Talk:Main Page/archive79

Of the movies listed int he Telegraph's "Top 10 Conservative Movies of the Decade", none are obscure. In fact Lord of Rings (Domestic Total Gross: $313,364,114, $339,789,881, and $377,027,325 respectively), Gladiator (Domestic Total Gross: $187,705,427), Dark Knight (Domestic Total Gross: $533,345,358), and 300 (Domestic Total Gross: $210,614,939) were all massive blockbusters. Every other movie mentioned was a major motion picture, except perhaps "The Lives of Others". The essay "Greatest Conservative Movies" is interesting, but like the Telegraph article, it is just a few people's (or perhaps one) opinions. Let's face it, such lists will always be subjective and without any absolute "correct" answer. --BMcP 22:48, 1 January 2010 (EST)

I agree. When I read the Telegraph's article, I felt that all movies belonged on that list and I had heard of all of them (except of "The Lives of Others"). I'm not sure why Hotel Rwanda was on there, but then again that's my opinion. --Jvasile 11:41, 2 January 2010 (EST)

I was a bit baffled by this too. The movies are not obscure -- even The Lives of Others won the Oscar for best foreign language Oscar -- and the comments seem perfectly lucid and well argued. Certainly there is no film on the Telegraph's list as "obscure" as Dark Matter. It seems a perfectly respectable piece of writing from an admirable conservative organ. Jdixon 13:45, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Well, now that we have heard from the moviephiles, how about a reality check? Best foreign language Oscar? Pfffft. 9 out of 10 will never have heard of it, nor seen it. Compare the total box office of any of them with the number who watch just one episode of a mediocre television show for a some perspective! The gross you guys like to cite are the inflated prices some people are willing to pay ($15+ per head, plus another $20 for "snacks" to the exhibitors) not the number of people, ever-shrinking, who will actually go to see a movie. The movie industry, without its television and other businesses, would be bankrupt. It has become a vanity industry, for the most part, for the so-called liberal elite and their followers. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:57, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals like the British list because the films are ... not really conservative. And the Brit strained hard to pick some obscure ones, instead of obviously conservative hits. The first Spider-Man outsold all of the Brit's choices, typically by hundreds of millions of dollars, yet the Brit didn't include it in his top ten list. He also kept out the other big conservative movies.

The trend of liberals acting like conservatives is growing. Do yourself a favor and actually welcome conservative ideas with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 18:07, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Actually Dark Knight (Domestic Total Gross: $533,345,358) as listed by the Telegraph out did Spiderman (Domestic Total Gross: $403,706,375). Honestly though, the only reason I am mentioning any of this is that I don't know why someone's personal swipe at the Telegraph because it doesn't jive with someone's personal essay is considered main page news, especially when both are just someone's personal opinion. Also felt the general swipe at the British is unnecessary and uncalled for. It just comes off as simply prideful. --BMcP 18:42, 2 January 2010 (EST)

BMcP, your basic point seems to be this: it's all subjective. Yet you take the opposite approach about science, don't you? Why do you insist that listing the top ten conservative movies of the decade is totally subjective, but that speculation about the age of the universe is not? Looks like we've stumbled into another example of the liberal double standard: call something subjective when you don't like it, but call something objective when you do.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals believe in "consensus science", meaning we take a vote and go with what the majority of scientists say. But actual scientific progress comes more from a best of the public approach, which recognizes (as Einstein said) that it only takes one scientist to prove 400 scientists wrong.

It's when the "inconvenient facts" which contradict the theory that even an 8-year-old child can see which side is being objective. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:42, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Right. Or to paraphrase Mark Twain's famous line, the reports of something being "subjective" are much exaggerated.--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 2 January 2010 (EST)

You know, can't understand why you're hear, BMcP. You clearly don't agree with any of the goals of the site. I love your expansion of the astronomy articles, but I confess it is a chore poring over your edits to examine them for evolutionist snobbery. So what's up? JacobB 23:56, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Well I am not sure how movies have to do with the goals of this site. Anyway, if you have a question about me or any of my edits/pages, please contact me on my page (so we can avoid adding too much text here), or email me. --BMcP 13:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

It should be obvious that a question like Which is the best movie of the first decade of the 3rd millennium yields a subjective answer, while a question like which theory explains certain facts the best should be answered objectively.

And that this is so blatantly obvious is shown by the previous answers, which indicate that your nationality influences the list of your best conservative movies: for a German speaker, Das Leben der Anderen is absolutely not obscure! FrankC aka ComedyFan 08:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Perhaps a subjective opinion wouldn't be welcome at this juncture, but I'll try anyway: The Lives of Others is a great film, and a truly excellent portrayal of life in communist East Germany. My friends who grew up in the DDR (and neighboring countries) have said that it accurately captures the bleak and hopeless reality, the numbing fear, of what it was like to live under that regime. I read a great quote somewhere that for Westerners, The Lives of Others is a thriller, and for Eastern Europeans, it's therapy. Great films like these keep alive the knowledge of history that keep us from repeating past atrocities, and I believe that's why the Telegraph reviewer called it a "conservative" film. I happen to agree.

Instead of naysaying movies you haven't seen, why not take the chance, watch them, and decide for yourself if they're conservative or not? It's definitely worth the time: there's not a bad movie on that list, and no one's life was made the poorer by seeing a good film. JDWpianist 08:52, 3 January 2010 (EST)

JDW, you convert the question of "what are the top ten conservative movies of the decade," which establishes an objective criterion ("conservative"), into a less clear inquiry about whether a movie is "therapy", "great", "bad", "made the [viewer the] poorer," etc. If you liked "The Lives of Others," then that is an uninteresting and unchallengeable claim. But if you claim it is a top conservative movie, then you haven't proven your argument yet. There are a ton of films that portray "bleak and hopeless reality" without admitting that liberal ideology is the cause and conservative ideology is the cure.--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Guilty as charged. I didn't come here to argue about anyone's Top 10 list, only to recommend the The Lives of Others to you and TK (and anyone reading), because it seemed that no one here knew about it, and seemed to be rejecting it out of hand. I do indeed have my own opinions as to why it can be considered a "conservative" film, but they would mean much more to people who've actually seen the film. As much as I love debating with you, it's not very interesting to argue about a film with someone who hasn't seen it (no offense).

On the other hand, if you'd like to talk about The Patriot, and how "conservative" it is (I'd argue "not very," for the record), I'd be happy to do that. JDWpianist 17:34, 3 January 2010 (EST)

This whole subjective vs. objective argument seems a bit misplaced. Clearly there are those things that are objective (i.e. diamonds are composed of carbon) and subjective (i.e. Spider Man is the best conservative movie of the decade) and there is nothing wrong with identifying each as such. I agree with Andy that the Telegraph list is poor (a subjective opinion) in that there's nothing particularly conservative about most of them (though one can argue such points either way) and some of them just aren't any good (I hated Gladiator, but as it made close to 200 million and won a best picture Oscar, I clearly am out of touch with the opinion of both the public and experts here; I also thought 300 was lousy). I could also say the same about some of the Conservapedia picks: Spider-Man I thought was a bit cliche and unimaginative, and only marginally conservative (rather apolitical really). Calling the Telegraph list obscure, however, seems like a stretch (with the exception of The Lives of Others). Indeed it would be hard to find movies of the last decade less obscure than The Dark Knight or Lord of the Rings. The latter three movies made a combined worldwide gross of nearly 3 billion dollars, more than the GDP of several of the world's poorest nations. Likewise Dark Matter and Flash of Genius seem relatively obscure to me. Basically, any discussion of the value of a movie will be inherently subjective. DanL 10:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

The article Greatest Conservative Movies has a section Debatable Whether Conservative. So, even the objective criterion "conservative" isn't easily determinable... FrankC aka ComedyFan 10:51, 3 January 2010 (EST)

The title says "clueless and obscure": many of the choices are "clueless" (not really conservative, though possibly popular) while others are "obscure" (few know anything about the movie at all). The title plainly does not apply the same adjectives to every movie on the list; how would we know whether an obscure movie was conservative or not?

That said, the basic liberal fallacy in the above criticisms remains: liberals claim that what they like (theories of evolution, man-made global warming, relativity, life in outer space, etc.) are somehow objective, while what they do not like (conservative principles, which are highly objective) are subjective. It's a game liberals play again and again, and I'll add it to liberal style. The trick is fallacious, obviously.--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 3 January 2010 (EST)

• clueless (not really conservative, though possibly popular): I'm afraid that your definition of conservative may not be globally accepted
• obscure (few know anything about the movie at all): perhaps the writer expected his reader to know the movies, aiming for a British, not a US audience...

FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:09, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Frank, you should remember that this website is mostly for an American audience. I do not understand much of it, but that is my background.--Wuhao1911 11:12, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Frank, there you go again: you think "conservative" is subjective and up to each individual or nation. I urge you to learn here with an open mind, because you will see that conservatism is far more objective than many (liberal) theories you think are objective.--Andy Schlafly 11:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Aschlafly, do you think that everyone has the same understanding of what "conservative" entails? It's no problem for a Brit to think of himself as conservative and still be for gun-control! And he will get pretty annoyed if you tell him that this is not a conservative position... FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:23, 3 January 2010 (EST)

And students "get pretty annoyed" when their math errors on an exam are marked as incorrect, and they get a low grade. I don't know anyone who sincerely thinks gun control is a conservative position, but if such a person can be found (against 99% of conservatives who observe otherwise), then such person is obviously mistaken. And this standard is more logical and objective than many theories that liberals claim are objective.--Andy Schlafly 11:34, 3 January 2010 (EST)

To support Frank, views on gun control cut across political parties in Britain. There's no distinctively conservative position on gun control or indeed most other social issues (e.g. opposition to abortion is probably stronger in the Labour Party, which tends to have higher support among Roman Catholics, than in the Conservative Party). JosephMac 14:25, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks for unblocking me! As for those who sincerely think that gun control is a conservative position: What's about Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, and Helmut Kohl? 99% of the American conservatives may observe otherwise, but more than 90% of the European don't...

Of course, none of those would propose that gun control is the right thing for the United States, but at least it's the right thing for Europe.

IMO, conservative means to accept the responsibility of the individual for himself, while liberals only accept a responsibility of a society for its members.

The application of this principle may yield slightly differing results in different cultures.

FrankC aka ComedyFan 14:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)

--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'm a bit confused about the latest news item. First of all, it mostly repeats a quote by Dawkins already covered quite elegantly a few spaces down. Then it brings in facts about homosexuality and diseases, which seems like a non-sequitur to me. Then it finishes off with the same video twice, which, while nice and all, doesn't exactly make a real argument. I know I'm new here, am I missing something? DanL 11:27, 3 January 2010 (EST)

The duplicate quote was deleted before seeing your comment. As to your objection to pointing out how homosexuality shortens lifespan ... would you object to people who say cigarette smoking shortens lifespan? If not, then why the double standard?--Andy Schlafly 11:34, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Frankly, I don't see how either are terribly relevant in the context of Dawkins insulting God. If there's a connection, it seems pretty loose to me. And is it standard to have redundant video clips of songs attached to news items? It seems to me it could be written a lot better and more clearly. DanL 11:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Dan, you didn't answer my question. Homosexuality shortens lifespan, and it's obviously not "homophobic" to criticize it. What's the next term for liberals to invent ... "drugphobic"?--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Eating fatty foods also shortens lifespan, much more than lesbiansism. Perhaps we should add that Dawkins is quick to criticize God but not McDonald's patrons. My main point is that the "news" item seems puerile and poorly written (and seems to have replaced one that was much better) and is reminiscent of a "No Fat Chicks" T-Shirt. And if it's okay to criticize homosexuality because it shortens lifespans, then it's okay to criticize God for killing homosexuals (as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah), because that really shortens their lifespans. But, heck, it's your website. Knock yourself out. DanL 12:08, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Dan, your reasoning seems to make very little sense. Sin shortens lifespans because it is an offense against God, the wages of sin being death. The point is that Dawkins is calling God homophobic and that is the targeted criticism. Conservapedia is merely making a targeted response. Were Dawkins to be speaking of smoking or transfats then what you're saying would make sense but he's not.-Mike

The original post was about Dawkins's quote being used to challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law (In effect January 1, 2010). Which was actually quite interesting (he actually made the quote a few years ago I believe), and I would be curious to what will happen in Ireland to those who use it to challenge the law. I would be curious to hear people's views on Ireland's new blasphemy law. --BMcP 13:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)

In April of 2007, the American Journal of Public Health analyzed data from 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the data suggested that American lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups. ^[1]

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

DanL, the medical literature I cited showed lesbians are significantly more likely to be obese and be less concerned about obesity. Therefore, given the medical literature, what evidence do you have that lesbians don't eat an inordinate amount of fatty foods? Furthermore, given what the medical science literature states regarding lesbianism and obesity, all those obese women who were surrounding your booth at McDonald's today, could have been from a lesbian tour bus! By the way, the lesbians thought they could throw their weight around when it came to McDonald's and have McDonald's curry favor and promote the homosexual agenda, but a boycott by the AFA ended that on October 9th, 2008 when McDonald's chose to take a neutral position on homosexuality.[1] conservative 22:46, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Oh great, our government gives more ground to the terrorists... when will the liberals stop putting kid gloves on our government officials and forces and let them do what's needed to protect American citizens! My two cents- Glenn.

It stems from the old liberal need to be "liked" rather than feared or respected, and they want the same for our country. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:02, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Quite right Mr.K, I mean, our nation has the largest economic and military base in recorded history,and we're the expression of a western tradition reaching back millenia, which we've refined into a system where the atheist and the christian can disagree (because the athiest is wrong ) .. but can do so civilly without blows, and where our women can marry and have children but still retain the choice to run her own life, far superior to any nefarious desert idealogy, but the liberals want us to be ashamed of our freedom, to praise those barbarians for the glories of their cult.. sickens me.. -Glenn

Yeah, and you want to know why? It's that damn Hussein Obama, when I was a kid we learned that government shouldn't be owning the economy, that's straight out of the Soviet Union, and look how that ended up! Here we are today with Obamaaid buying up wall street at break neck pace, and with what? Failing economy, sinking GDP....I thought the public voted for a "change"... dem's must be sweating now.. - Glenn.

They're getting savagely mauled in the comments. [2] Jinx McHue 12:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

NPR isn't government run. It receives a small percentage of its funding from government grants but has its own private board of directors. I don't think SEIU receives any government money at all. Cambrian 13:37, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Well Public is a pretty good clue as to who the owners are. Would they exist without the govt funds? We can split hairs as to the meaning of govt-run and independent-run with govt funds but the truth be known, partisan liberals control NPR with support from taxpayers. SEIU has numerous contracts with the government and has positioned itself to receive more government funds in the wake of ACORN scandals. It was created by Wade of ACORN. If the TEA party is successful in ousting Democrats, the SEIU stands to lose big.--Jpatt 13:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

It's a little surprising/disheartening to see that the website has failed to recognize this very holy day in the Christian calendar. Perhaps next year? AlexWD 23:40, 7 January 2010 (EST)

First write the Orthodox Christmas article, then request recognition. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:54, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Done.AlexWD 00:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Note also that if you type "Muslims", "Muslims are", Google also returns no suggestions for searches. So, neither "Islam" nor "Muslims" yield any offensive suggestions. Is that worth adding to the news story? AddisonDM 19:56, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Though if you type in "Muslims want" and "Christians want," the results are interesting. AlexWD 20:05, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Your computer must be more interesting than mine, AlexWD. I don't get any suggestions whatsoever when typing in "Muslims want". --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:05, 8 January 2010 (EST)

"to take over the world/ban Christmas/kill Christians/take over America." Type in "Conservapedia is" for some real fun. AlexWD 23:26, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Put a space after Muslims and the suggestion box gets pretty full. --BMcP 23:39, 8 January 2010 (EST)

(edit conflict, reply to Alex) I tried that. Our site is first, Wikipedia is second and Colbert is third. Almost no one clicks on links below that. It is odd that Wikipedia ranks ahead of Colbert, however. Google does seem to give Wikipedia preferential treatment. Once I even saw Google insert a special search bar next to Wikipedia's link in the search retrieval!--Andy Schlafly 23:42, 8 January 2010 (EST)

I have seen that too. Maybe if you ask, Google would add a search bar for Conservapedia as well. I think it's worth a shot. HarryG 11:11, 9 January 2010 (EST)

And "maybe" competition rather than complicity is the more principled approach.--Andy Schlafly 11:16, 9 January 2010 (EST)

I tried "Obama is" and found many interesting suggestions. If google was really liberal, wouldn't they try to censor anything bad about him as well? --JordanA 14:10, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Ok, it was just a suggestion... HarryG 21:27, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Andy, you don't actually hit enter, you just wait a moment on the google front page, if done with Christianity and Judaism a litany of suggestions both repugnant and benign are offered. One possible explanation that I have heard is that Google is being cowardly --ThomasRidgefield 16:26, 11 January 2010 (EST)

YouTube has shut down most of the America Rising video including the ref links in CP mainspace news story. Glad I downloaded it. See story above for insight.--Jpatt 21:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

In California, citizens are rejecting the liberal budget policies that have given the state the worst budget crisis in the nation. Dozens of ballot initiatives have been put forward by the best of the California public, some of which go as far as to callfor a constitutional convention, so we can change the fundamentals of state governance and prevent the legislature from doing this to us again. [3] JacobB 23:21, 10 January 2010 (EST)

As this article details, it has been discovered that the Pyramids of Giza were built by free workers, instead of slaves as previously thought (unlike many Soviet of 1930s German construction). Scientists have also discovered that farmers providing food to the workers were given a tax exemption, showing that the Egyptians believed that limited government interference would provide the highest quality goods. Im sure further excavation will show an even more conservative side to the first great civilization.

