Talk:Main Page/archive71

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Penny for your thoughts?

Hello all, I'm a Media and Journalism student at university in England. I'm currently doing a module on on-line media and journalism, specifically how different communities form on the internet and how they tend towards similar points of view across the community.

Pursuant to this, (it makes sense in the context of the paper I have to write, trust me on this) I was wondering what the community here thought of the recent events in the middle east and what the reactions are of individual editors. I'd particularly like the opinion of Mr Schlafly or the senior editors if at all possible.

Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this request but I'm fairly new to the site and could find nowhere better to put it. Thank you for your time. AaronJ 12:14, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Try his talk page, and yes, he is being serious --MichaelJMF 14:09, 8 January 2009 (EST)
"he is being serious"? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I didnt question anybodies motives or sincerity. AaronJ 14:15, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, its nothing, just me trying to be funny, sometimes his views can seem a bit... Unorthodox to someone who doesen't share his ideological positions, not to insult him or anything. --MichaelJMF 17:33, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Reply to the above

I'll put a news item on the Main Page now, as suggested above. Unfortunately, I've been busy with other matters today and haven't had time yet to review the news stories about the rapidly developing events. Anyone is welcome to comment here, as always.--Andy Schlafly 15:22, 8 January 2009 (EST)

I've read an analysis on this (I'll post the link if I can find it again) that summed up Israel's strategy in this conflict: Despite pressure from the international community for a cease fire, they will be pressing ahead to effectively dismantle the Hamas-led government in Gaza, and support its replacement by Abbas and Fatah as a unified leadership for both Palestinian territories. Abbas has been negotiating with Israel for some time from his seat in the West Bank, and is apparently prepared to work with Israel on resuming a permanent plan for a Palestinian State that can coexist peacefully with Israel, using Egypt as a model.
I hope this is not just wishful thinking, but after seeing Fatah corruption let Hamas take over Gaza, this would be the ideal time for some real, constructive leadership on behalf of the Palestinians. For over 50 years, Israeli's have focused on building a better life for themselves in the region, and succeeded greatly. What is needed now are Palestinian leaders more sincerely focused on building a better life for their people than in building personal by power by channeling frustration, cynicism and resentment against Israel without any purpose but destruction. --DinsdaleP 16:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)

American Deaths in Iraq

Even one death is too many, and it's good that the total American lives lost in 2008 is lower than in past years. However, it's not meaningful to compare civilian deaths in Chicago to American deaths in Iraq. Life for our troops in Iraq is dangerous, but they are armed, trained soldiers who live and operate from secure bases, with military discipline and coordination helping to keep them safe. Homicides in Chicago happen overwhelmingly to unarmed civilians, so this is not a comparable metric. It would be more meaningful to compare the 2008 deaths of Chicago police (I could only find one) to American soldiers in Iraq, or to compare the deaths of American soldiers plus Iraqi civilians (4,859) to civilian homicides in Chicago. Mixing premises as the article does to try and make a point is misleading. --DinsdaleP 10:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Moreover there are 140,000 US troops in Iraq. Chicage has a population of 2.8 million (approx). With 304 soldiers losing their lives in Iraq thats around 0.35% of the total number of soldiers. At 509 homicides in Chicago thats around 0.02% of all people in Chicago murdered. Hence a US soldier was 15 more likely to be killed in Iraq than a person living in Chicago was to be murdered. This is what one would expect so I have to say that I don't really get the point the article is trying to make. AndyJM 10:36, 9 January 2009 (EST)
That is a good point I didnt think of. Plus the whole civilian deaths. What seems more out of place is that the news is trying to get across is that the number of deaths is down in Iraq since the surge. If that was multiple choice question I would choose "E: Not enough information". Seriously, no mention of previous months deaths even? And how long has it been since the troop surge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snotbowst (talk)

Possible news item about liberal bias

I thought I would bring this to your attention as a possible main page news item [1]--Saxplayer 19:41, 9 January 2009 (EST)


Reading the entire article rather than just the headline reveals that the denial was most likely because the drug significantly loses its effectiveness in older women, not because of any concerns about harm. TheGuy 21:23, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Insight of the Day

I'm wondering if anyone else believes news items beginning with "Insight of the Day" should be placed to the right, since while they may be topical, I think it has more of a thematic consistency with "Weekly featured article", "Masterpiece of the Week", "Article of the Year", "Bible Verse", "Historical Quote", etc. Anyone else have thoughts on this? HAdams 18:46, 11 January 2009

Forced Abortions

Not sure what the purpose of this news item is. 64% of women having abortions felt forced, you can't feel forced; you can be forced and you can feel pressured. Regarding the 2 examples, the parents who kidnapped their daughter to force an abortion---this is really supposed to be indicative of the 64% of women is it? I would not be surprised that 64% of women or more feel pressured to have an abortion eithe by their significant other or by life circumstances but overall i would say this is a very misleading headline --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbolden (talk)

I read the linked article, and followed the links there to the Elliot Institute website and its research section. On the page that describes the survey, this statement stood out:
"Note, this was a survey of women who had some involement [sic] with Women Exploited By Abortion, a peer support group for women who were experiencing negative post-abortion reaction. Because this is a self-selected sample of the those who had a "bad experience" these findings should not be interpreted as representative of a random sample of all women who have had abortions. What percentage of women have "bad experiences" such as those described herein remains unknown."
I don't fault the person who posted this article for missing this, but it's clearly misleading to have a headline stating ""One study found 64 percent of women who had abortions...", when the survey sample is of a self-selected subset of women who volunteered to share their common, personally negative experiences. This is as valid as saying that "One study found 64% of Christians have doubt in their faith", using a survey base of agnostics volunteering to share stories of their disillusionment with religion. We have a mutual responsibility to keep Conservapedia trustworthy, so I'd suggest that editors consider reading a copy of How to Lie With Statistics so that they can better assess the actual validity and relevance of a statistical figure before accepting the message that's being implied. --DinsdaleP 14:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

This news isn't surprising - it is perfectly natural and right for a mother-to-be to wish to protect her unborn child. I don't really see how any woman would agree (and I use the term lightly) to an abortion unless she was pressured by outside influences. Every unborn child has so much potential - it must be devastating for a mother to see that thrown away. ETrundel 14:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I don't disagree with the idea that women would feel forced by circumstances to have abortions. I know several women who had them when they were in their early 20's, and while some regret it today and some do not, none of them took the decision lightly. Even the ones who regretted it told me that this regret came after a couple of decade's experience and perspective, and that they would never judge another woman for making a decision either way - it's too personal. All of us have free will, and have to weigh the permanent consequences of some choices against the pressures of people and circumstances influencing us at that time. My objection above was to the misleading nature of the statistic, not of the issue itself. --DinsdaleP 14:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)
On Court TV this past Friday or Saturday night was an account of a murder committed by the boyfriend of his girlfriend when she refused to have the abortion he demanded. While murder is rare, that type of intimidation is not.
In another account I saw firsthand, a woman described how it dawned on her just prior to the abortion that it was wrong and she didn't want to go through with it. The abortionist told her to shut up, that it was too late (it wasn't), and to submit to it. That story is probably typical also.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
That's a pretty sad story. It must feel terrible to be unable to protect your unborn child. Did the woman concerned somehow manage to prevent the abortion or did they go through with it without her consent? ETrundel 15:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Did the second one pursue any legal restitutions, Andy? That's a breach of informed consent, and she would probably be entitled to some sort of monetary settlement. It wouldn't be nearly as valuable as the baby she should have had, but that is just sickening that a medical professional could do something like that. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:26, 12 January 2009 (EST)
If she took it to court, they'd probably say just that she was confused and scared by the procedure and how it's only natural that she have some regrets afterwards and her husband had been ok with it and anyway, they didn't see what all the fuss was about, it was only an unborn child, not a human with a soul or right to life or anything. It's pretty depressing what the medical profession has come to, and even more depressing that this kind of situation will become more commonplace as the Liberals gain power. ETrundel 15:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Confusion=not informed, hence the lack of informed consent. If a patient says "no" to a procedure, regardless of when, the doctor has no right to continue; it is illegal for him to continue. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)
You make a good point, but the whole industry of abortion is based on a lack of informed consent. 80% of abortions wouldn't happen if the mother were shown her ultrasound, for example.--Andy Schlafly 15:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I don't have the numbers, but I think a lot of (first trimester) abortions are performed even before the first ultrasound, or before one can actually make out the baby on the ultrasound. I don't have any numbers, but I agree that much of the abortion industry is uninformed. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)


