via influence. Only a limousine liberal could think that every Black Americans is either poor or on the National Security Council.

Is your name a joke about Powell? BHarlan 15:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, if even liberal Lieberman can recognize the danger an Obama administration would put this nation in, that just puts into relief how out of touch with reality Pelosi et al. are. BHarlan 14:50, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The columnists I mentioned are not so much supporting Obama as they are criticizing McCain and Palin. If you Google their names and "McCain" you can read their recent pieces and understand their positions better. Personally, I think that the best thing politically that could come from an Obama win would be the Republicans finally getting the message from the American voters - they want serious, accessible and qualified candidates who'd run a campaign about issues and specific, constructive plans for America's future, not culture wars and character attacks that stretch credibility.

Here's my idea for a Conservapedia Challenge that makes sense. Take the lessons learned from 2008 and spend the next four years finding, vetting and promoting the kind of effective, unifying conservative candidate that the entire country can get behind, instead of the next red-meat-for-red-states divisive figure packaged by the acolytes of Karl Rove to be what they cynically calculate America will vote for if marketed properly. --DinsdaleP 14:48, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The user with the offensive name who posted this query has since been banned. Given that Powell might have endorsed Obama for a quid pro quo, maybe that deserves a Main Page mention. Sadly, liberal corruption isn't always even newsworthy these days.

I wouldn't be surprised if Meet the Press were in on it as well. They gave Powell an uninterrupted seven-minute block, which is pretty rare. Perhaps Obama/Powell promised them access, especially after the hatchet jobs they've been doing on McCain/Palin. BHarlan 15:54, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Interesting note, Colin Powell endorsing Obama is not news, however a stupid cartoon that makes fun of McCain is news. Glad to know which has priority.--IanG 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I think Meet the Press or any other Sunday news show would be glad to give Sarah Palin an entire hour, except that she doesn't do sit-down interviews since her handlers advisers are afraid of her potential performance in another interview full of "gotcha" questions like "what do you read to stay informed?". --DinsdaleP 09:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Presidency

Why does the main page state today that (literally) "Obama will win the presidency"? Bubba 15:34, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you talking about the quotation? HelpJazz 15:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

No, it says "Just more proof that Obama will win the presidency through outright fraud". This implies that Obama will win the presidency, doesn't it? Bubba 16:03, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Mmmmm, it probably does, though it's not as concrete as simply saying "Obama will win the presidency". At any rate, as you can see in the discussion above, the statement should probably be removed entirely anyway. HelpJazz 19:24, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Latest "Hollywood Values" Murder

According to the article, "Deleon, 29, is a former child actor who had a small part in one episode of the 'Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.'" Yes, that one small part in a single episode of a show had much more to do with his decision to murder than any other factor in his life, including being raised in an abusive home. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have now done scenes in single episodes of SNL, so they have the same degree of improper influence by this standard. --DinsdaleP 14:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, he could still be an actor, just not a good or famous one. I'm not sure that helps either side, though. LiamG 14:17, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have now done scenes in single episodes of SNL, so they have the same degree of improper influence by this standard That is completely illogical, Dinsdale - HV have a clear and demonstrable noxious influence, but some people are strong enough to resist them. We make it clear in the article that not every person who worked in Hollywood or the entertainment industry is an embodiment of Hollywood values, and some, such as James Stewart and Ronald Reagan, anre the antithesis of HV. Bugler 14:23, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I think the point that DinsdaleP is making is that Deleon really didn't have much to do with Hollywood. What he did was horrible, but likely has absolutely nothing to do with "Hollywood values." Correlation does not equal causation, and in this case, the correlation is incredibly weak. While it may be easy to laugh at his defense lawyer citing an abusive upbringing, absent father, or what have you as the root of his actions, imagine the derision if he claimed that Hollywood made him do it. Corry 14:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Well... Not having had many roles that turn up on an internet search doesn't mean that HV was not an influence. For every successful actor or actress there are scores, if not hundreds, of 'wannabees', completely immersed in celebrity 'culture', living in and around Hollywood, and getting by waiting on tables, cleaning cars and pools, working as extras and models - or worse.[I]magine the derision if he claimed that Hollywood made him do it - pioneers often suffer derision, but turn out to be pathfinders. Bugler 14:36, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I didn't necessarily mean derision by the media- I mean derision from people who believe in taking responsibility for your actions, of which I am one. (editing further) However, I think there are sometimes mitigating circumstances. This probably isn't the case, though- it seems to be a calculated, pre-meditated, cold-blooded act carried out for money. Corry 14:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Certainly no-one on Conservapedia, and least of all Andy, would deny the essential role of personal responsibility and personal morality in governing one's actions. Nevertheless, would you deny the part played by cocaine addiction in fuelling crime? That is not to excuse the criminal; the responsibility comes in refusing drugs in the first place, as well as in resisting the urge to commit crime. The same applies, I believe, to the toxic effects of HV or 'celebrity culture'. Bugler 14:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