That's very interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Soviet or 1930s German construction?" JacobB 23:52, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Sorry about the unclear wording. I meant that in most communist or facist societies, especial the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, construction projects like monuments, highways, or canals are built by people forced by the government to work for little or no pay. as the article said, the workers who built the Pyramids were free workers who came seeking a job. --Daisport 16:46, 11 January 2010 (EST)

That's a fascinating the revelation: the pyramids were built by the free market, not by slavery!--Andy Schlafly 18:00, 11 January 2010 (EST)

I wouldn't say the free market, as the workers were still government employees, but this does show that conservative principles have been developing throughout every civilization in history. I meant to post this to show that societies reach their peak level/golden age when the have a more conservative leader in charge. --Daisport 16:34, 12 January 2010 (EST)

You've now got three news stories on the Main Page about climate change, all saying that just because there's currently a cold snap in the USA, global warming is a myth. That's absolute nonsense. Complete and utter tosh. Deceit is not a conservative virtue, so please delete this total rubbish from the Main Page.

• Agreed that any one cold snap or heat wave is irrelevant to the scientific debate over the causes of global warming. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:24, 3 February 2010 (EST)

• Repeatedly cold weather does disprove that there is a crisis of global warming that requires immediate government intervention, which is what Al Gore and his money-making buddies have been claiming.--Andy Schlafly 18:28, 3 February 2010 (EST)

  My change to the talk page heading was an allusion to the natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. As Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's book explains, [4] the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere rises and falls in a natural cycle of roughly 1,500 years. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:42, 3 February 2010 (EST)

(1) The issue is global warming. It's about the average temperature over the whole world. The Southern hemisphere is having one of its hottest summers ever: 38°C in Melbourne, 41°C in Cape Town are unusually high temperatures. You can't say anything about the average global temperature from what's happening in one little bit of the Earth's surface like the United States.

• Here I must disagree. Temperature records in the US are kept better than anywhere else, so if there is such a thing as human-caused global warming, then the evidence will be here. What it actually shows is a pronounced urban heat island effect. "Temperatures in some urban areas of the United States can be eight degrees Fahrenheit (°F) hotter than surrounding areas." [5] --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:55, 3 February 2010 (EST)

(2) Just as one snowy winter in Georgia isn't evidence against global warming, one heatwave in Cape Town isn't evidence for it. You have to look at the trend in global temperatures. There are little bumps and wobbles in the graph but the trend in average global temperatures is clearly and rapidly UP.

1. I wouldn't call 1 degree in a century and a half "rapidly up"
2. Stop playing with words: no one here is denying "global warming"; rather the scientific debate is over whether it's naturally caused or more human-caused. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:55, 3 February 2010 (EST)

(3) I love my children and I hope I will have grandchildren to love too. And I hope they'll have a world to live in which hasn't been irrevocably destroyed by the stupid, greedy, lying, fascist scum in the oil industry who are paying US Senators huge bribes to block reductions in CO2 outputs and paying Faux News to brainwash the US public.

• Fascism is unrelated to "capitalist greed", and anyway the profit motive combined with free markets has given Americans, including your children and (someday) your grandchildren the highest standard of living ever seen on earth. It is rather the billions of dollars a year given to scientists who will go along with the global warming scare that is the problem. Real scientists ignore such "bribes" and print the truth, even when it's politically unpopular.

• If you accept the premise of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary, i.e., that if two factors are correlated one must be causing the other, then take a look at the Vostok Cores. These clearly show that a rise in temperature is followed by a rise in carbon dioxide, and the same for a fall, after a lag of centuries.

• To be brainwashed, you first must have a brain. Try reading a bit, and compare the facts with the theories to see if they fit: that's the scientific method. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:02, 3 February 2010 (EST)

I realise that A.S. or one of his minions will now block me and that this will be my last ever post to CP. Being moderate and reasonable, bringing facts and accuracy into discussions, clearly cuts no ice with him, whatever the subject. I don't know if he's just been brainwashed by the pro-oil, anti-grandchildren lobby but please wake up, Andy! Stop peddling this nonsense, stop cutting-and-pasting the utter drivel spouted by the oil companies' PR departments into CP, stop repeating their lies to home-schooled children. I will now say this as clearly as I can to conservatives who do think about their place in the world, who do love their grandchildren, who do value conservative virtues of honesty, truth and respect for others:

Global climate change is real and dangerous
Put a sweater on and turn down the heating
Remove your jacket and turn off the air-conditioning
Use public transport where you can
Drive a small, economical vehicle where there's no public transport
Vote for politicians who value your family's future more than their Exxon-Mobil share options</font>

Deceit is not a conservative virtue!

JosephMac 19:18, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Moderate and reasonable is probably what you're not, JosephMac. In your viewpoint, everything man-made is now causing that little heatwave down under right now. Do you even consider the fact that it's summer down there? Did you ever consider the possibility that the sun could be heating things up? Did you ever look at a map of Oz and see for yourself that Melbourne, Australia is just a Sunday drive to the south of a desert? Deserts usually heat up when the sun's on them. Did you even get more than a chapter of education on the sun? I bet that when May comes around, we here in the states are going to get some of that sun directly on us, and it's going to warm up once again. And I bet the stupid people will whine about global warming once more, while the smart ones will pack up their SUV's and head for Miami Beach. Karajou 10:40, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Well, I'm no mind reader, but I'm guessing that Joseph did take the summer into account because he said "one of its hottest summers ever." I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I will say that failure to grasp an argument doesn't count as a counter-argument. Insufficient 18:03, 3 February 2010 (EST)

JoesephMac (I doubt you gave your real name) I know liberals crave attention, but it is hardly necessary for you to use special fonts and colors to make people notice your posts. If one substitutes the predictable mentions of "big oil" and "Faux News" (ever read it is watched by three times the number of liberals and conservatives than MSNBC and CNN combined?) you can drop in frauds like Al Gore who has made tens of millions off his "Global Warming" income redistribution scam. You should read more than U.N. tracts and the Daily Kos! The truth will set you free! I won't be blocking you for your post. It isn't fair (or our policy) to single-out users with learning disabilities. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:35, 11 January 2010 (EST)

It is interesting to note that the user JosephMac who was complaining about deceit, yet is apparently just another U.K troll, who had two accounts here just to make deceitful, argumentative posts. Liberals already know they can't compete with facts, so it takes at least two of them to argue with Andy Schlafly! Conservatives hate deceit, and it is against our rules to create multiple accounts, so while I wouldn't have blocked this user for his silly rant, I will block him for being a rather common socialist-state troll. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:07, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals are in panic-mode, their lack of faith and their worry for the planet is coming to a boiling point. Global warming is a LIE, promoted by liars. They're sensitive to the movements demise. --Jpatt 20:50, 11 January 2010 (EST)

December temps recorded between 2000 and 2008. Blue points to colder than average land surface temperatures

[6]

Thanks for the interesting picture and link, Jpatt. If I understand the article correctly though, doesn't this picture represent this year's winter temperatures compared to 2000-2008 averages? Your caption seems to say the opposite. JDWpianist 05:17, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I saw the news story, and I believe it was for the eight year average. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 07:37, 12 January 2010 (EST)

December temperatures compared to average December temps recorded between 2000 and 2008. That's how the original caption describes it. Maybe it's just a fault of my English comprehension (which could be suffering after a week of reading old German), but I think if it were the 8-year average, there would be no need for them to write "December temperatures compared to average..." JDWpianist 07:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

That is 8 Decembers put together. It is potentially worrysome that those areas that are historically the coldest seem to be getting warmer, excluding Alaska, which I would like several degrees warmer so I can get some fruit off the trees before I die. --ThomasRidgefield 14:03, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Yeah, I noticed that too. The whole urgency in the climate change debate hinges on the possibility that too much polar ice will melt and raise the ocean levels. It's exactly those polar areas which are warmer on the graph, which would lend some weight to that scenario.