Those are sad incidents to be sure, but I'd like to close out the issue with the headline itself - the statistic cited within the article is misleading and should not be used, because it quote-mines a number from a self-selected survey of women who had bad experiences, but is presented as if it is representative of all women who had abortions. --DinsdaleP 15:31, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know what your specific point is; you did not respond to two specific examples I've recently heard. In fact, I'd be surprised if the number of coerced abortions were not higher.--Andy Schlafly 15:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, you said that murder is rare but this type of intimidation is not (rare), what exactly does that mean? Also, what was the first hand account you saw about a woman told to shut up after changing her mind regardng an abortion, that is stunning to me. Tbolden 16:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)
My point is that the statistic in the article is deliberately misleading because the author omitted the nature of and basis of the survey, and left out the disclaimer (also shown above) provided by the Elliot Institute. My previous quote expressed my sympathy for anyone coerced to have or not have an abortion - coercion is wrong, period. However, support for the use of valid statistics should not depend on a litmus test of the subject the statistics relate to. --DinsdaleP 16:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)
The headline says "one study" found such-and-such and that is correct. Maybe the real number is 50%, or maybe it is 75%. Hopefully other studies will be done. But censorship of the issue is not the answer. There's no doubt that many, many women are coerced into having abortions. In fact, the real percentage may be higher than a sampling of women who later seek help would indicate. The woman murdered for refusing an abortion, as recently shown on Court TV, would not be included this sampling, for example.--Andy Schlafly 16:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Whoah....Andy, either you are suggesting that the number of woman murdered is so high or the number of woman coerced is so low, I highly doubt that the removal (not meaning to be insensitive with the word choice) of the murdered woman could have skewed the statistics in any meaningful way Tbolden 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • I believe Andy is suggesting that the morality or lack thereof in coercing up to 80% of women into having abortions is the same as the lack of morality that let someone murder the woman. If that is his meaning (and one would ultimately have to ask Andy), I agree that the degree of evil in killing the grown woman or in killing an unborn child is the same. (I used to think it wasn't my place to have an opinion on this issue, but clearly I now do.) --RickD 16:29, 12 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) The "one study" used in that headline is invalid when used this way, that's the point. Even the conservative Elliot Institute states that "these findings should not be interpreted as representative of a random sample of all women who have had abortions". However, the author of the article did just that, and that is deceitful no matter how well-intentioned he was. Conservapedia is anti-abortion, but it is also anti-deceit, so this "News" link to shoddy, deceitful journalism should be removed and replaced with credible anti-abortion articles instead. To do otherwise is to endorse deceit because it's anti-abortion deceit, but Conservapedia is also supposed to be against such moral relativity. --DinsdaleP 16:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Folks, establish some credibility first and admit that coerced abortions is a significant percentage of abortions in this country, and that lack of informed consent for abortion is a huge problem. You're going to be allowed to rant in nonsenical manner (like Tbolden above, who fails to admit that one murder of a woman for refusing an abortion suggests many more instances of intimidation) or smear a work (like Dinsdale, and note how he won't use the term "pro-life" but insists on "anti-abortion").--Andy Schlafly 16:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, I do believe some women are coerced to have abortions, I also agree with Dinsdale that siting stats on woman who say they were pressured to have abortions when they are part of a support network of women that feel this way is not intellectually honest. Also, you still have not sited the firsthand account of the woman who was forced by her doctor to have an abortion. As a healthcare professional I find this nearly impossible to believe; could it have happened yes it could have but I would suggest with the same frequency as the one story that can be sited of parents kidnapping there child and forcing an abortion--about 1 in a million Tbolden 16:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
This is my last post on the matter, so feel free to have the last word. When I'm disagreeing with someone respectfully and using citations, there should be no need for me to "establish some credibility" by ignoring clear evidence of deceit and agreeing out of compliance instead. Instead of guessing what the level of coerced abortions is or blindly agreeing with a a shoddy journalist, I'll go look for some credible statistics instead and let you know. In the meantime Aschlafly, can you simply state whether you consider this specific news story to have improperly used statistics to support a pro-life stance, or state just as clearly that it has not? Your posts on this topic have sidestepped that fundamental question instead of answering it. There's no problem in admitting that an article is pro-conservative while removing it because it is deceitful. However, unless you can show that the journalist did not misuse the Elliot Institute statistics against their own disclaimer, then leaving the article on CP as news is endorsing deceit for pro-life reasons. I may be blocked for expressing this opinion, but I've yet to see a direct, fact-based refutation of this point. --DinsdaleP 17:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I did just block you for only one day for your namecalling above, not for your opinion. We welcome opinions but not namecalling.
Tbolden, you need to learn the truth about the abortion industry. It's an ugly business that leaves one dead and one injured every single time. Yes, I heard the story above firsthand, at a presentation one afternoon in Ann Arbor, Michigan last spring, and I'm sure you could find many more accounts like it on the internet if you looked with an open mind. Or simply look for the next presentation in your own community by a woman victimized by abortion. They are easy to find and attend.
Only 20% of women who have abortion would do so if they were shown their ultrasound first, as real informed consent would require. There's no denying that, except to the extent people want to live in denial. Welcome the truth, and it will set you free.--Andy Schlafly 18:35, 12 January 2009 (EST)
However, that ignores their point. Please stick to the issue at hand, which is the misrepresented statistics. A thousand unrelated issues do not make a incorrect statistic correct. --TBrouwer 18:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I did directly address the issue at hand, and I don't agree with your attempt to avoid discussing the truth. I urge you to welcome the truth and see how beneficial it is to you and others around you.--Andy Schlafly 19:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I "avoid" discussing your issues because they are merely a distraction from the discussion at hand. The issue is: Statistics taken from a self-selected sampling group are very misleading, as others pointed out several times already. I can show you that 100% of black people are left handed, by only selecting left-handed black people for my statistics. It's wrong, and ignoring that won't make it correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TBrouwer (talk)
What an absurd objection. All surveys select consciously and deliberately select their samples. Otherwise, they'd have to survey every person on earth. Your problem is not with the study's methodology or the headline; you're annoyed that scientific evidence is contradicting the liberal propaganda you've been pumped full of. Had the study been pro-abortion, you wouldn't have raised so much as a peep. - Rod Weathers 19:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Most surveys try to choose a random or representative sample to make it generalizable to the population, which it sounds like some of the other commenters are disputing in this study. I am not sure if this is true. This is still deeply disturbing even if that is not true. I have the feeling its closer to accurate than most liberals like to think. The fact than any woman would be subjected to something like this is sickening. It's horrible enough that some disturbed ones choose it, but being tricked into it? Sulli 19:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)
TBrouwer's example is preposterous and irrelevant. A high percentage of women are coerced into having their abortions, and you're angry that a study quantifies the problem. Find another study if you think the real percentage is different from the one reported, but there's no denying that the percentage is large.--Andy Schlafly 19:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • TBrouwer, you need to read the "Welcome" message you once removed from your page. This is an encyclopedia project, and you are in danger of violating our 90/10 Commandment. So, I guess I am telling you to stick to the point, and the main one is, that we invite you to make substantive edits here, not just talk, talk, talk. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I removed it, because I had already read it? That's why I am in no way close to the 90/10 commandment, and I resent your unbiased threat. Furthermore, don't blame me for following up on my previous post if people are misinterpreting what I said.
My example perfectly reflected why a selected sample group does in no way reflect the total population, what this study says is that 64 percent of the women in the Women Exploited By Abortion support group felt that they were pressured. If you disagree with this basic fact of statistics, please support your claim. --TBrouwer 21:19, 12 January 2009 (EST)


The news item that was recently posted says that Obama won't be closing Gitmo anytime soon, possibly not within his first 100 days, but the AP is reporting that Obama will issue an executive order within his first ten, possibly the first day, ordering it closed. It seems that when he said it would be a challenge, he was referring to the difficulty of transferring the prisoners housed in Gitmo safely and humanely to another facility. StephenK 17:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)

  • Well, you had better check again. One is "reporting" and the other was from Obama's own mouth, on tape. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Unbelievable News

I saw this this morning and couldn't believe it. I had to read it twice. Auction for 22-year old girl's virginity reaches $3.7 million. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)

See, and I know this is a minor news item (and yes it's unbelievable and somewhat humorous)but this is one of my difficulities with this website, it takes this outrageous incident and uses as some sort of example of the stupidity of teachers and although not explicity stated I think the writers trying to make a connection between this bonehead and public school teachers. It's this type of broad generlization of people that I find distateful be them teachers, aetheists, agnostics or deeeply religious. Look, am I a liberal person sure but I also would like to think of myself as being able to see (and gasp...even agree and believe) the other side of things. But, it's these type of entries which make it difficult for me to take the important stuff discussed here seriously.Tbolden 11:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Tbolden: Where are you finding the insinuated connection you speak of? SJames 23:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Living a Long and Healthy Life

I can see the point of including the CDC statistics regarding STDs among homosexual men, but what does being African American have to do with the headline's point about homosexuality? --DinsdaleP 18:33, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I guess they should abandon their immoral black lifestyle? Dunno, seems out of place to me, too. KevinS 18:50, 15 January 2009 (EST)
  • One would need to ask the CDC, who lumped the statistics together. Liberals pounce on the black statistics, even though an even cursory look at STD statistics show Black's have a higher rate, than all other groups. Showing that group in particular needs to re-think their lifestyle and moral choices. That isn't racism, and attempts to say so are moronic in the extreme, typical liberal spin and deceit. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
So... your saying that Blacks are immoral? But I thought Gays were. The idea should be that those are the dangers of a sex-centered lifestyle, or for better sexual education about these issues, not that Gays are immoral. --PatF 22:46, 16 January 2009 (EST)
  • PatF, would you be a baker by any chance? Bakeries would positively flock for your being able to take nothing and turn it into something! The article shows that an immoral lifestyle is bad for everyone's health, and mentions as a by-product that it particularly hits Black's hard. Now if you and your liberal friends have all had your moronic chuckles with your race baiting, why not actually read the report? Here, here and here Stating facts that show one race is hit harder than other isn't racism, not even to deceitful liberals, most places. The Internet seems to be an exception. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:31, 17 January 2009 (EST)

"Mountain Sized"?

Seriously? I thought there was no name calling here. And for someone's weight? Maybe if they did something really idiotic something a long the lines of "bozo" or "klutz" might come up. But this? It isn't even witty (if it makes me laugh I won't care) at that. --StevenB 21:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

You protest far too much. Moore promotes the equivalent of idiocy and his movies unfairly smear others.
When someone makes millions based on idiotic comments about others, he and his supporters can hardly complain when someone else references his obesity.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Dont get me wrong here I don't like his style either but people have been banned here for name calling that was hardly this blunt. Also since his supporters (and himself occasionally) call people they don't like make OK for you to call them names? No. The rule of two wrongs not making a right seems to apply here. Be the bigger man (no small task in this case hehe) here.
PS: He does have some good points though (violencein America is more likely due to our mindset than the number of guns, the healthcare in this country is so far out of wack its unacceptable, President Bush deceived us about WMDs in Iraq, to name a few of that short list). --StevenB 23:21, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Well some good points if one isn't bothered by the lack of facts or morality, StevenB. Is there any point at which you stop the usual liberal drivel, like "misleading us on WMD's" and actually look at things honestly? --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:13, 17 January 2009 (EST)
My point was that this name calling was inappropriate, not the WMD problem. But anyways, your going to tell us that the American public was not deceived when for the months leading up to the invasion we were drilled with the idea that Sadaam Hussein was sitting on stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Then the day came when coalition soldiers set down in the desert to only find a rag tag army barely capable of resisting. And now six years later we still have not found any of those hideous weapons. To put it in perspective we found a single man who has no radioactive signature, can be transported on foot, small car or by air in a tiny spider hole in rural Iraq, but we can find huge deliver systems that take military sized trucks to move that could possibly leave behind evidence of their presence (I.e: radioactivity, remnants of chemicals and/or bacteria, various parts, etc.). Now I'm not placing the blame but someone neeeds to own up for this huge mistake (or "disappointment" as the President just referred to it) as it was a large part of the reason we went there in the first place. --StevenB 12:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
My point was that this name calling was inappropriate, not the WMD problem...and yet your whole edit is a rant about George Bush. Let's move on. AddisonDM 22:03, 17 January 2009 (EST)
I admit I got off course there a bit. Anyways, I guess no one is going to do anything about it. --StevenB 23:00, 17 January 2009 (EST)

News Item

Here's a potential news item i found on the BBC.

that ad is pretty sickening. congrats to the bus driver for refusing to drive that message around.

p.s. in the future, is this the best place to propose news items?


Thanks for the news tip. I've posted. You can make future suggestions here or on the "new suggestions" link at the top of the news items on the front page. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:26, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Hollywood Values and Sexual Depravity

What do you get when you mix them together? This! (I realise that a singer does not work in Hollywood, but ultimately they lead very similar - almost identical - lifestyles, so let's not nitpick - the man in question has drug addictions, etc. ). ETrundel 15:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Image for evolution article update

Hey guys, perhaps we we can find a better image to use on this section than a bullfight. You know what I mean, something less controversial. I don't want to make a big deal, but does anyone agree? PS guys, take a look at Obama-isms! AddisonDM 19:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Another news item

Hamas has announced a week-long ceasefire in order to allow Israeli troops to leave the Gaza Strip.,2933,480445,00.html

Let's hope Hamas keeps their end of the deal!