The point here is that this guy is a bad example. Grabbing every headline of some minor or wannabe celebrity that does something wrong does not prove a point. Now this book released by the Maureen McCormick (Marcia Brady) is much more on the mark for the tragic star-studded childhood. Corry 15:01, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Despite denials by liberals, values do make a big difference. Hollywood values result in death. Deny it all you like, but nearly every day there is a new example, despite the relatively small population of the Hollywood culture. "Child actors" are immersed and raised in the culture, and they are prime examples of the harm caused by Hollywood values. Deny it, and lose credibility.--Aschlafly 15:17, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I never said that values don't make a difference, nor will I ever. I'm saying that this example is a real stretch. I actually mentioned Maureen McCormick as an example of a classic case of somebody's childhood being completely wrecked by living the life of a child celebrity. Corry 16:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Do you honestly believe that liberals don't think values are important? Liberals may have different values than you, but to say they have none? Come on. When you say things like that, you make yourself look foolish.--Ywang 15:42, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Ywang, you're not fooling anyone here. Hollywood values tell you what those "different values" are, and you won't admit the harm they cause.--Aschlafly 15:55, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Ywang, look where most of Hollywood's political contributions go--to liberals. Therefore, it is no surprise that they embrace liberal values, which are almost identical to Hollywood Values. This really is not that hard to understand, is it???--Saxplayer 16:54, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) This is simply a technical question, I have no bearing on the merits of this argument. However, Mr. Schlafly, you seem to change the definition of Hollywood Values when it suits your needs. For example, you repeatedly say that Hollywood values are A, not limited to the physical location of Hollywood, Ca, and B, not limited to people involved in the film industry, yet here you say that Hollywood is a "relatively small population." How can they be a small population and a huge population with no strategic center at the same time? NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 16:11, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

There is an enormous difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin on the one hand and Skylar DeLeon on the other. McCain and Palin went on SNL as a lark. In DeLeon's case, he actively sought out a career in Hollywood, and therefore embraced Hollywood Values. Is it any surprise that these twisted values led him to commit murder???--Saxplayer 16:50, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

NateE, you feign difficulty understanding a simple concept. In fact, I think you understand it perfectly well. "Hollywood values" is a set of values commonly held by people who work in the Hollywood and closely related industries. It's not a "huge population" as you pretend.--Aschlafly 18:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Let's look at this logically.

• "Hollywood values" can lead to various problems, including, potentially, murder.
• Although "Hollywood values" can lead to problems, so can other influences.
• Not everyone who has had some involvement with Hollywood will have "Hollywood values" (e.g. Reagan, Palin, etc.)
• Therefore, if someone who's had some involvement with Hollywood does something bad, it could be due to "Hollywood values" or it could be due to other influence, or it could be a combination of both.
• Therefore, unless there is some good reason to think that "Hollywood values" are a factor in the case of Skylar Deleon, it is unjustified in attributing "Hollywood values" to this case. That's not to say that it's not "Hollywood values"; but we can't say with any certainty, as the Main Page currently does.