Still, I think that this graph is a representation of this year's winter, and the temperature difference compared to average years. That would make more sense, as this is definitely a colder winter for most of the world. Jpatt, how do you read it? JDWpianist 17:36, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Eight Decembers combined. It is a natural climate cycle and not Global Warming. All pushers of this agenda love to discount the other planets cooling. In addition, give little credit to the Sun which in my scientific op is the single biggest source of temp changes. A Sun without spots will cool the Earth. I admit I have no degree in science however those with science degrees will never admit their longterm forecasts are bunk, based on falsehoods. I wouldn't be surprised if we are in a little ice age since the pattern has been consistent for over 10 years.--Jpatt 18:24, 14 January 2010 (EST) [7]

The bit about public transport gave you away. With rare exceptions, cities with subsidized public transportation systems lower worker productivity by extending commuter time. Much of the agitation around global warming comes from people who are hostile to the free market, and who are deliberately ignoring what we know scientifically about natural climate cycles.

If we are to believe Al Gore's idea that a rise in one factor followed by a rise in another is evidence of causation, then we must accept the theory of natural global warming espoused by scientists who disagree with the liberal AGW theory. The temperature record shows that periods of higher temperatures are followed by rises in carbon dioxide concentrations; same for lower temperatures and reductions in that gas.

It's not amazing that liberals would choose to ignore science on this. Their pretense that socialism leads to more general prosperity than free market economics is so easily disproved, a child of ten could do it. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:49, 22 January 2010 (EST)

first, let me introduce myself. i am a british citizen and a atheist/humanist i believe in science, reason and that human beings are what matters, there rights and lives above all else. i beleive in freedom, democracy, liberty and indivdulism. and britian. there, i've said it. now on to the main point(s):

1st: you acuse wikipedia as displaying "liberal bias". from the very name of this website, this pedia displays a "conservative bias" 2nd: you call your site "the trustworthy enyclopedia", as if your viewpoints are the only ones that should be beleived. 3rd: neutrality is important in a factual resource. Al-queda are terroists, but that is my opinion. to get what is considered the "truth", you need to hammer out a consenious from lots of opinions. thats what the truth is: a collection of opinions, half-facts and lies. but thats okay, as it means since there is no one "truth", we are free to decide.

Please read and respond. Please do not delete without responding and remember: --Mackeral 13:42, 12 January 2010 (EST)

If you don't like it here you are welcome to go to one of a great number of other Wiki's, or you are welcome to stick around here and learn a thing or two, it looks like you could learn to spell too. --ThomasRidgefield 14:00, 12 January 2010 (EST)

just a bit of constructive critism. loved the atheism page. "moral degeneracy" causes atheism? its not like its a rational, informed choice, is it? you gotta love the lack of bias on this wiki, haven't you? anyway, whats your views on... anything at all? lets here them! --Mackeral 14:13, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Mack, your op of the truth is not logical. The truth is still the truth, even if you don't believe it. Atheism says you were nothing, than you became something- from nothing, then you return to nothing. You have to wake up everyday and argue your point makes sense when only 1% of Americans are atheist. You have to tell yourself daily that over 2 billion Christians are wrong and little old you is right. Before you were born, the universe existed. After you die, the universe will still exist. From nothing? nope. After you pass, back to nothing? nope. Just wondering, how did you figure out this web is conservative- from the name? We are an encyclopedia project, not a discussion board. --Jpatt 14:19, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Here's the thing with this kind of objection: We've been around for years. You must have made this statement thinking one of two things:

A) They've never heard these brilliant points before, and upon reading this, many editors will throw their hands up and abandon the project.

B) They've likely heard this many times before and dismissed these arguments, but I'm going to repeat them because I am a troll who enjoys provoking responses for no reason.

On the assumption that you're really stupid enough to believe the first, I won't block you, but if you show signs of having the latter motives, well, we know how to deal with that, too. JacobB 15:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

C) Maybe the editors have heard this before, but I haven't, and I really want an answer.

Answer: Of course we have a conservative bias, though I (at least) try to be objective. Of course we think what we write is trustworthy and should be believed - why'd we be writing it otherwise? Of course, please do look at other opinions; "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov. 11:14). But, I'm sure that you'll usually find conservativism to be correct. And as for atheism: Yes, many atheists probably think they're making "a rational, informed choice", but I'm sure you'll agree that people often delude themselves into thinking they're being rational when they aren't.

--EvanW 16:01, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I noticed the amended News story about relief funds not always going to the cause they are supposed to, and it's not without precedent. After the 2005 Christmas tsunami many fraudulent entities appeared online taking money "for immediate aid" and then vanishing with it. These pathetic thieves will eventually face the consequences of their actions, but that shouldn't keep concerned, charitable people from jumping in to help when the need is urgent.
I strongly encourage any Conservapedian who wants to help the people in Haiti to donate to the Red Cross. The integrity of that organization is solid, and they are among the first group of responders to assist in crises like this. --ChrisY 11:07, 13 January 2010 (EST)

They are a secular organization. Churches with missionary teams in place are (1) more accountable and (2) better motivated. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:09, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I agree with Ed. Conservapedians have a long, personal relationship of support for Haiti through Christian charity that really helps where it is needed most. How much money do the executives of the Red Cross make? What percentage of donations to the Red Cross actually go to victims?--Andy Schlafly 11:16, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Good question. I just headed over to the BBB website, which reports this: [8] Programs: 90% Fund Raising: 4% Administrative: 6%. CEO compensation for 2007-8 of $47,005. Yet the previous (2007) CEO was compensated $280,637? Something fishy there. DouglasA 11:30, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Within "programs" much of that can simply be salaries for a bureaucracy. Also, is Red Cross the group that planned to divert donations for 9/11 to programs like sensitivity training, which Bill O'Reilly rightly criticized?--Andy Schlafly 11:34, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I don't know, but when I worked at ABC the local fire chief (66 St. and Columbus Ave. station) told us personally that his team was kept outside the city limits of New Orleans for two days until they completed sensitivity training. I mean, how ridiculous is that?! You have men who are volunteering to save people, and you want to wait an additional 48 hours before accepting their help in a disaster, when time is of the essence?

This is the same fire station that lost several men during 9/11, and they know the risks involved with disaster relief. Their willingness and track record should be sufficient to prove their good will. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:47, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Yes, I knew I remembered that from somewhere. Twas FEMA: "Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area. The delay, some volunteers complained, meant lives were being lost in New Orleans." [9]. DouglasA 11:50, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I just wanted to point out a way for people to provide support that would steer them away from scams, and checked the Conservapedia article on the Red Cross before recommending it here (didn't see anything criticizing it so I thought it would be okay).
The important thing in this case is to provide support for the immediate, tactical needs of these poor people. Not every Christian charity which does a excellent job of long-term, ongoing assistance is going to be as capable of providing immediate relief as a group like the Red Cross, which is usually a first responder. If any of the administrators have links to Christian charities that can help get immediate relief to Haiti can you add them to the bottom of the news story? That would be a great service to those in need and show that alternatives exist to agencies people here find controversial. Thanks. --ChrisY 11:41, 13 January 2010 (EST)

At the request of an administrator I looked up alternatives that might be better than the Red Cross, and found Samaritans Purse if that helps. --ChrisY 11:54, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Just read the Dayspring Ministries info from their website. I hope their volunteers in Haiti made it through this disaster without injury. These generous people are in my prayers along with all the victims. --ChrisY 12:02, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Your comment is much appreciated and I just passed it along to Dayspring Ministries (contact info posted on main page), which I'm sure greatly appreciates it. I'm also personally arranging to send this group $200.--Andy Schlafly 12:11, 13 January 2010 (EST)

It is a myth that atheists have not founded any hospitals. Stephen Girard, an atheist, founded a hospital during the yellow fever outbreak of 1793 in Philadelphia. Could the main page be edited to reflect this reality? --MichaelJB 21:45, 13 January 2010 (EST)

You have to support your example with more than that. I can't think of a single hospital built by atheists, and doubt your own isolated claim. But I have an open mind about learning more.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I found just found this interesting article on the matter. It's by American Atheists, so it's likely susceptible to some sort of bias. Comments? http://www.atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_HospitalsJRobbe

I found the article to be a waste of time, frankly. It doesn't identify any atheistic hospitals. Atheists are less charitable than Christians. There's no denying it. The article acts like "secular" is the same as "atheist". Those terms mean very different things. "Secular" means like society at large, which has been overwhelmingly Christian in the U.S. Atheist means rejecting God, which is a narrow group of less-than-charitable individuals. They don't build hospitals.--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Your 'Atheists are less charitable than Christians' remark has nothing to do with the concept of atheists founding hospitals. You are also forgetting that government hospitals exist in countries that are officially atheist, such as Russia, and therefore are built by atheists. You may also want to consider the idea that people of all religious faiths and philosophies labor to build hospitals.