Thanks for the info, but I think that particular item might benefit from a wait-and-see approach.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Yup. If you posted a news item everytime there was to be a supposed 'truce', you'd need a ten-man team working around the clock. ETrundel 14:39, 18 January 2009 (EST)

News Item - Hamas Delusions

Hamas claims it has won in the Gaza conflict. Somewhat deluded, says I. ETrundel 16:39, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, they must have pretty low standards when "we still exist" is considered a victory. They do seem to have the support of quite a few nutjobs (yes, mostly on the left), though. KevinS 16:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I guess that they've learned by now that the left (and them by proxy) now control the media. They probably feel that they can say whatever they want now and pass it off as truth. It's like when Israel invaded Lebanon: "We're still here! Victory!" ETrundel 16:56, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Unfortunately, Hamas has gained a lot. despite their huge losses, they led israel into a war that Hamas knew would kill a lot of civilians. a high civilian toll is good for Hamas because it wins them sympathy-never mind the fact that they are directly responsible for every single person who's died in Gaza in the past few weeks. ETrundel is right in saying that they've scored a big win in the liberal media. --DaveClark

Inaugural Concert News Item

The performers at Obama's Inaugural Concert on the National Mall gave more evidence of his agenda (as if we needed more). Just to name three

  • Old-time leftist Pete Seeger performed This Land Is Your Land: [2]
  • The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington sang backup for My County Tis of Thee: [3]
  • Openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson gave the invocation: [4]

ArthurA 08:01, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Here are the rest of those who performed and supported Obama. Feel free to boycott their music, shows and movies, and sporting events:
Musicians: Garth Brooks, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow, Josh Groban, Stevie Wonder, Jon Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, Bono and U2, Beyonce, Shakira, and Usher.
Speakers: Steve Carell, Queen Latifah, Denzel Washington, and Tiger Woods.
--AdmiralNelson 19:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)

National Parks

Hi, just dropping by to say that I could use some help with the National park articles. If you do come by to help please use the US National Park service website for references - it contains information not a load of advertising.---- 50 star flag.png PhilipV I Support our Troops! 08:12, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Newsbusters article on Media Matters, Re: NYT article on Sundance

Speaking as a fan of Media Matters, and a just about equal unfan of Newsbusters, MM went way overboard this time and NB was right to call them on it. MM is best when they stick with the facts and don't try to interpret nuance or put words into their subjects' mouths. Perhaps a picture of Joe Friday (from Dragnet) for every office there is in order?--Frey 12:30, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting News Item

Here's an interesting announcement from Israel concerning the Internet and its prejudice AMurdoc 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Do I have to rewrite my articles?

I put up a bunch of new articles in the last week but they don't seem to be here. do I have to write them again? ReneeStJ 19:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, Renee, you do. They apparently only back up their servers once a week, and can't keep their systems in order enough to make sure that they don't need the backup regularly. This, obviously, is what happens when you ban all smart people from your site. This site is growing rapidly!!!-GiulioC 20:24, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Is there any chance that we might get some information on what just happened? Has the last 7 days of edits been lost permanently or will it be restored? Tk, if you know could you take a few minutes out from blocking IP addresses to let us know what is going on? Thanks. AndyJM 06:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

These questions are valid, but their tone seems unduly confrontational and (in one case) mocking.--CPalmer 06:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Indeed. Sorry, AndyJM, but it isn't as though I was tethered to the Main Page talk, and whenever you post, it tugs on my foot or something. How about I block your IP? Would that make you feel I am paying enough attention to you? CP suffered a disk failure at about the same time we were preparing a move to a new server. I am fairly certain Andy Schlafly will be posting about this when some information about what can and cannot be restored is available. Until then, don't worry...Be happy! --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I'd guess that the point of his question was not that you should have been monitoring the talk page to see someone ask, but that we would expect that someone who knows what happened (which I wouldn't assume to be you, but he would not necessarily realise that) would post such information as soon as the site returned, rather than waiting for someone to ask. If he'd asked me that very same question, I would have said "sorry, but I don't know" or something like that, not "how about I block your IP?" (Proverbs 15:1 ). Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I wholeheartedly agree ... with respect to questions asked in good faith. But dealing with anything else is another matter. For example, I don't believe the Proverbs cite is referring to dealing with an adversary, or deceit.
I haven't checked the contributions log of the critics above, but I'd be astounded if there was much value in any of them. Hope I'm wrong.--Andy Schlafly 08:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Why don't you think it would be for "dealing with an adversary, or deceit"? I'm not disputing that there's a place for being firm with and/or critical of someone, but there's numerous times in the Bible that we are told to be nice to our enemies, so I don't see why Proverbs 15:1 wouldn't apply to them either.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good Romans 14:12-21

Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree about Proverbs 15:1. I consider it to be excellent advice when dealing with a real or perceived adversary, however deceitful. Jesus teaches us to show the same love to our enemies as we would to our friends and family.--CPalmer 08:38, 28 January 2009 (EST)
And when Jesus took a whip to the money changers? --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:56, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Did he really take a whip to the money changers?

In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle;... John 2:14-15

Here are some comments on this passage (I've lumped several different comments into one; emphasis in original):
The physical actions involving the whip were directed at the animals,...

There are a number of elements in the story that suggest that it is not as 'violent' as is sometimes visualized:
4. There was no indication that any human being was assaulted, hit, harmed, or hurt; and the "scourge" was hastily constructed of rushes/weeds pulled out of the cracks in the Courtyard floor/walls (not a whip of the sort He was scourged with).
7. One should never confuse zeal, judgment, drama, prophetic symbolic action--or even forceful expulsion of destructive agents--with acts of unlawful physical aggression or 'violence' or 'lashing out at enemies'.

As CPalmer has pointed out, there is "a season for everything", as I also alluded to above ("there's a place for being firm"), but that doesn't mean that one can simply ignore the texts that I've quoted with the excuse that they simply don't apply.
Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 30 January 2009 (EST)
That would be the obvious counter-example. I leave it to each individual to interpret scripture as they think best, but I for one prefer generosity of spirit in most situations.--CPalmer 09:02, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I didn't see anything in PhilipJ's long quote that suggests being amicable towards an adversary or deceit. Indeed, it would be foolish to suggest such a course of action. There are many, many passages of the Old and New Testament, such as the one TK's cites, that indicate the obvious: address deceit for what it is.--Andy Schlafly 09:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Individuals' different interpretations of scripture are a constant source of wonder to me. I would take the very first part of Mr Rayment's medium-sized quote, "Bless those who persecute you", as a direct instruction to be "amicable towards an adversary". Jesus Himself forgave his captors as they were leading Him to His crucifixion; this is the first time I have seen that behavior described as 'foolish'.
That said, Ecclesiastes teaches us that there is a season for everything, and strong resistance must therefore have its place as well.--CPalmer 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It is quite obvious to me, that the user asking the question, given it was a snarky demand that I should stop restoring vandal blocks to answer his question, wasn't in good faith whatsoever, Philip. CPalmer seemed to notice it as well. And why post it here, and not on my talk page where I would receive notification of the post? Perhaps it is yet another cultural difference. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

"Demand"???? No, it was a request. Why here? For two reasons? First, the post that you were replying to that addressed you was a follow-up to one already on this page. Second, for the reason that I said: that you'd expect some sort of explanation without having to ask, and one would expect that explanation on the main page. Philip J. Rayment 08:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)
As TK says, the disk crashed and we moved to a new server. The maximum loss in data is six days, during a time when many of us were attending the March for Life. We are looking into ways to restore that even that data. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--Andy Schlafly 07:51, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Thank you all kindly for the update. Even if they cannot be restored, is it possible to see a list of articles that were edited (even if the edits themselves cannot be brought back?). I know I had time to do a fair amount of work last week, but sadly besides working on the articles relating to medical caregivers (nurse/physician/medical school) I don't remember where all my contributions were. Either way, it's great to see the site back up. Thanks! Sulli 08:53, 28 January 2009 (EST)
We'll do what we can, and apologize for any inconvenience and data loss. Thanks for understanding.--Andy Schlafly 09:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Andy thanks for the reply. These things happen and I'm sure that everyone appreciates the work that is being done behind the scenes to get everything back to normal. As for my original question to TK this was meant in good faith. When I saw that CP was back I looked for some information about what had happened but couldn't find much. I checked on Recent Changes to see which administrators were currently editing where I saw a significant amount of activity from TK, all of which was blocking IP address. Hence the question. TK seemed busy blocking IP addresses so I asked if TK could take a few minutes away from this activity to update us on any information he might have. No offense was intended. As for "How about I block your IP?", TK I suggest that as an administrator you should do whatever you feel is the best thing to do for this project. AndyJM 09:56, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Andy , thank you for the reply - and the apology - belated as they were. I do believe, though, that there should have been some sort of explanation on the Main Page immediately the site was up and running. I believe that we deserved that respect. Amongst the words in this section are comments to the effect that "many" were at the "March for Life". That is beside the point. Normal common politeness to the many that weren't on the bus should have ensued a "Hi folks - we're back!! - sorry abut the problem and we'll let you know what happened as soon as we can. And yes, it is safe to contribute." in big letters on the Main Page.
Now....having had my it safe for me to start sorting and re-wikifying and uploading the 4000 odd words of NEW information I contributed after the 19th? Cheers, all.AlanE 14:46, 28 January 2009 (EST)
There is no deserve - we're here because we all want a reliable conservative reference site on the web - Andy is kind enough to host that site - he doesn't owe you anything. In addition, as he is the owner of this site, how he chooses to send messages to users is up to him - feel free to start your own wiki if you're not satisfied with this. And the reply was hardly "belated" - it came the day after Conservapedia came back online. Everyone here lost work that week - it's a shame that it's lost, but there's no use in complaining about it.--IDuan 15:06, 28 January 2009 (EST) seems "common courtesy" has lost its importance. AlanE 15:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed, common courtesy would dictate patience and understanding, qualities that you clearly lack.--IDuan 15:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It would also dictate that you act by the terms of your parole. I think #s 1 and 3 are particularly relevant.
  • Don’t get drawn into disputes.
  • Don’t be over-anxious for special rights and request them.
  • Don’t get involved in argument-without-end on talk pages.
Iduan, going by your past history I know that you have always been keen for user rights, but there are other, more worthy ways of obtaining them than defending the establishment blindly. While we do indeed add thanks to Andy for hosting the server and creating this website, he also owes thanks to us, for without regular editors CP would just be a wisp of smoke on the breeze of the internet, instead of what it is today. ETrundel 15:45, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Hmm that's strange - my parole isn't actually listed right now ... it's a blank page; I wonder where you got those? If you believe I'm violating my parole - feel free to report me to a sysop and try your luck.--IDuan 15:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Ah, so that's why you're glad that the site lost a week's worth of work. By posting something as inflammatory as you did now, what do you think you're doing? Violating your parole is what you're doing. ETrundel 15:59, 28 January 2009 (EST)
  • Time to stop this silly argument. We all had our little snipes. It's a stressful time for all of us, administrators in particular, those who have lost a large amount of contributed content, even more so. I don't need the input of editors to know what conditions I attached to a editors return, thanks just the same. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia Bug with Special Characters

As evidenced by the last few edits to religious police - there is a bug with links that have special characters in them. In the aforementioned example, there was a link to Saūd - however the ū was preventing the entire page from showing up. I tried searching for that page, however a similar error came up: [6].--

Also, I just wanted to point out that, for me at least, Special:BrokenRedirects and Special:DoubleRedirects are not working. I figured this out by trying to edit an article I edited last week on Niccolò Machiavelli, and I typed in Niccolo Machiavelli and was sent to a broken redirect, however the BrokenRedirects page doesn't list any broken redirects. Note that Machiavelli is also a broken redirect. The DoubleRedirects page is having a problem - similar to the one described below:

There is distortion of some special characters in titles, such as with Bloc Québécois (which, in the text, correctly reads Bloc Québécois)--IDuan 12:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

And another one... CherylE 13:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I can't even get to this one to fix it:

Suggestions? CherylE 14:52, 28 January 2009 (EST)

  • I removed/renamed, where applicable. Thanks for the heads up! --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia bug: Math Tags

Math tags do not appear to be working as of 1:00 PM EST. Please help. CherylE 13:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

This is still an issue. It makes many of the articles look very poor. There are two possible solutions. If someone is working to fix this issue then we can wait until it is fixed. If nobody is planning to fix this then we need to go through the math articles and remove the math tags. Could we get an update on what is happening with the math tags so we know what has to be done? Thanks. AndyJM 05:35, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Cost of stimulus package...