As for NateE's question, I agree that Andy hasn't contradicted himself. Although "Hollywood values" can be adopted by people outside Hollywood California and outside the film industry, it doesn't necessarily follow that those people outside those groups is a large number. On the other hand, Andy, I would have thought that the influence of Hollywood could result in "Hollywood values" being potentially adopted by everyone who watches their productions, and that runs into many millions. Also, how do you know that NateE is feigning difficulty? Not everyone thinks clearly on every issue. He may have a genuine difficulty understanding it.

Philip J. Rayment 22:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values are correlated to wrongdoing, just as fast driving is correlated to accidents and smoking is correlated to lung cancer. A high incidence of wrongdoing in the relatively small population of people raised in or endorsing Hollywood values is proof enough.

NateE and others can deny it, or pretend not to understand. Maybe they deny that smoking causes lung cancer too. But the values of endorsing promiscuity, self-indulgence and/or immorality do cause high incidences of wrongdoing and death. Deny it all you want if you like, but the repeated examples of harm speak for themselves.--Aschlafly 22:25, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, smoking is correlated to lung cancer. But that doesn't mean that if someone who smokes dies of lung cancer that it is necessarily due to the smoking in that particular case, as there are other possible causes. The same principle applies here.

Your second paragraph failed to answer how you know that NateE is feigning difficulty. And now you've suggested that he pretends to not understand. Why couldn't it simply be that he doesn't understand?

Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

We have no way of knowing if HV caused this. This is a person who has only had a single, small role in a single episode of a TV show. If someone was to smoke a single cigarette, and then die of lung cancer as they grew older, would you claim it was due to smoking?

We have no way of knowing if he was affected by HV in any way. This is not like one of the myriad former child actors who fall to depression and spend their lives in and out of rehab before killing themselves. This is a man who absolutely noone knew the name of before now, and because a news story ends with a footnote mentioning his only involvement with anything visual (let's not say that Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers is "Hollywood") ever, we tap our nose at the attorney and say "Ah! That's what you think caused it! But we know better". DRuss 23:10, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

A little bit more research reveals that his father was a convicted drug dealer. Surely bad parenting is more at fault here than a non-speaking role in an episode of a television series? DRuss 23:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Please excuse the long gap between your response and this post, that is one of the downsides to relying on a school computer lab. In response to your claim, Mr. Schlalfly, I still disagree at a fundamental level. In various places, you have included in Hollywood Values the following groups: Actors, Directors, Producers, Presumably all crew level positions, Singers, recording managers, and the families of those involved. Looking at just the film aspect: The average movie included approx. 80 - 250 crew members depending on the style and size. Assuming an average of 100 (for ease in calculating) and assuming that 200 movies are made per year, that gives us a raw number of about 2000 people. Some of them can probably be eliminated due to overlap, so lets say 1500 people a year work in the film industry (that's a very low number, but I'm just illustrating a point). Now add to that the number of people working in the recording industry, and the people involved in Hollywood but not part of film crews (distributors, PR reps, photographers, agents, etc.) That number starts to balloon considerably. However, if Hollywood Values were really the destructive force you claim it to be, there should be a lot stories about the breakdown. However, relatively stories are posted and many sources you use are from decades ago or have a very loose connection to the industries you speak of. I fail to see how you can still claim that this is a powerfully destructive force. I would also like to know why you assume that I am feigning a lack of understanding. If I was pretending, I would be using that pretend ignorance to attack your points, instead, I am asking directed questions to try and understand your thinking. I would also like to point out that I do know that smoking causes lung cancer, but I also recognize that it was the Tobacco industry, their lawyers and the infamous "Tobacco Institute" that intentionally distorted and deceived the public about the issue. "Tobacco Values" maybe? NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 12:39, 22 October 2008 (EDT)