Here is the answer to your request for more information on Girard's atheism and philanthropy [10] and hospital [11]

Andrew Carnegie, better known for donating money to libraries and universities gave US$50,000 to Bellevue Hospital Medical College to found a histological laboratory, now called the Carnegie Laboratory. [12]--MichaelJB 23:06, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Girard was not an atheist. He was a Catholic Mason, which became an oxymoron because the Catholic Church excommunicated Masons. But Masons were not atheists. "The fact that he gave significant funds toward the construction and upkeep of churches of several denominations, belies any belief that he was an atheist or an agnostic. He was buried in the vault he built for Baron Henri Lallemand, his nephew, in the Holy Trinity Catholic cemetery at Sixth and Spruce."[13] So even your unusually, isolated example does not withstand scrutiny.--Andy Schlafly 14:46, 14 January 2010 (EST)

As a fellow Nevadian, MichaelJB, I have to remind you that a couple of singular examples of some atheists acting charitable isn't a mound of evidence contradicting what Mr. Schlafly logically pointed out, as the evidence is overwhelming, and quite recently researched. Surrounded as you are with mostly Godless souls, I can understand why you might take issue. Citing the backward and never recovered Russia, isn't exactly your best argument either. Whenever they can afford it, people there fly here for treatment, like the rest of the world. The evidence always shows that the preponderance of charitable donations and charitable works are undertaken by those of us who don't have a problem with Jesus Christ. Perhaps you should reflect on what your "problem" is and let Christ heal you. The truth will indeed set you free! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:48, 13 January 2010 (EST)

To be fair to MichaelJB, I think it is understandable why he should be so deluded about this, as many other online 'resources' completely ignore the huge role Christianity played in establishing institutions of care. TrondE 23:54, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly's point is still valid, even if you discover an exception or two. And it negates one of atheism's primary (and self-serving) arguments: i.e., that you don't have to be religious to be "good". It turns out that denying God's existence makes it harder to be a good person. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:02, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Hospital Corporation of America, just as many companies and organizations in the US operating hospitals, is run mostly by conservatives. Most conservatives in the US are Christians (ditto with a lot of the liberals even). Most hospitals have a hired chaplain. Christianity is everywhere, so it would be quite difficult to classify any corporation, organization, or government body responsible for establishing institutions like hospitals as "atheist;" atheism is not profitable, and it is therefore seldom, if ever incorporated in a group's business strategy. Furthermore, does this have anything to do with the content of an article (in which case I feel as if this should be brought up at the appropriate article's discussion page), or is this just TALK, TALK, TALK? DMorris 16:02, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Your rant is misplaced. Atheists have multi-million dollar organizations and spend millions, if not tens of millions, advancing their "cause". They have a huge presence on the internet and leading spokesmen (like Richard Dawkins) who obtain immense press coverage. They fund ads in England for their belief system. They don't build hospitals.--Andy Schlafly 17:10, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Exactly; there are organizations owned by atheists, but none of them operate hospitals whether for profit or not. DMorris 17:16, 14 January 2010 (EST)

"Exactly"? Atheists and their organizations spend tends of millions of dollars annually, but not towards building hospitals. Compare that to what Christian charity does.--Andy Schlafly 17:31, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I think you're failing to see my point here. No atheist organization is interested in operating hospitals or any other legitimate institution. The atheist organizatons' sole purpose is to spam the world with their anti-God propaganda. They may attempt to infiltrate certain industries such as education, but anything infected with the virus we call "atheism" instantly loses the status of "legitimate" in my humble opinion. Basically, I agree with you 100% on this. DMorris 17:53, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Well put. Sorry for misunderstanding you earlier.--Andy Schlafly 18:05, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly: Your reference is written by Girard apologists, maybe you could find another reference that is more objective. The fact that someone is buried in a Catholic cemetery doesn't mean they are Christian. I see you completely ignored my reference to Carnegie and Russia. Could it be that you didn't have any evidence to the contrary to rebut these facts that atheists found and build hospitals?

Mr. TK: I provided Mr. Schlafly with evidence that rebuts the assertion 'Atheists don't build hospitals'. I don't need to provide, as you say it, 'a mound of evidence'. I only have to provide the name of one person to falsify the alleged fact that atheists don't build hospitals. I provided two names and one country. I see you didn't bother to argue the fact that atheist Russia has built hospitals. Instead you are changing the discussion by insisting Russia is 'backward and never recovered'. That doesn't sound like a valid argument to me. The idea that I am allegedly surrounded by 'Godless souls' is irrelevant, facts are facts.

Mr./Ms. Tronde: I am not deluded.

Mr. Ed: Could you provide evidence that Atheists have a harder time being a good person? It is my understanding that the percentage of prisoners in American prisons that identify themselves as Christian is much higher than those that claim to be Atheists.

To everyone that commented: A lot of incredible and unreferenced claims are being made, any chance a few references could be provided. I fulfilled Mr. Schlafly's request, may my request be obliged? Thanks --MichaelJB 20:06, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Michael, you claimed that Girard was an atheist. I disproved your claim in multiple ways. Masons were not atheists, and Girard was a Mason. I gave you a quote disproving your claim further. You haven't supported your claim with anything substantive. Now you want to change the subject, and claim someone else (or even an entire country) was atheistic. Those claims are likely false too, but I'd like to resolve your first claim before wasting time on substitute claims.

It's an undeniable fact that atheists donate less to charity than Christians do, and that as countries become more atheistic (e.g., Canada) they give less to charity than more Christian nations (e.g., the U.S.) do. Your fight is with logic here, not us.--Andy Schlafly 21:16, 14 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB, I will again say that finding sparse evidence of one or two atheists isn't some indication of refutation, except in some narrow academic sense that has no meaning in the real world. If there are 1000 people dying of thirst, and atheists throw them 25 gallons, that isn't proof of compassion or doing much of anything, other than to enable one to claim atheists did "help".

Finally you seem, same as in a long-line of atheists and liberals before you, to mistake the nature of our project (encyclopedia) for some sort of forum to discuss the merits of conservatism or Christianity. It isn't. Merely using a wiki format does not make the thousands of sites using it the same, nor should they be. We are not here to answer for conservatism or Christianity, but to build an encyclopedia such people can use. Those who come here to argue and debate us will find their visit short, as well as those who seek to waste our time arguing picayune points such as you are trying to make, some sort of twisted "gotcha" whereby you try to make Mr. Schlafly's statement "wrong" by digging up a few instances as you did. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:43, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Let me get this straight. I register an account here at Conservapedia, create a few articles, find a factoid on the front page that is completely without merit and easily refuted, yet I am the one that is somehow causing trouble? If the assertion being made said, 'Christians found or build hospitals in the United States at a much higher rate than Atheists", I wouldn't have said a word. In my honest opinion that statement would be absolutely true, yet here you are trying to defend the indefensible. Your 'people dying of thirst' is just a red herring designed to distract others from the idea that Atheists actually do found and build hospitals. That is an undeniable fact. If you think otherwise, please present the evidence that rebuts my references and arguments.

The banner of this encyclopedia says 'Trustworthy', I am trying to contribute to this project by creating articles and pointing out things that are not trustworthy, yet you are making a veiled threat that my time here will be short. If that's the way you want to run this organization, there is no way I can stop you from doing so. Best wishes. --MichaelJB 21:11, 14 January 2010 (EST)

The fact of the matter is, atheists don't build hospitals. If one atheist, out of a million, builds one hospital somewhere, well, it's not atheism doing that, it's that one odd man out. Christians build hospitals as a matter of course. I can name a dozen hospitals that are within ten miles of me. Know what their names are? St. Judes, St. Marys, St. Lukes, St. Francis... are you seeing a pattern here? I don't know any St. Darwin's hospitals near me.

Fun fact: St. Judes in nearby Oakland was built by a convert, who said one day turned to God and said to St. Jude, "Show me the way and I will build a hospital." Difficult to imagine a christian saying, "If I find God didn't exist and the world was a vast meaningless clockwork, I'll build a children's hospital."