The news section says that the stimulus package costs $200,000 for every American. Assuming 300 million Americans, that's a sixty trillion dollar package. I know its a ridiculous sum no matter what, but that numbers seems inaccurate. ArthurA 12:34, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Good catch, yeah, that sensational headline is a bit off. Given that the act called for $819 billion, and the U.S population is about 305 million, that comes out to about $2,600 per American. Still an unpretty amount, but nowhere near the $200,000 the section states. ShawnJ 13:15, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Using the numbers in the linked article, I divided the $825 billion in the Obama stimulus plan by the stated $16,000 cost per family and came up with 51.562 million American families as a baseline. That seems reasonable, but let's consider two additional questions. If this cost is an outrage, where was the Conservapedia headline about the original $1.3 trillion in bailouts approved by George Bush in late 2008 costing the same families $25,212 each, or the outrage over the fact (from the Bush Administration documents) that under the six years that George Bush led this nation with a Republican majority behind him in Congress, the share of the national debt for each of these families rose by $54,472. It's all fine and good to complain about the cost of these stimulus programs, but it's disingenuous to act as if this is an exclusively democratic trait when the all-Republican leadership from 2000-2006 did far worse by the American family. --DinsdaleP 15:39, 29 January 2009 (EST)
  • You are being disingenuous, DinsdaleP, and what is more, you know it. Only Congress can appropriate money. Congress, no matter who "controls" it, runs on consensus, most of the time, and the Republicans are equally guilty with the Democrats. In the two years the Democrats had control, from 2006, the Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Barney Fife (and yes, I know who Congressman Frank is, and he is often referred to as Fife, a homage, if you will, to another clueless/hapless character, by other members and staffers), told the American people, back in early 2008, that both FannyMae and FreddyMac were sound, and no one should worry! --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
My point was simply this: the headline goes after the Democrats for being responsible for this increase, yet as you point out it was passed by both Democrats and Republicans working in concert, and that there was no similar outrage by CP when an even bigger bailout was passed in the Fall. I'm no fan of bailouts, believe me, but inaction would be worse at this point which is why this bill is moving ahead. It's also disingenuous to talk as if the Democrats were the only ones talking about the soundness of the economy when that wasn't the case. I can provide examples from Bush and McCain if you'd like. --DinsdaleP 21:22, 29 January 2009 (EST)
You are totally, completely incorrect. I have posted news items, others have, being just as critical of Republican proposals to raise taxes, etc. You say you are pointing out a valid point, but I could turn the argument back on you, and ask where are your news suggestions pointing out the Democrats perfidy? Also, the original "bailout" was split, half to the outgoing administration, half for the new one. Now the Democrats just passed another, almost 1 Trillion Dollar bailout, not counting the extra monies already earmarked for AIG, etc. You keep mentioning Bush, like a code word, and you know he didn't appropriate the money, but his tax cuts did stimulate the economy so much, net revenues to the Treasury were up 7 out of 8 years. And where do you see Conservapedia's obligation to give "equal time"? Is that some obligation I don't know about, some law of the Internet that a private website/project/encyclopedia has to do that? --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:32, 29 January 2009 (EST)
I don't expect CP to provide equal time, and the News Project rules are pretty clear about presenting a pro-conservative, anti-non-conservative POV when selecting articles. If it helps, TK, I feel there are a lot of problems the the current stimulus package, and that in the next year we're going to start seeing many stories about how some of these funds are being misspent. Despite what people here think about my social views I'm a fiscal conservative - I hate what the Bush administration did to government spending and our national debt over the past eight years, and I'm watching how the Obama administration manages it going forward. I'll be the first to join in and criticize anyone who unnecessarily adds to the debt of future Americans, or fails to show sound oversight over the operations and spending within their own administration. --DinsdaleP 09:13, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Disk Crash?

Last week, I created an account. I had to create it today, again. What has happened? And will it happen again? Do I have to recreate my account every once and a while? This talk page is the only place were something is stated about a disk crash. So, if nobody is upset about this, is this a normal thing to happen? Does it occur often? I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more about this wiki could answer these questions. ClementB 15:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

One-time occurrence, thanks for re-registering--Jpatt 15:45, 29 January 2009 (EST)


Our boy Blago has been removed from office by unanimous vote. Seems newsworthy to me... --DReynolds 20:49, 29 January 2009 (EST)

  • And yet no fix was in! LOL! --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
He's also a Democrat. Should we mention that? --DReynolds 22:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
And TK- what?--DReynolds 22:08, 29 January 2009 (EST)
As a conservative, DReynolds, are you not at all concerned with the will of the voters being overturned by a cabal of legislators, without the Governor being convicted of anything, other than being accused by a prosecutor? --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:49, 29 January 2009 (EST)
TK, that cabal of legislators ALSO represents the will of the people, and are arguably more subject to it then the governor. ShawnJ 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)

No, they do not. Constitutionally, traditionally, we don't remove elected officials merely because they are accused of something. Or even if they might prove embarrassing to a controversial President. Legislators are elected by only a small part of the state's population, while the Governor is elected directly by all Illinois voters. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)

the people elected the legislature AND the people set up the impeachment process. It worked just fine. Illinois followed the letter and the spirit of the constitution.RJJensen 23:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Yes TK, they do. The legislature only serve 2 year terms. All were elected or re-elected in the 2008 election, by the people who trust them to represent their views. The constitution of Illinois (which the will of the people also supports, as the 2008 call to change it did not pass) states that state representatives can call for impeachment for any reason, and a trial by senate results in removal from office and being barred from holding any other public office. The fact that the legislators are elected by a small group of people supports my claim that each one is more in touch with their community than the governor could claim to be. This isn't a case of the will of the people being overturned by a "cabal of legislators", this is the will of the past being corrected by the will of the present.
Furthermore, the results of the impeachment are completely separate from any judgment or punishment for violating the law, so Blago still has to stand trial for what he's accused of. ShawnJ 04:25, 30 January 2009 (EST)
At the Federal level, at least, I believe the impeachment and removal process is considered a trial. In fact, I think there was discussion during Watergate as to whether or not President Nixon could be subjected to a criminal trial if he was removed from office, because that might be considered double jeopardy under the Constitution. Now, that's purely the US Constitution, and the Illinois Constitution's definition of impeachment could be different. (And let's hope Blago doesn't read this -- I don't want to give him any ideas!) ArthurA 08:04, 30 January 2009 (EST)
The Watergate analogy is apt in other ways: the Blago impeachment process seemed driven more by the media hysteria and the self-interest of other politicians than by real concern for constitutional government. The inclusion in the federal stimulus bill conditioning funding of projects in Illinois on the ouster of Blago was outrageous.--Andy Schlafly 08:32, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, I understand you're an attorney -- I'm just the victim of a few college poli sci classes taught by liberals. Do you think the argument that an official removed from office via impeachment could not be tried again holds water? I realize you may not know the particulars for Illinois, so you can limit it to the Federal level if you so choose. ArthurA 08:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Even if Blago had been acquitted of charges in Illinois state court, it would not be an obstacle to prosecuting him for the same crime in federal court, because the federal and state entities are different sovereigns with respect to the Double Jeopardy Clause.--Andy Schlafly 13:02, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Continuing this at Mister Schlafly's talk page since its diverged from the Blago case. ArthurA 13:25, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia only for Americans?

Is Conservapedia only intended for Americans or for people of the whole world? If so, why does it have an American flag has its official symbol? JohnKite 09:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

  • Conservapedia is an American, conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia. A resource that can be used by people all over the world to better understand American, conservative, Christian and family-friendly values. As American conservatives, we make no apologies for our pride in our country, and our other values. By providing this resource, I think all of us here are in hopes of promoting a better understanding of those values to all the peoples of the world. --₮K/Admin/Talk 11:57, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Fair Pay

President Obama signs The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. An employee now has extra time to file a claim of discrimination for making less money than another worker doing the same job. Now is the time for women staffers of Obama's presidential campaign to get the equal pay they were denied. Equal to whom? The article states that the women in Obama's campaign were not doing the same level/type of work as the men, so fair pay doesn't apply (though of course fair employment might). They aren't entitled to pay equal to similar workers in the McCain campaign either, as there's no requirement that different companies or organizations offer the same pay as each other. Fair pay, as I understand it, applies only to men and women who are doing similar jobs within the same organization. --Hsmom 14:00, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks to the liberals, there are several court precedents to force equal wages, even when the work is not equivalent. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 19:36, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Hmm, could you give few examples from that? HeikkiL 19:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Try Lily Ledbetter as the first example. Did you bother to look at the real facts in her case?--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Technical problems?

It seems CP is going up and down every few minutes. Is it just me? Should this be mentioned on the front page somewhere? NotALiberal 21:38, 31 January 2009 (EST)

It's not just you. Is there some kind of problem with the new server?--Frey 23:26, 31 January 2009 (EST)
It seems to be better now. Hope it lasts.--Frey 17:07, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks, Frey.--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)
You're welcome, but it's still going on (not quite as bad as before, though).--Frey 17:10, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Dinosaur article down

The dinosaur article seems to be down. Just wanted to let the admins know.