It appears a consensus has been reached, and you're the odd man out here MichaelJB. Further discussion of this seems like it would only serve to waste time. JacobB 21:23, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I am most definitely the odd man out. I provided several references that falsified the myth of Atheists not founding hospitals. Almost everyone that has commented on this matter has made unreferenced assertions that undermine their credibility. Go ahead and name me a million hospitals founded by Christians. I only have to name one that was founded by an Atheist in order to prove that your assertion is completely false. Carnegie was an Atheist that founded a hospital. The atheistic Soviet Union and present day Russia have founded many hospitals, that fact was even admitted by TK, yet I am the one that is wrong according to the logic of Conservapedia administrators. This just blows my mind and I agree that any further discussion will be a waste of time since I am completely at a loss to comprehend the weird logic that is on display at this encyclopedia. --MichaelJB 21:44, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Seems like a hollow argument MichaelJB. --Jpatt 21:50, 14 January 2010 (EST)

In addition to the already mentioned charity on the main page, I just wanted to note "Network for Good" where which allows you to donate to the charity of your choice in their expansive list (which contains both religious and non-religious charities) with PayPal, if you so choose. You may even donate to whatever charity anonymously (to avoid any junk mail in the future). The charity you donate to gets all the money on the 15th of each month (minus the small 4.75% that Network for Good takes out for their own operating costs), so there is still time this month to give and ensure your donation gets to the charities this month in order to help Haiti out ASAP. A direct link is here: [14] --BMcP 10:09, 14 January 2010 (EST)

And how many in the list give a portion of the donation to ACORN, or have in the past???--Andy Schlafly 17:05, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I don't know, not that is really matters. Choose the charity that you are comfortable with, I am sure they are easy the research. Or use another charity you like outside the list. I just put this here to give people on this site more options because helping the Haitians is what is important. --BMcP 19:51, 14 January 2010 (EST)

BMcP, not to pick on you, but it does matter if someone tries to donate to help victims in Haiti but in fact their charity ends up in ACORN's pockets. Liberals like to deny that deceit is a real problem that causes real harm, and it is correlated more with the liberal belief system than with conservative principles. How many conservatives do you think were running ACORN, for example?--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Well if you are concerned about a charity you (or anyone here) wish to give to, Foundation Center is an excellent resource to check on the legitimacy of a charity.[15] Then there is Charity Navigator, which will provide information on how various charities actually spend the dollar that are donated to them by breaking down the percentages.[16] --BMcP 16:05, 16 January 2010 (EST)

It's even worse than that, Andy, because Liberals are hypocritical about deceit. They say deceit is a bad thing when they criticize conservatives for being "deceitful". What they won't say, of course, is that deceit is bad in general. They don't want to be accountable to the same standards by which they judge their opponents. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)

BMcP, your posts are welcome but I feel compelled to comment on the superficiality of the responses. I expressed concern about donations intended for Haiti ending up lining the pockets of ACORN, and you respond with links that don't easily provide that information, and your comment doesn't even address it. I did learn from your second link that the CEO of the American Red Cross made $565,000 a year. Does that sound like a compelling charity to you?--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Well if the Red Cross is an unsatisfactory charity to you or anyone, then don't use them. I am not happy with their CEO's salary and I don't donate through Red Cross (but others are welcome to if that is what they want to do). It is up to the individual donor to research the charity(s) of their choice. As I am not a member of, nor do I support ACORN, I am not privy to whom all donates to them, (they seem to receive most of their income through private individuals, corporations, and the government). All that aside, all I wanted to do here is provide more charity options for those who partake of this wiki. What you'll wish to do with that information is up to all of you. --BMcP 21:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Exactly, Ed and Andy. Liberals always invite dialog and interaction whenever they think they won't be taken up on it. If they are, they initiate name calling and False Flag attacks to avoid addressing the issue of their deceit. This we have seen here, on Conservapedia, thousands of times, and in the broader world. Their deceit is "necessary", the so-called deceit of others is justification for their own. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:05, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Anyone who intends to donate to a charity since the dawn of the internet has no excuse not to look into the financials of that organization. Any IRS registered non-profit (also known as a 501(c)(3)) is required by law to file an IRS form 990 annually, which contains detailed information about that organization's income and program expenses. Guidestar.org is one of the best on-line sources for this information. Network for Good uses the Guidestar database to generate their charity list. (BTW, Network For Good is to charity donations online what Paypal is for online purchases. Their cut for any charitable donation is actually 3%, while Paypal's is 2.5%)

As was already mentioned, Foundation Center is a great resource for charity info; the American Institute for Philanthropy is another excellent resource for investigating a non-profit; their standards are more stringent than the BBB and other watchdog groups, which makes them somewhat unpopular with non-profits.

My personal choice for a Haitian relief organization is Doctors Without Borders, which already has people on the ground in Haiti, and doesn't have to waste time mobilizing. However, the American Red Cross is one of the most respected charities on the planet, and experienced with disaster relief. The assertion that any charity must, by matter of course, somehow have once donated to ACORN is not only unbearably silly, but, in the face of a disaster on the scale of this earthquake, I find it completely irrelevant and un-Christian to bring it up at all. JEMBenton 16:49, 19 January 2010 (EST)

You just called three major administrators here silly. I know you didn't mean to, but try and watch your temper. If, on a second thought, you find one of your talk page edits to be too confrontational, you're welcome to change it. JacobB 17:19, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Hello. Glad I found Conservapedia! The other pedia Wikipedia is too LEFT ! Glad your article on Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) includes mention of Fluorescent lighting which TESLA not the Frenchman Clude invented! Am involved in Energy Independence Day on July 10th (since 2005 when I founded same) To Free America from Other Foreign energy sources! July 10th is Tesla birth date too! Also, right now involved in setting up NOVA TESLA LAND a Seasteding venture of a icronation to produced energy by Ocean currents, Solar and Wind to send this energy to other nations wirelessly by the ideas of Tesla(See Wsardencylffe,Long Island Tower) Again GREAT online encyclopedia! Teslafan 12:06, 14 January 2010 (EST)

You know how when you're typing out a message, some words have a red dotted underline. You know, spell check? Might want to pay attention to that. DouglasA 19:57, 14 January 2010 (EST)

You do need to remember that 80% of computer users aren't using Firefox. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:44, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Maybe he donated it to one of Acorn's "charities"? Does SEIU have a charity? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:15, 15 January 2010 (EST)

The list from the Daily Telegraph states that it is conservatives who influence American politics, whereas the list produced here was simply top conservatives. So the Telegraph's list is really a rating of conservatism combined with influence rather than just the former. This explains some of the differences, and any others can simply be put down to differences of opinion...I see no need to go calling people 'clueless' for simply having a slightly different opinion. I bet every person on this website would produce a slightly different ranking of conservatives. DWiggins 19:54, 15 January 2010 (EST)

No, our criterion was the same. There are millions of complete conservatives who have no influence, and we did not pick any of them.

Ranking conservatives is not as subjective as you pretend. It's less subjective than, for example, ranking the best baseball players. There may be minor differences, but most baseball fans would generally agree on the ranking. The ranking of conservatives is more objective, and the Telegraph is clearly clueless as illustrated by its ranking Lieberman ahead of Scalia.--Andy Schlafly 20:12, 15 January 2010 (EST)

On anyone's list, DWiggins, a member of the Supreme Court would have to be in the top twenty, at least. The U.K. is even more celebrity obsessed than America, which I suppose accounts for them seemingly equating being in the "news", celebrity, with influence. Edwin Feulner is much more influential than Matt Drudge, for instance, and where is Justice Clarence Thomas on their list? Including Robert Gates is indeed a good indication the list is "clueless". --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:15, 15 January 2010 (EST)

I would say such a list is rather subjective, although one can generally figure out who should be on such a list. I don't think it is clueless, I must agree with you there DWiggins. I see it as another perspective. Besides liberal and conservative are broad terms and as such suffers from variation to what each means depending on whom you ask (and the era you live in).

I am honestly surprised my Congressman made #9 though. --BMcP 20:49, 15 January 2010 (EST)

A conservative made it past the voters of Wisconsin? Amazing! Well you can take solace that he is a Brit's idea of a conservative. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:05, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Well the question of influence is not straight forward either. Whereas this site's list may take it as influencing actual policy, another might take it to mean influencing people in general. DWiggins 15:34, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Does every single problem that Obama faces have to be his "Waterloo", I mean Presidents will have problem and he should be judge accordingly. But according to you his health care reform, the open Boston seat, the Economy, ect. will be his "Waterloo". You are aware there are other metaphors out there and some would better fit the situation-Mike

We're hoping that eventually some liberal public school students will at least realize what Waterloo was in history!--Andy Schlafly 18:03, 17 January 2010 (EST)

I agree with Andy. Why invent another metaphor when this one is to the point? There is no need to flash with fancy references just to impress. - dstone 18:19, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Well I went to public school, I learned about Waterloo and I also learned about other major battles that were great upsets, Stalingrad, Alexander over the Persians, John Paul Jones with Hornet, Midway and others. I know they lack the same sounding effect, but it seems as if you are stuck on only one, no offense-Mike

Mike, what would be the purpose of a wordy and needless metaphor when the one Andy used is well-known and perfectly understood? Why do liberals insist on complicating simple matters? TrondE 19:00, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Who said I was liberal? and I just think having a good vocabulary along with a vast amount of literary techniques and metaphors can only further aid in making points clear and concise. If everything is a Waterloo, it becomes moot and worthless-Mike

I added a picture to the main page to enhance the Obama-Waterloo theme of the main page. No thanks are necessary from the liberal side of the aisle. conservative 19:44, 17 January 2010 (EST)

That is sort of my point in a nut shell, if you keep on using the same logo, metaphor, over an over again. It makes it seem as if it is all you have to offer to the public in term. I just think that public deserves more than one tag line for Obama. Imagine you are at a rally of some sort and all people can say is, "__________ is Obama's Waterloo." then the next day at another rally, "________ is Obama's Waterloo." not that effective, mix it up, have some fun, get creative. And really who said I am liberal? I am actually conservative.

Liberals can often be obstinate and since repetition is the mother of learning, Conservapedia has chosen to repeat the Waterloo metaphor for the benefit of the liberal side of the aisle. conservative 20:16, 17 January 2010 (EST)

While repetition of this might teach liberals a thing or too about Obama, the Waterloo metaphor isn't right. Waterloo was the greatest defeat of Napolean, it cost him all the power he had as emperor in one swift battle. While everything mentioned is a lost battle for Obama, nothing yet has been spectacular enough to be a Waterloo for him yet. I don't think there will be one, Obama won't be able to get anything done and will lose the 2012 election. It is a misconception that he has power to lose. He needs to earn it first before he can come close to a Waterloo. At this pace he will just go bust like an NFL draft pick.

I do like the graphic though. Obama fancies himself Emperor, and Napolean is the perfect metaphor for him. --Daisport 00:47, 18 January 2010 (EST)

"American dollar crises..." Would fix if I could...AlexWD 20:10, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Websters online defines "benighted" as "existing in a state of intellectual, moral, or social darkness : unenlightened." The Compact OED defines the word as "ignorant or unenlightened." Is that the kind of language we really want to use about an entire nation--never mind the second free nation in the New World and the one that did the most the earliest to advance the decidedly enlightened idea that people shouldn't be slaves? AlexWD 21:10, 17 January 2010 (EST)

The news is the news, AlexWD. Take it up with the Associated Press. We provide links to thoughtful, interesting articles that conservatives and Christians will find thought provoking. Please stop confusing the "In the news" column with encyclopedic articles. Also remember that this is Conservapedia. We don't shy away from language others might eschew due to it not being politically correct in their eyes. Benighted is an apt and highly accurate depiction of Haiti, as anyone who has been there could attest to. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:45, 17 January 2010 (EST)

I was unaware that there was a difference between the ""News" section and the "Encyclopedia" section--my bad. AlexWD 21:56, 17 January 2010 (EST)

I hope everyone will be taking some time out, in the spirit of the man recognized by the holiday to contribute in some way to helping the less fortunate, to work on behalf of the politically oppressed, or to make their community a better place. Peace. AlexWD 00:00, 18 January 2010 (EST)

As we point out on our main page, Alex, today is more than a National Holiday. It is a National Day of Service to honor Doctor King! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:08, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I'd like to suggest this as an additional News story in keeping with this theme:

Catholic Charities USA, joined by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, will celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday by making history sponsoring the first national “Keep the Dream Alive Mass and Award.” This historical Mass will observe the 25th anniversary of the King holiday by recognizing four national figures who are keeping his dream alive.

The press release is here, and profiles of the first four recipients of this award are here. The first four people chosen for this honor are excellent role models for the values that conservatives want to promote. --ChrisY 13:04, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I think the charity you mention sent donations to ACORN. If you think the award recipients promote conservative values, can you quote something specifically? Honestly, I've never heard of them although I certainly wish them the best.--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Mr Schlafly, as someone who has donated to Catholic Charities USA I am shocked to hear that my money may have gone to ACORN. If you think this charity has given money to ACORN, can you quote something specifically? I can't find anything conclusive. Thanks, JeffT 13:39, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I wasn't aware of a connection between Catholic Charities and ACORN, but given the latter group's expertise at fundraising I wouldn't be surprised to find that any reputable organization, like Catholic Charities, could be found to have donated to ACORN in one way or another over time. To answer your request, here are some of the excepts I read about the honorees that I found admirable:

Regarding Allison Boisvert, who pulled herself up from poverty and uses that experience to teach others to do the same:

• "Allison Boisvert is a Social Justice Minister for Pax Christi Catholic Community. Prior to this position she worked for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for 23 years. She began her career as an entry level worker and retired from the agency as a Senior Director in charge of all housing and emergency services for the homeless. During her time at Catholic Charities she was privileged to build nine housing programs. Ms. Boisvert was a single mother and welfare recipient and has a deep appreciation for what it takes to rise from poverty, achieve self sufficiency and sustain in the middle class."

Regarding Dr. Chavez, who practices faith-based ministry to troubled youth as an alternative to government programs:

• "He has worked for over twenty years in a variety of ministries. As a teacher and youth minister, he worked with youth in an inner city parish setting. As a chaplain to incarcerated youth, he developed pastoral care and community after-care programs."

Regarding Father Kemp, who shows that effective "Community Organizing" can be driven by faith, as opposed to politics:

• "He lists pastoral theology, liturgy, preaching, Christian initiation, community organizing, urban development and urban politics as areas of interest."

Each of these individuals exemplifies the principles of Dr. King being derived from applied faith in God as much as, or more than, simply seeking social justice alone. --ChrisY 13:46, 18 January 2010 (EST)

No, I don't agree that "any reputable organization" took charitable receipts and sent some to ACORN. If that's how they handle donations, then I'd question whether it is "reputable".

I wish the above recipients the best, but I see little to suggest they advocate conservative values. Your citation of Father Kemp, for example, says he works on "community organizing," which is the same buzzword used by ACORN. It often means liberal politicizing, which can end up causing harm.--Andy Schlafly 13:56, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I'm fine with the article not being mentioned - it was simply a suggestion. In response to JeffT, Andy is right. I did some checking and Catholic Charities had definitely provided funding to ACORN. As the link shows, though, they at least had the common sense to sever that association. I only hope, Andy, that you regard this as a sign that Catholic Charities is a fundamentally good organization that can make mistakes like all of us, and when they realize it they do the right thing. They may be fallible, but I will defend them against accusations of being disreputable. --ChrisY 14:27, 18 January 2010 (EST)

(Last comment before moving on.) I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about "community organizing" - what makes it good or bad is what the community is being organized to do. The Tea Party Movement is the best example from 2009 of everyday people getting organized in their communities to take a stand for what they believe in, and those voices speaking together as a community of protesters made a mark. The upcoming March for Life is another example of concerned members of communities being organized for a cause that matters. Don't let the fact that some people organize for the wrong things let them take the term and make it their own. --ChrisY 14:36, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Chris, you represent your positions well. And a few years ago I probably would have said the same things you do above. But the more I apply logic in viewing the world, the more it sharpens my understanding and requires changing my views. From a logical perspective, what matters is whether the charity fired the people responsible for sending the donations to ACORN, and took steps to prevent recurrence. Has that happened?

What did happen was that outrage by donors caused the charity, to save face, to stop making future donations to ACORN. Has the charity tried to recoup what it did improperly send? Unfortunately, if there are liberals running that charity, then they are probably glad they sent the money to ACORN and would do it again if the bad publicity were not so great.--Andy Schlafly 15:39, 18 January 2010 (EST)

There isn't anything wrong at all with "community organizing", outside of the fact that the liberals beat us to it in the modern age. Of course the first community organizer was Jesus Christ! Unlike liberals, Jesus taught personal responsibility and morality. Today the Tea Party Movement is poised to deliver a body blow that liberals will have a hard time recovering from. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:11, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Great Scotts, liberal media in complete disbelief trying to explain Scott Brown's poll lead. --Jpatt 20:26, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Denial by liberals is oh-so-familiar. Then they try to force others to deny the truth also.--Andy Schlafly 22:02, 19 January 2010 (EST)

I had my best laugh in months listening to some moron on PBS explaining that Brown's election was a rejection of both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:07, 19 January 2010 (EST)

As an aside, shouldn't the phrase in the news headline state "battle lines started to be drawn." instead of "battle lines started to draw."?. Thanks --ChrisY 14:49, 20 January 2010 (EST)

A small typo--we have "sites" instead of "sights." AlexWD 09:03, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Still there--I'd fix it if I could...AlexWD 14:19, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Corrected, and thanks for pointing it out. Karajou 14:22, 21 January 2010 (EST)

As a Catholic who takes the Bible seriously, I have to be honest and say that I'm troubled by the comment at the end of this news story. The brave men and women putting their lives on the line for our sake are United States soldiers. They come from many faiths and walks of life, and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not a particular faith. To say "onward Christian soldiers when referring to the U.S. armed forces as a whole is not being respectful to the Jewish, Bhuddist, and yes, Islamic servicemen who are no less worthy of our support than the Christian ones.