Uh oh. Extinction?--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I took a look - there's a link with a special character; I'm having some trouble finding the link's new location, though, because I can't even search for the term. I'll update this page when I find it.--IDuan 20:42, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Hmm ... it seems to be more serious than most other pages. I'm able to view the page if I remove the link and hit "show preview", but I'm not able to save or do anything else--IDuan 20:48, 1 February 2009 (EST)

(outdated comment removed) - Great job Conservative! It appears he figured it out.--IDuan 22:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Super Bowl

Andy, now I know most of your stances have questionable logic at best, but are you now honestly suggesting that the Super Bowl, which is football, one of the staples of Conservative states, is only allowing Bruce Springsteen to perform because he's a liberal? You know what, you're right. That's obviously the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's a rock legend. No, he's liberal, and only allowed there because the NFL is liberal, and therefore football is liberal, and therefore all the USA is liberal. Good catch. --ShawnJ 20:37, 1 February 2009 (EST)

<edit conflict> An overweight and over-the-hill Bruce Springsteen is performing songs from the 1980s at the Super Bowl halftime. Wonder why? He supports the liberal agenda hook, line and sinker. But he hasn't yet performed his "Born in the U.S.A." ... perhaps Obama types wouldn't like that one??? I didn't know what this post meant, so I looked up the lyrics. Here they are, in case anyone else is interested: --Hsmom 20:43, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Born In The U.S.A./ Born down in a dead man's town/ The first kick I took was when I hit the ground/ You end up like a dog that's been beat too much/ Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam/ So they put a rifle in my hand/ Sent me off to a foreign land/ To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery/ Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"/ Went down to see my V.A. man/ He said "Son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong/ They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon/ I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary/ Out by the gas fires of the refinery/ I'm ten years burning down the road/ Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A./ I was born in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A./ I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A./ Born in the U.S.A./ I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

Andy, do you even know what "Born In The USA" is about? --LongCat247 22:23, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Did Springsteen sing his biggest hit or not? And why not?--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I did not watch the Superboal as I loathe NFL football, but if he did not, there is the possibility, considering that the song is saying the opposite of "This here is a great country", that he may not have played it because he didn't want to risk offending people or turning the event into a place to make a political statement. Or, and I say this as both a musician and as someone who has spent a lot of time looking at how bands seem to operate these days, maybe he wanted to play one other newer song instead of a song that he wrote decades ago that a large percentage of those watching won't have been around to hear when it came out. Just my opinion. Also, longcat is long, and the user longcat247 should probably be watched closely as his name references one of the mascots of the band of "hackers on steroids" that has caused this site(and others) many problems in the past.--NSmyth 01:33, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Born in the U.S.A. is a condemnation of the U.S. Government, particularly regarding Vietnam and the treatment of the soldiers afterward. Therefore the Conservapedia headline is a bit misleading because it implies that Springsteen didn't sing it because the Obama types don't like supposedly patriotic music. If anything, by today's current standards (i.e. the war movement is (neo)conservative and the anti-war movement is liberal) the song is quite liberal. However, I would note that additionally the song is also about unfair of the treatment of the soldiers after the war had ended (the song was written in the 1980s, not the 1970s thus its references to Vietnam are retrospective). In short, I don't think Springsteen's decision not to perform the song was politically motivated, and even if it were I think the motivation would lie more along the lines of, as NSmyth said, not wanting to make a political statement (the song is in fact a political statement, not a pro-America theme as the title seemingly suggests). -- Joe B 13:30, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think the NFL is liberal at all. If it was, the Steelers would have a guilt-complex right now and give the Lombardi Trophy to the Cardinals in a feel-good gesture as they apologized for winning. Karajou 13:38, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Good point. --Joe B 14:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Bruce Springsteen over-the-hill. Over-reacting at all, Andy? --User:Jokerman84 18:40 GMT, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Springsteen's biggest hit single is "Dancing in the Dark," not Born in the U.S.A. Dancing peaked at number 2, while BitUSA only reached 9. -- Blind Roses

"Benedict Arnold, or Judas?"

"Benedict Arnold, or Judas? Judd Gregg prepares to cross party lines"

My problem is that this trivializes both Arnold and Judas' misdeeds. Crossing party lines isn't admirable, but compare that to betraying the son of god to his death? Or a General defecting to the British during the Revolution? NotALiberal 21:41, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Benedict Arnold had his apologists too.--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

As to NotALiberal's concern I think it's a matter of how important you consider the current era to be; if you consider it to be very important, then you would agree with the statement, if you were more apathetic, then you would disagree. I consider it to be very important, so I would agree with Andy on the scale. However, I would disagree with the statement for different reasons than NotALiberal, though. The only thing I would say is that this action can't be compared to Judas or Arnold, because if the Senator is deliberately trying to hurt his party, then he'll just vote with the Democrats on cloture - there is no reason for him to leave his seat. Thus, per this logic, if the Senator leaves, it'll be because he believes he'll be able to do the best work in the spot he is leaving for, so I don't think he would be deliberately trying to ignore his supports. That being said, I'm not too sure on the issue, and I usually don't comment until after the fact, thus, depending on the circumstances of the Senator's departure (or non-departure), I may change my mind.--IDuan 00:03, 2 February 2009 (EST)--IDuan 00:03, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I disagree with crossing party lines for various reasons, but isn't that part of Democracy? I mean, you can't fake your feelings and what you believe.... I would assume that party switching is a part of our system. StephenK 00:05, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I don't think it has anything to do with apathy. I am very concerned that in this era Conservative values are under attack like never before, still I don't think this compares to the importance of the revolutionary era. Conservatives have already lost prayer in schools, but imagine what a bad spot we would be in if "God Save The Queen" was the national anthem. I get sick just thinking about a world where the American revolution failed. NotALiberal 11:01, 2 February 2009 (EST)
We live in a new era where the main battlefront is information. The liberal media is engaged in an all-out war with our traditional American values. This is just as serious as any other battle between good and evil. I find the comparison to be very apt. A fillibuster-proof democrat majority would be catastrophic to the country and to our values. Patriot1505 12:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)
...however, it seems that that is not going to happen. Gregg made it a condition of his acceptance that his replacement be a Republican. --BenP 16:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Obama a thermostat hypocrit. Apparently this was mentioned on CNN but I can't find it. Its said that the Oval office is sitting at a cool 80f at the same time Obama is talking about using energy efficiently. --Brendanw 00:20, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think you meant "a cozy 80f". --Ed Poor Talk 12:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Christian Nurse

Christian nurse suspended for offering to pray for patient. Community nurse Caroline Petrie, says she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs. Petrie who follows the Baptist faith. She was suspended (on the accusation of "failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity"), without pay, on 17 December and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting next week. Just to be clear, ought we not mention that the nurse in question lives in Weston-super-Mare, which is in the UK? I get the impression she works for the National Health Service. That spins the story quite differently than if she lives in the US. --Hsmom 16:51, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Sickening. I would bet my last dollar that if she had offered a Muslim prayer, the complaint wouldn't have been given the time of day. NotALiberal 20:47, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Heh, i find myself in the strange position of both agreeing and disagreeing with NotALiberal. This is sickening that the nurse would be suspended for offering to pray for her patient. On the other hand, I would lve to take all of his money, as it is clear from reading the article that the patient rejected the offer for a prayer, with no idea as to the faith of the nurse. The situation would be the same if the nurse was Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or any other religion. --ShawnJ 22:48, 2 February 2009 (EST)
She rejected the prayer unaware of the nurses faith, yes. My wager was that whatever group or individual issued the suspension wouldn't have done so had her religion been anything but Christian. I can't even imagine the political pressure that would come down if this had been a Muslim nurse. NotALiberal 00:21, 3 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) heh, ok, ok, I'll let you keep your money. Personally, I can't imagine what kind of political pressure they're coming under now. I feel bad for the person that had to hand out the punishment, as I would personally hate to be put in that position. --ShawnJ 00:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I've improved the entry, mentioning that it was in Somerset, England. As for NotALiberal's comments, I agree that the authorities will often favour Islam over Christianity, but not always, and assuming that this would be the case here without evidence is not a good argument. Rather, the argument should be that in giving this "complaint" any credence, the authorities are themselves guilty of what they suggest the nurse is guilty of, are themselves passing judgment on prayer and Christianity, and are contradicting their own statement that they "...are always keen to be respectful of our patients' views and sensitivity as well as those of our staff." Readers interested in learning more about this case including who to contact to protest the situation can read CultureWatch. Philip J. Rayment 04:08, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks PJR, for updating the item. I think the patient was in the wrong here, if the facts are as the article presented them. The appropriate response would have been "thank you", or if she felt strongly otherwise, "no thank you". One wonders, though, if there was more to it. For example, was the patient obviously of another faith, in which case an offer of Christian prayer would have to be handled more tactfully? And was the nurse just offering a prayer, or going further and trying to get the patient to convert to the nurse's faith? If so, I can see how there would be concerns. I always like to look at these situations in reverse to see if my concerns would be the same - for example, if a Christian patient wearing a cross and reading a Bible had a Muslim nurse offer to pray to Allah for her, would I feel the nurse had acted inappropriately? But again, if the nurse was just offering to say a prayer for the patient, it could have been better handled with politeness on the part of the patient. --Hsmom 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)
The way I understand it, the patient didn't really mind (and responded politely), but seemed to think (after prompting by a third party, I think), that perhaps it should be reported just in case. And it was then the authorities who decided to run with it. Philip J. Rayment 03:06, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Ah! So it was a case of management assuming offense when none was actually taken or intended. What a shame. If nurse and patient were happy, there was probably no need to take it any further. --Hsmom 10:29, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Unfortunately that is the way too many things transpire today, with the liberal secular thinking so rampant. --₮K/Admin/Talk 03:26, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe it's related to sexual harassment, defined by most US corporations as "repeated" invitations. In other words, you can ask your coworker to dinner once, but after she refuses you can't ask her again without getting in trouble.

Here, the standard seemed to be even a single invitation. But that's like those rulings that forbid a school teacher from having a Bible on her desk. "It sends a message."

The larger issue is what sort of messages we are allowed to send to other people. When may we or may we not proclaim our religious faith? Muslim schoolgirls can wear a distinctive scarf over their hair, which you can't avoid seeing - but wearing a crucifix as a necklace is forbidden, even though it's unobtrusive. It gets into the area of the Double standard. --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)

CP article

Conservapedia (article) is back! Please help contribute if you can! AddisonDM 14:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Couple who led gay marriage fight to divorce

Here's something interesting. A homosexual couple who led the fight for so-called "gay marriage" four years ago have filed for divorce. I think this one speaks for itself.

.....Homosexuals have the exact same problems as heterosexual couples do and this leads to divorces? What? I'm not seeing exactly what speaks for itself.

New Story Suggestion

Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat for Humanity, had passed away on Monday at age 74. Here's a story from CNN, and a good piece from Newsweek that examines Miller's "Theology of Enough". On a personal note, I've worked with Habitat for Humanity in NJ, and helping people to build their own homes and make a better life for their families has been one of the most fulfilling experiences on my life. --DinsdaleP 17:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Gay Adoption

You must agree that homosexuality is good. Or else. Grandparents in Scotland have been refused permission to adopt their own grandchildren, who have instead been given to a homosexual couple to adopt. And the grandparents have been told not to object or else. So much for "tolerance".
I suspect that there is more to this story than the linked articles reveal. For example, this linked article states, "The latest outrage concerns two Scottish grandchildren snatched away from their own grandparents and forcibly given over to two homosexual men instead." However this article states that the children are a "five-year-old boy and his sister, four", and that "the children have not lived with the grandparents – thought to live in the south of the city – for nearly three years." So they weren't exactly "snatched away from their own grandparents" - it sounds much more complex than that. Given that these kids haven't lived with the grandparents since they were toddlers, it raises additional questions, for example, where (with whom) have they been living in the meantime? I think we should add this article to our item, as it provides information that is not available in the other links. --Hsmom 18:10, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Looking further, I found this article, which gives a much more comprehensive view of the case than any of the stories currently linked - Please consider adding it the the news item, so that interested readers can get more information on this tragic case. --Hsmom 18:17, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks for your comments and extra links, Hsmom. I will add the last one to the item, as it does, as you say, add a lot more. The other new one you offered does not add much new.
The claim that they were "snatched away" may have been a bit of exaggeration, but that's not in our item anyway. And I'm not convinced that it's that much of an exaggeration. As the second new link of yours explains, they were trying to raise the children themselves, and only lost them after they asked for some help in doing that. It seems that they were at the very least pressured into giving them up, if not actually forced to. No, I guess they weren't literally "snatched away", but figuratively it's probably not too far from the truth. As for where they were living, that article again explains that. The council workers basically got the grandparents to release them, only to then have them put in foster homes until something more permanent could be arranged (and yes, I would expect such bureaucratic processes to take years). So yes, it was more complex than related by the already-linked articles, but not in a way that really changes the relevant facts.
Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
PJR - thanks for adding the link. I agree that the second link I found includes way more than the first, so it's not worth adding the first. I've got to wonder, though, if there's more to social services' decision than just the age and health of the grandparents. After all, the only example we have of the grandparent's parenting is the mother, who is not a shining example of a great outcome. I don't want to lay the blame for the mother's actions on the grandparents without knowing the facts, but it does raise questions in my mind as to whether they are indeed fit parents. (Which is a different issue than whether the kids' placement with a gay couple is appropriate, of course.) And the grandparents did go to social services asking for the kids to be put into care, which I'm assuming most people wouldn't have done lightly. Without more facts, I don't think we can judge, though of course it is appropriate to raise concerns. PJR, thanks for your sensible input & response, both here and in so many other places on CP! --Hsmom 10:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Hsmom, I think you are missing one point. Nowhere (from memory) was it said that the grandparents went "to social services asking for the kids to be put into care". Your last link says that "they turned to social services to ask for support". That sounds to me something like asking for a part-time nanny to be supplied to ease the burden on them, or home help to come and clean the house for them, or something else that would make life easier, but would still allow, nay help, them look after their own grandchildren. I don't recall reading anywhere that they decided willingly of their own volition for someone to take the children off them. Philip J. Rayment 15:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)
A sad story indeed. According to the article, "social services suggested which the grandparent's agreed". Later, the grandparent's stated "We feel would be in the best interest of the children that we ...give up all rights to our grandchildren". There's something else to the story though, as having done two years of fostering, and then agreeing they had to give them up, it's hard to know why they would then turn around and complain about the fact that the next option was adoption? I understand the tragedy and pain they must feel, but they weren't exactly the best parenting option for such young parents, given their age, health and other children? FNNoonan 15:21, 4 February 2009 (EST)
At least one report says that they reluctantly agreed to give up the children, and one report said they were also given some idea of who would be adopting them and that they would have regular access, which was allegedly later not the case. They presumably also had the reasonable expectation that they adoptive couple would be a better choice than themselves, and that would include the children having a father and mother. Philip J. Rayment 06:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It's complicated, isn't it? We have to remember that the social workers are restrained by the children's and the grandparents' privacy rights, so they can't tell their side of the story. It could be that they improperly persuaded the grandparents to give up the children. Or it could be that they knew they could make a decent case that the grandparents were unfit, but they could get the kids to a better home more quickly if they persuaded the grandparents to give them up rather than going through the long involved process of getting the grandparents officially declared unfit. It seems they gave the mom time to clean up her act and regain custody (which would have been the best outcome if the mom could have managed it) but mom failed. I'm not saying that I believe social services did the right thing in taking the children, only that it's hard to judge without the full facts, which of course we'll never have. I don't think it's a case where one side is clearly in the wrong, at least based on the facts as we have them and the understanding that we're only hearing one side of the story. My only point is that it's a case which should be discussed thoughtfully (as you and I and FNNoonan are doing here), rather than thoughtlessly bashing the social workers (as some of the linked articles seemed to be doing). --Hsmom 14:23, 5 February 2009 (EST)

"500 million Americans"

"Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, claims 500 million Americans will lose their jobs each month" 500000 maybe, or is that a Pelosism?

NotALiberal 15:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

She said "500 million Americans" will lose their jobs, twice. One is on video: [7]. Karajou 12:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)


A day after banning corporate executives from earning more than $500,000 a year via taxpayer bailouts, President Obama on Thursday will head to a Democratic retreat that has burned through half a million dollars in taxpayer cash for annual retreats at luxury resorts. [14]
The grammar on this isn't quite right. As I parse it (and I'm not a grammar expert), it reduces to Obama will head to a retreat that has burned through cash for retreats., which makes no sense to me. Unfortunately, reading the linked article provides no clarification, as our item is a direct quote from the article, and not the main focus of the article. Without understanding the facts, I couldn't rewrite the article. However, at the very least, we should include quotation marks to show it is a quote (if we leave the wording the same), and a (sic) to show that the grammar error is not ours. Thus:

Washington Times: "A day after banning corporate executives from earning more than $500,000 a year via taxpayer bailouts, President Obama on Thursday will head to a Democratic retreat that has burned through half a million dollars in taxpayer cash for annual retreats at luxury resorts."(sic) [8]

--Hsmom 14:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)

"Burn through" is slang for "spend money too rapidly". --Ed Poor Talk 12:08, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, I agree. Which makes it Obama will head to a retreat that has spent cash for retreats. How can a retreat spend cash for retreats? I can think of several things it might mean. (Did the retreat planning committee spend a lot of the annual retreat budget on this one retreat? Or is the author just explaining that this annual retreat is always very expensive? What's the story behind taxpayer money being used for a specifically Democratic retreat? Etc.) My point is that it is unclear and grammatically incorrect.
We should 1) indicate clearly that it is a quote, because using another's words without attribution is plagarism, which is immoral, and 2) indicate that the poor grammar is the original author's, not CP's, lest a reader think less of CP due to perceived lack of careful writing/editing on our front page. --Hsmom 10:43, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Ben Stein

Evolution syndrome, which suffocates Wikipedia and most universities, results in the censorship of Ben Stein at the University of Vermont.[9]
According to the linked article, when Ben Stein was informed of the controversy surrounding his speech, he withdrew. The university's president said, "I did not ask him not to come". I'm not sure I'd characterize this as "censorship". The university did not withdraw its invitation - they were willing to let him speak. The president seems to have handled the situation appropriately, informing Stein of the controversy (which the president did not anticipate) so Stein would not be blind-sided, and letting him decide what to do. According to the article, Stein himself decided not to give the speech. I suppose you could argue that Stein censored himself - if so, we should change our item to make it clear that it was not the University. See my suggested wording below. --Hsmom 13:28, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Ben Stein, star of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed declines to speak at the University of Vermont after being informed of controversy over his selection as commencement speaker because of his views on evolution.[9]

The cause of the censorship of the speech is explained well in the first part of the article, which you conspicuously ignored. Nothing in your posting contravenes the headline, or explains the withdrawal.--Andy Schlafly 17:11, 7 February 2009 (EST)
People expressed their opposition to Ben Stein giving the commencement address, and while the protests created some publicity, the university did not withdraw the invitation - Stein declined it afterward himself. That is not censorship - it is Stein's own reluctance to deal with the controversy caused by some of his positions and statements over the past few years, such as "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.". Last year the decision to award Phyllis Schlafly an honorary doctorate drew similar criticism at Washington University. As in this case, the university held to its decision despite the controversy, but Mrs. Schlafly did not decline the invitation as Stein did. The only person responsible for Stein's speech being canceled is Stein himself, and if he can't stand the pressure of people protesting his viewpoints then he shouldn't be accepting these types of invitations in the first place. --DinsdaleP 22:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Aggressive complaining and harassment, as in this case, are a form of censorship. It's surprising that DinsdaleP and Hsmom defend it. Evolutionists got their way and censored a speaker simply because the evolutionists dislike something he said. It wouldn't surprise me if DinsdaleP and Hsmom believe in evolution; it does surprise me that defend this type of censorship.--Andy Schlafly 22:08, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Mr. Stein only agreed to do it in the first place because he was doing a favor for President Fogel, his undergrad roommate's wife's sister's husband. As it was a favor to a friend, he agreed to accept a drastically reduced fee, 80% of his usual asking price. It's not surprising that when the controversy arose, he decided it was not worth his while. I think considering that decision to be "censorship" is making a big deal out of a minor situation between friends.[10] Had Mr. Fogel rescinded his invitation, I would have considered it to be censorship. I didn't read about anything that rose to the level of "aggressive complaining and harassment"; the articles I read just mentioned emails to the president expressing concern. There is enough real censorship in the world; I think we should be careful not to hype situations that really don't rise to the level of censorship, lest we get the reputation for crying wolf. Nonetheless, Mr. Schlafly, you're the boss, and if you feel the article is appropriate as it stands, so be it. --Hsmom 12:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)
It's not censorship when the only one canceling the talk is Stein himself. His invitation was not rescinded, and like any controversial figure he maintained the right to speak publicly and express his views. If he felt it was not worth the controversy, that was his call to make, but that doesn't make it censorship. As mentioned above, Phyllis Schlafly faced similar protests, but made the choice to not let that opposition stop her. I agree with Hsmom that calling this case an incident of censorship is blowing it out of proportion, but now that we've been allowed to express our own views, any other comments on our part would be blowing this headline out of proportion as well :-) --DinsdaleP 14:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)
DindsaleP and Hsmom, you're just reiterating your position and I'll reiterate mine: I'm surprised you side with the people who ran Stein out of the event, resulting in censorship of his talk.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)


"TK, we are delighted you have accepted our invitation to address our 2009 'Free Speech Forum'! Although your views are controversial, and groups opposed to your viewpoint(s) have promised to turn out 20,000 protesters for your arrival on campus, you should not concern yourself for your personal safety, or the possible serious injuries innocents (including the disabled and pregnant/nursing mothers) will incur in the riot that will likely result. This should be of absolutely no concern to you, however, as you are our honored guest! I have personally assigned three of our best security personnel to assure your personal safety. Between the three of them, they represent almost 100 years of police experience, all having retired from active service with over 30 years each on the job! We look forward to a lively discourse!"

"P.S.: The press reports of Ann Coulter's injuries last October were greatly exaggerated. She suffered nothing more than a small knot on the head, and a few bruises when she fell, due to the high heels she was wearing." --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)

TK, can you please give an example of the last time a Conservative speaker required such massive security detail to speak at a college? Aside from Ann Coulter being pied a few years ago, I couldn't mind many examples of these liberal assaults. StephenK 18:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
StephenK, are you also siding with the conduct that results in censorship of talks? Of course Ben Stein won't be receiving a pie in his face at Vermont, because he first withdrew amid the torrent of intolerant liberal messages. On other campuses today, student groups are told they must arrange and pay for expensive security in order to have a conservative speaker. And I bet you don't say a word criticizing the liberals who censor talks by causing this.--Andy Schlafly 19:33, 9 February 2009 (EST)
StephenK, how unfortunate for you, that you don't recognize sarcasm/parody when you read it. You won't find conservatives on college campuses anywhere in the United States without guarantees of unbelievable security! My point was, liberals set up things, so even if having a major conservative speaker is considered, it is brief, because of the intolerant left. It is a rarity anymore when it does happen, and the logistical planning is daunting, especially if it is someone high profile. Few are willing, as Coulter apparently is, to stand in a hall and be prevented from speaking, being shouted down, while students scream invective. If you claim never to have heard about what has been happening, with increasing frequency, you must live in a cave. It is not my responsibility to document a truism, merely to feed your liberal need for attention. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I think the "censorship" word is overused here, but it's also true that people can be "silenced" by indirect means. The linked article did not elaborate on the nature of the "complaints" that the university received. But if the "complaints" were in essence saying "we want the university to withdraw the invitation because we don't agree with him", then I'd agree that that is an attempt at censorship, although it remains true that the university didn't censor him, to their credit. TK's fictional example is quite plausible, but we don't know if anything like that happened in this case. The AP piece did, however, quote the university president as not anticipating the "extent and intensity of the concerns expressed" (my emphasis), indicating that it was more than just polite objection. Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Tk, you claim that "

liberals set up things, so even if having a major conservative speaker is considered, it is brief, because of the intolerant left." Then please explain how Mrs. Schlafly obtained an honorary doctorate from the intolerant left. StephenK 12:19, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Saul Alinsky News Article

With Saul dedicating his work to the first radical, Satan, is it no surprise that an Alinsky student [Obama] will be the most corrupt President ever? Possibly Obama's hidden agenda, hidden religion is not Muslim nor Christian but something much worse? --jpatt 15:03, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Jpatt, please see the Obama talk page where I present evidence that he may actually be an atheist. --Economist 11:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Please tell me you're both kidding...Jros83 14:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)
That prompted stepping out from lurking mode, Jros83? Since Obama is a politician, is it really surprising to anyone that he could possibly be (probably is) an Atheist? We still know next to nothing about Barack Hussein Obama, compared to all of our previous Presidents. Why is this? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)
I don't follow the atheist track on Obama User:Economist. I feel if not Muslim nor a Christian, maybe Satan worship? The case can be made by the evil associations, evil beliefs and evil policies he has accumulated over 47 years. What did Abama say "I learned more from Alinsky than all the schooling he had ever completed," something along those lines. Fascinated with the first radical maybe?--jpatt 18:17, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The point is, the positions that Obama is either a Muslim or a Satan-worshipper require a greater amount of "conspiracy-theorizing" (so to speak) than does the position that he is an atheist (or the position that he is a Christian, but Conservapedia as a whole has already discarded that one). For example, the fact that he goes to the gym instead of church can be interpreted in one of two ways: 1) he is apathetic toward religion, or 2) he uses the time to stage clandestine Muslim prayer sessions, just as he feigns eating during Ramadan, crosses his fingers behind his back while taking his oath, and lies about his intent to buy a dog. Which do you think is more plausible? --Economist 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

If you don't like Obama I suppose you'll slap any label on him that you also happen not to like. He must be an atheist. Or he must be a Satanist. He's full blown communist too, right? I bet Michele had an abortion at some point in her life. I bet he's making his daughters get that Gardasil. And when is he going to come out of the closet? Jros83 23:03, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Any and all Obama accusations a shrugged-off by liberals. He's a full blown Communist too! Chinese Uyghur's are Communist Muslims, seems plausible that Obama can be both Communist & Muslim.--jpatt 23:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not "liberal" at least not in the way Conservapedia defines it, however I will say I "shrug off" only those accusations that are [removed vulgar word] and absurd. It's not my fault that those are the claims that prevail here. Jros83 14:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)


The Conservapedia evolution article is rapidly approaching the 500,000 mark in terms of the views appearing on its view counter! The article currently has over 494,000 plus views according to its view counter! This is bad news for the fanatical evolutionists who know that the evolutionary paradigm has been slowly losing public support in the English speaking world.
Just a suggestion - I think this would read better if we cleaned it up a bit. I don't think we need both the 500,000 number and the 494,000 number, especially as the latter changes by the minute. In addition, "in terms of the views appearing on its view counter" can be simplified. A simplified version will have more "punch". How about this: --Hsmom 09:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
The Conservapedia evolution article is rapidly approaching 500,000 page views! This is bad news for the fanatical evolutionists who know that the evolutionary paradigm has been slowly losing public support in the English speaking world!

Good suggestion. Done. Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)


"New Worries About Gardasil Safety"; "'I struggle with guilt a lot, because I made the choice to get the shot for her,' said Gabby's mom, Shannon Swank."
Because I have young kids, I'm always interested in information about vaccines. I read the report from the NVIC [11], but it raised more questions than it answered for me. They compared adverse event reports from Gardasil and a meningococcal vaccine, and found that there were more reports from Gardasil. To make sense of these statistics, the important question, of course, is how many of each type of vaccine were administered? Unfortunately, I could not find that critical piece of information in the report. As an example, if there were twice as many Gardasil vaccines given than meningococcal vaccines, then we would expect twice as many adverse events, with any more than that being a red flag. I don't have a good sense of the ratio - my own doctors only give the meningococcal vaccine to students headed to college (despite the age suggestions in the NVIC report); the CDC reports 1 in 4 teen girls got the HPV vaccine. [12] This suggests to me that the HPV may be given much more frequently, but I don't know. Frankly, the fact that NVIC published a report that didn't include this critical information makes me skeptical about their results, but of course the numbers are at least on the surface worrying. If anyone has other useful links to add to this story, that would be great! --Hsmom 10:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I'm sure the NVIC would welcome more info as well. It operates on donated funds, much of it by vaccine-injured parents.
Please feel free to downplay or deny the needless, expensive harm caused by the HPV Vaccine if you like. For a vaccine that hasn't even been (publicly) tested on rats to see if it causes cancer, which Merck could have simply done and publicized, I'll be emphasizing caveat emptor amid the pressure to give this vaccine to schoolgirls.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 9 February 2009 (EST)
HPV = Human Papilloma Virus. Rats don't get HPV, even when intentionally infected. --KathrynMonroe 22:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Wow, you're a genius!!! Guess what: rats do get cancer, and carcinogens are easily screened by testing material on rats. Merck got away without doing this, thanks to liberals who think like you.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Andy- lighten up. Your tone's a little harsh. There wouldn't be any reason to test a vaccine for a disease which doesn't affect rats on rats. There are dangers to Gardasil- a whole mess of them, physical and moral- but cancer isn't a common fear when creating new vaccines. I know of no cases of Gardasil-linked cancers (could you supply some?), so I see no reason to test the vaccine on rats at all. Kathryn isn't being unreasonable or "liberal" by using a little logic. --DReynolds 23:39, 10 February 2009 (EST)
Whether or not rats can get HPV, we can still use them to see if Gardasil can potentially increase the risk of cancer in humans. Pretty simple, liberals. MattL 00:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)
True enough, but I haven't heard anyone talk about a Gardasil/cancer link. Your ranting makes no sense, Matt. And I like the ad hominen argument. It really supports your point. --DReynolds 00:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Maybe you haven't heard about the Gardasil/cancer link because they didn't do the tests? MattL 01:09, 11 February 2009 (EST)
They haven't tested Conservapedia to see if it causes cancer, either. And you know what, I haven't heard of a CP/cancer link. Your logic does not follow. --DReynolds 11:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Do us all a favor, open your mind and educate yourself. Gardasil needs more testing before it potentially causes more deaths. We're not buying into the liberal drug companies' vaccine agenda. MattL 11:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)
...your article mentions cancer nowhere. Gardasil is dangerous, but it doesn't cause cancer.--DReynolds 23:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Australian Bushfires

As an Austrlian I thank you for the Main page mention of the Victorian fires and your kind words. Most summers, this happens to some extent - if not Victoria, then in one of the other states - but never this bad. Oz history is littered with names like Black Thursday (1851 - 71 dead) and Ash Wednesday (1983 - 75 lost) and the like. My neck of the woods in Tasmania lost 62 lives in 1967. No matter how prepared we think we are, how well-trained are our (mainly volunteer) rural firefighters, how much we prepare our properties, the force and speed of these fires takes us by surprise. It has hardly rained in South-East Austrlia for years. On the weekend, the temperature in many places in Victoria was well over 110F with gale-force winds. You were not safe a mile from the blaze because it was raining embers like cluster bombs. Gum trees do not just burn, they explode.

A little-known example of the friendship between our two countries is the aid that has been forwarded between the two, as US and Australian (and NZ I might add) firefighters have left their jobs and loved-ones to cross the Pacific in each others' times of need. AlanE 16:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I too salute the firemen . I believe that they are performing the most dangerous peacetime job done by volunteers. I don't know of any having died in these fires, but many firemen have lost their lives in previous fires, including 12 in one incident in the Ash Wednesday fires not far from where I live.
Correcting AlanE's comments, though only 12 died in 1851, but 71 died in the Black Friday fires of 1939. A list of major fires in just Victoria is here.
Philip J. Rayment 21:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)
You're right of course, Philip. I misread my encyclopaedia. AlanE 21:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Californian's endure the same hellfire as Aussies, because (especially in Southern California) there are the same hundreds of thousands of Eucalyptus (Gum) trees. As the guys said, those who give up the comforts of home to help fight in these specialized fires, are heroes. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)
It is important to note that the bushfires have been linked to Victorias new Abortion bill. See . --PMichael 19:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)
It is also important to note that the linked article provides no actual evidence linking the bushfires to said legislation. Your comment makes it sound like the fires were started by pro-life advocates. The head of the a christian organization (the CTFM), a pastor Danny Nalliah, had a dream. This is comparable to blaming abortion laws for Hurricane Katrina. --DanC 12:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)
And what's so crazy about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EMaurice (talk)
You must mean beyond the fact that it's pure, unprovable conjecture? --DanC 20:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)
And I think that's the point. Danny Nalliah might be right. But there's no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 11 February 2009 (EST)
In the same way that I might be right when I say that there is a connection between the Victorian bushfires and Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. I could be right but there's no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. --JustinL 22:06, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm. First, I'm not aware of anybody trying to make that connection. Second, assuming that you are talking about a causal connection, then the bushfires could not have been caused by something that occurs after the event. Third, Danny Nalliah did at least explain a plausible causal connection, something that you didn't do with Darwin's birthday. Philip J. Rayment 03:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm. First, I just made that connection. Second, clearly the Lord intended the fires as a warning not to celebrate Darwin's birthday. No causality problem at all. Third, Danny Nalliah's proposed causal connection is no more or less plausible than mine. They are both just plain stupid. --JustinL 17:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Double hmmmm. You were not seriously trying to make that connection, as shown by your subsequent comment that it's stupid. Danny Nalliah was trying to say that there is a causal connection. You were merely inventing one for analogy; not actually trying to claim one at all. Your causal connection does work up to a point, although you didn't actually provide that information previously. I disagree that your suggestion is no less plausible. It is clearly Victorians that were affected by this fire—I can't think of any other single group which can include all those affected, except for larger groups (e.g. Australians). So those affected (Victorians) were the same ones who (by proxy) passed the pro-abortion laws. That is not the case with Darwin's birthday. Why would God target just Victorians to try and stop Darwin's birthday being celebrated? Also, whilst a punishment (the fires) can be recognised as being connected to the crime (the pro-abortion laws) well after the event, the connection for a warning should be clear to those being warned before the event (the birthday). There was no such clear connection. Finally, how is the abortion/fires connection "plain stupid"? Just because you say so? Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Stimulus Package Polls?

You quote Rasmussen Reports as the stimulus package having 37% approval. The news item, however, seems to be one sided or incomplete as both Pew Research Center polls from today ( and Gallup polls from yesterday ( show that 51-53% of Americans support the stimulus package, and approximately 35% oppose it, with the remainder unsure. Just thought these newer numbers should be included. --AndrasK 23:27, 9 February 2009 (EST)

  • Well thanks for the information, AndrasK, but like most liberals you choose what you want to present selectively. Pew is actually (historically) less accurate than either Rasmussen or Gallup, but polls of this nature go up and down like a yo-yo. One thing your post did, however, was make me peruse the latest polls more carefully, so I was able to add the item to our news about Americans wanting even more tax cuts, and much less government spending! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:02, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Unfortunately, if they go up and down like a yo-yo, maybe we shouldn't get our hopes up yet. EMaurice

Catholic Church's Upcoming Conference on Evolution

I found this article on The Catholic News agency about the upcoming Vatican Conference on Evolution in March. It's good to see that there are efforts being made to increase the dialogue about how faith and science can fit together into people's lives. --DinsdaleP 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

They can fit together. [13]. EMaurice 17:05, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Unfortunately, most such "efforts being made to increase the dialogue about how faith and science can fit together" are really efforts to see how the Bible can be made to fit with evolution, which is assumed to be true. There's little in the linked article to suggest that this will be any different. The selected issues the article lists are all from the evolutionary viewpoint, with no mention of seeing what the Bible actually says about the matter. Later it does mention that there will be a couple of sessions '...devoted to studying evolution "from the point of view of Christian faith...', but this seems to assume that there is something real (i.e. evolution) to study.
The article also quotes a theology professor (falsely) claiming that "from the perspective of Christian theology, biological evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive...". I don't know of a single evolutionist who says that evolution occurred in a period of four days, nor that it occurred in the order recorded in the Bible. In other words, evolution and biblical creation are compatible only if one first bends the biblical account to say something completely different to what it plainly says.
Creationists have long shown how "faith" and science can fit together—by recognising that evolution is not scientific fact. Conferences that ignore this and attempt to show how they fit do so only by twisting what the Bible says, and indeed the very fact that they have such conferences shows that there is a contradiction between the Bible and evolution, else there would be nothing that needs explaining.
Philip J. Rayment 21:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)
The Catholic Church has never taken a fully literal view of the Bible, like Young Earth Creationism. Of course Catholics can believe it, and it might be true, but Catholicism does not read Genesis as necessarily a scientific document. AddisonDM 21:51, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Young-Earth creationists do not take "a fully literal view of the Bible". They recognise the use of analogy, metaphor, parables, etc. Given that, the YEC view of the biblical account is the same as traditionally accepted by the church, including the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Basil for example, accepted that the days of creation were literal days.[14][15]. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 12 February 2009 (EST)
A single data point for you. I was raised in England in the late 1960s as a Roman Catholic and was taught evolution by my science teachers, who were Christian Brothers (a lay teaching order). I didn't encounter anybody over the age of 12, protestant or Catholic, who believed the Genesis story as a history until I went online in 1995 and was amazed to find that there were people who considered evolution to be controversial. --TonySidaway 14:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)
That's not unexpected at all. Young-Earth Creationism was only "resurrected" in the early 1960s, following the publication of Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood. The timing probably has much to do with the fact that evolution was not taught (in America; the same may have applied in Britain) much (before university at least) until science education was stepped up in the late 1950s as part of the space race following the Russians getting the jump on getting a satellite into space. Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Crash erased our earlier dicussion

Hi Mr. Schlafly, we were talking before about my what you would describe my political leanings as; unfortunately, there was some kind of crash that lost the discussion thread we had, and I was really interested in what we were discussing. I've been away from my desk for a while, but I'd like to continue where we left off. Allow me to summarize what was said from my memory and some forum posts I was able to dig up:

I posted my question and beliefs, which I'll include at the bottom of this missive.

Your response: "You look like a liberal to me. Do you object to my leading a public school class of students in prayer, where every student wants to pray with me? I bet you do object. Do you vote for candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion? I bet you do. Enough said.--Andy Schlafly 17:13, 25 January 2009 (EST)"

Me: "Well, what I said was, if it does not harm others, than it is protected. I don't think prayer would harm students. So, if they where all willing, I can't see why not. As I said, abortion is not the solution. Please, I wish to learn more about what you believe, so don't push me away. I'm sure you get lots of people baiting you into attacking them, but that is not my meaning. I would like to hear more about what you really think about my views. JoeGrousbeck 17:39, 25 January 2009 (EST)"

You: "Joe, stop wasting my time. You ducked my two simple points, refusing to fully answer my questions. Contribute to this encyclopedia, or move on. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:55, 25 January 2009 (EST)"

I replied: "Sir, I responded to your questions; I said, No, I do not object to prayer in school, and No, I do not knowingly vote for taxpayer-supported abortion, though I've been surprised before. A certain local county supervisor that it would be best not to named flipped in office. Look, I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time, I'm in no rush to hear back from you, as I'm just checking in while I'm here. I'm right now working on an article on some internet organizations that corrupt the morals of minors. JoeGrousbeck 18:05, 25 January 2009 (EST)" (unfortunately this article was lost in the crash)

You: "Joe, county supervisors do not generally pay for abortion. Your "knowingly" qualifier is silly, and I specifically asked you whether you voted "for candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion." Talk, talk, talk, and you still haven't answered the question. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 18:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)"

And now, my response to your last missive:

My Answers are Abortion should never be used except to save the mother and that prayer in schools should not be regulated. The county supervisor in question did not support abortion as a policy, but he personally paid to support several measures. I did not know this when I voted for him. I now return to editing!

For those who wish to see my original post:

"Aschlafly: I am unsure what one would describe my beliefs as. I was hoping that you would help me. I am not sure I fully understand your beliefs either, but perhaps once we have discussed mine, I can understand where our differences may lie. I look forward to your response, sir.

I believe: -The government is ideally an organization that, most importantly, has the acceptance of the people. --It should regulate Law and Order, as well as punishment for crimes. --It should maintain national infrastructure and utilities. (This includes the availability of roads and power, food and shelter, and even modern or esoteric services that improve universal quality of life, such as medicine, education, management of natural resources, and communication.) --It should unify national defense and diplomacy. --It should protect vulnerable groups within it from repression. (Or it risks slavery and holocaust upon the few at the hands of the many.) --It should NOT impinge on the right of anyone, within or without it, to live as they wish- until this interferes with it's other duties. (The right to be free does not include the right to harm others. This right to free life includes the ability to speak freely, trade fairly, love openly, and even self-destruction, so long as such actions do not harm others.) --It should do these duties with the greatest of efficiency and must provide them equally. (Thus providing the services it does fairly and with the lowest possible fees or taxes.) --It should be structured so that it cannot be easily corrupted by a charismatic individual or a powerful conglomerate. (And thus having the potential to become less beneficent.)

-That individuals should know: --To help others in need, even at great personal cost. --That happiness and optimism are important parts of life, and that sadness and hard work are too. --That selfishness for it's own sake is wrong. (i.e., hording money or squandering resources.) --That self-improvement is a noble goal. (Saving money for retirement, development of skills.) --That self-illusion is something that one must always take care to avoid. --That one knows very little in the great scheme of things. --That those that disagree with you can very often be right, and very often be wrong. --That all beliefs that can be proven must be proven, and new ideas must be tested and, if true, accepted. --That everyone has faults, and these must be forgiven. --That sometimes laws must be broken for the greater good. (Such as an unemployed mother stealing food, or even something up to civil disobedience in the face of oppression.) -I also believe many smaller things, but these are the most immediate that to come to mind.

I practice: -I have never truly harmed someone in anger, though I have fought as a child. -I have never used illicit drugs, and never intend to. -I have never smoked tobacco, and never intend to. -I have never drunk alcohol, and never intend to. -I vote in every election. -I donate to charity when I can. -I practice self-defense. -I respect tradition and I do not like very much of the modern fads of objectifying women and violent media. I much prefer classical music. -Many other things, but these are the ones I think are relevant here.

Where you may disagree with me: -I believe in the separation of Church and State -I believe in the separation of State and Science -I believe in the separation of Church and Science -As such, I think the idea of global warming, or black holes, or oil production theories, as they are scientific ideas, cannot be interpreted as either Liberal or Atheist. Nor can Liberal and Atheist be identified as connected. -I think that evolution is the best explanation of the life, and can be observed in the natural world and in simulations. -I think that there are dangers in humanity overpopulating the world, and that the best way to prevent this is encouraging smaller families- not abortions. -Similarly, I think that human industry has lead to climate change, and very well could make life unpleasant or difficult. -I don't think that my country, the US, is as good as it could be, or the 'best' country in the world. -I feel that the constitution, while an inspiring document, can and should be improved to be more accurate and relevant to the modern world. -In a particular sense, firearms should be limited; while it makes sense for a citizen to have access to handguns and hunting rifles, anything else, such as automatic rifles and machine guns, has no place in civilian's hands, as they can only be used against others and are not intended for self-defense. -I believe that religion, atheism, deism, and so on, should all be equally protected. -I believe that capitalism and communism have serious faults, and that the united states has not reached the peak of possible social advancement.

Now that you know where I stand, please tell me, am I a liberal, or a conservative, or a neutral?

-Joe G "

JoeKinch 20:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Joe, the main page talk really the place for this type of conversation. And if you know what your views are then make your decisions based on those views - what's the point in assigning yourself a label if you don't understand what the label means? (which you clearly don't, given that you are unable to ascribe the label to yourself despite your beliefs).--IDuan 21:57, 11 February 2009 (EST)