In case anyone thinks I'm being anti-Christian, I'm not. I passionately believe in freedom of religion, and any soldier willing to lay his life on the line for his country can write anything he wants on his gear if it gives him comfort. At the same time, it's not proper for a U.S. government vendor to deliberately put any kind of religious or anti-religious reference on U.S. military hardware during its manufacture. The fact that this single manufacturer has done it for decades doesn't make the action proper, so while the units in the field should be left as-is, any new ones should come without the inscription. --ChrisY 16:59, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Blah, blah, blah. While you might be a Christian, ChrisY, you don't sound like a conservative to me. We were founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, and conservatives (as well as most Americans) mean to keep it that way. Yes our soldiers come from many religions, and we are proud of them all. But no, it is silly for someone to think the noted Bible passages would be offensive to anyone. As a buddy of mine (Hindu) once said: "I don't have to be a Christian to appreciate the sentiment behind the words of Jesus Christ." Your argument mirrors that of the ACLU and other left-wing groups, and it isn't so much that but a nit-pick. And if you don't think we are at war with Islam, think again. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:28, 21 January 2010 (EST)

"Blah, blah, blah"? I may not be your idea of what a conservative is, but at least I'm not dismissive of people expressing their viewpoints politely. Jesus was the greatest teacher of all time, and this nation was founded on many Christian principles, but that doesn't mean that we should refer to the members of our military force as "Christian soldiers". Please have the last word, and I'll remember to leave this page alone. --ChrisY 17:55, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Dismissive? Your argument was hardly unique, ChrisY, so the comment was pretty appropriate. As you say you are a Christian, what exactly is wrong with Christian Soldiers? Do you honestly think giving deference to Muslims will cause them to abandon their Koran, with its injunction to kill "infidels"? Have you ever met a Marine, of any religion, who complained about the Bible verse numbers? Of course not...they are far too practical to care about such a silly argument. Wiki projects can be pretty rough and tumble, so if you take offense at someone disagreeing with your ideas, they might not be the place for you. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:32, 21 January 2010 (EST)

To answer your question, there's nothing "wrong" with soldiers who are Christian, and I'm sure their faith helps them through many of the sacrifices they make in service to our country. That was never my point. My respect is not for our enemies, but for the U.S. military men and women of other faiths besides Christianity, like observant Jews for example, who might not appreciate being called Christian soldiers. --ChrisY 19:19, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Do you personally know any Jews? I don't think they are bothered in the least, and if so will get over it. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Anyway, that's not really the point and we digress. Here's the problem: the inscription of Christian passages on RIFLE scopes (and specifically not other things) gives rise to the idea that the US is firing Christian bullets. As ChrisY rightly pointed out, US soldiers are tasked with defending the constitution, and NOT Christianity specifically. I don't get the problem anyway - aren't the Lord's writings supposed to teach peace, brotherhood, and love. If you are going to inscribe Christian passages on anything (and I have no problem with that, per see) why not food packages? Why not helmets? Why not radios? Why is it always rifles and bombs? Tuffskin 20:55, 21 January 2010 (EST)

I know plenty of Jewish people (I go to Tulane). Yes, they probably wouldn't be "offended" being grouped with Christians, just annoyed for not being recognized (which is still a negative feeling). Wouldn't Christians be a tad annoyed if a group of Christians were labelled under some "other all encompassing group"? -JulietB 12:50, 22 January 2010 (EST)

It is all moot now, Trijicon has agreed to no longer imprint Bible verses on the sides of scopes and provide the military with kits that allows for the removal of the existing inscriptions from scopes.[17] I for one and glad they are taking this step, our government should not play any favorites towards any religion and remain neutral in order to better assure our first amendment right of religious freedom shall not be infringed upon. --BMcP 16:04, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Should we say something about the recent victory for free speech in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? --EvanW 11:47, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Excellent suggestion! Done.--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Indeed we should, in fact we are literally climbing over one another to do so! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 12:44, 21 January 2010 (EST)

This is a huge decision that, along with conservative victory in Massachusetts, renders Congress as a lame duck.--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Exactly. Though, might it be good to add a few more links to the news item? --EvanW 16:58, 21 January 2010 (EST)

News items are not articles, just interesting and thought-provoking news items, so multiple sources are not needed. We lead readers to water, but cannot force them to drink. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:30, 21 January 2010 (EST)

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, writing for the majority in a Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on political spending by corporations and labor unions. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 05:30, 22 January 2010 (EST)

The Economist magazine has an article on a world-wide backlash against big gov't, noting the MA election amongst other examples.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15330481 --Rcgallup 12:13, 22 January 2010 (EST)

I don't really enjoy reading liberal lies like 'The Economist', but, occasionally something truly objective like that comes along. Glad to hear people are finally waking up and realizing that the socialist/atheist agenda needs to be stopped.

DMatthew 17:04, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Here's some more liberal clap-trap from NASA thats been getting press today: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

They claim that this was the warmest decade on record, and that 2009 was the second warmest year on record. Sure doesn't seem like it! Just more garbage from the right hand of a socialist administration. There should be a forceful conservative response to these kinds of blatant lies! I have seen nothing in the media. Maybe this is somewhere that Conservapedia can step up into a leadership position. Aroth 17:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)

NASA has been hijacked by these socialist wackos. The organization that put god-fearing american men on the moon is not the same organization that falsifies data about global temperature to fearmonger support for liberals. DMatthew 17:30, 22 January 2010 (EST)

I would have thought they'd have given this sort of nonsense up after ClimateGate. Is there any reliable conservative source of temperature data? That would be really useful. Maybe it is time for a conservative space agency. Aroth 17:36, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Unfortunately, NASA is not very big on primary research. It even took an outsider to find out why the Challenger exploded; the way they were conducting the investigation, you'd think they were trying to do a cover up (see Richard Feynman). --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:39, 22 January 2010 (EST)

I'm glad to see the NASA page on Conservapedia already makes reference to their liberal bias. But simply fabricating data like this is a serious problem, and its not getting called out by the MSM at all. This is the sort of thing that could be a major scandal in the administration if it was properly called out. ClimateGate in Washington! Aroth 17:50, 22 January 2010 (EST)

While the sentiment of Father Pavone is obvious, the quote technically states the opposite because of the extra negatives. I'd suggest modifying the sentence to say "[A] public servant...", which preserves his intent without directly changing his quote. Also, congratulations to the Conservapedians who went to D.C. today. --ChrisY 19:07, 22 January 2010 (EST)

[18] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits glacier data is wrong. This climate change scam is getting out of hand. And will the man responcible for this do the honourable thing?

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Saturday dismissed talk of his resignation over the claim, but promised to tighten research procedures.

"I am not resigning from my post. There has been an error but we will ensure greater consistency in every [future] report," he told reporters in New Delhi.

What a suprise! Plus a bit of moral relativism in regards to truth and basic factual accuracy in a scientific study:

He admitted that the erroneous forecast that the glaciers could disappear by 2035may have "genuinely alarmed" some people.

But he defended the panel's overall work and said there had been a benefit, in that it created a "heightened awareness about the real threat to Himalayan glaciers".

Those pushign the climate change agenda are seeing the ground dissappear beneath them rather faster than those not-so-rapidly-melting glaciers and ice bergs... --BishoiH 18:43, 23 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think the suffix -gate is appropriate. This case is not really a scandal to the same extent as others. It is at the end of the day an incorrect theory. The scientific method relies upon theories being disproven, it's the only way science advances. He made a mistake, he didn't commit a deliberate fraud. The mistake has been recognised and now science can advance. We are in fact that one step closer to that ever elusive goal of the 'truth', ironically thanks to him having actually made that very mistake. DWiggins 19:57, 23 January 2010 (EST)

The whole affair will be Al Gore's and Obama's Waterloo, IMO, and is already being rejected by the majority of people world-wide. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:08, 23 January 2010 (EST)

Hi, just saw this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479624.stm

Is this newsworthy? It shows how there is an increasing rejection of the truth in the UK, in my view.Twitcher 07:15, 26 January 2010 (EST)

~Yawn~. Agreed...the whole place is about washed down the toilet, morally, if you ask me. As someone on TV said just last night, the government of England is in a panic because there are so many Muslims living there now, loyal to their home countries and religion before the U.K. The "Balkanization" there is similar to the rest of the EU. We need to be ever watchful here, because the liberals want that to happen in America. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 08:53, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I had emailed this to a friend who's a huge Obama supporter because I thought it was pretty funny (she was also a big Coakley fan so I couldn't resist). In response she emailed me back a link to a fact-checking site that showed this to be a case of misreporting gone viral. Apparently Obama used the teleprompter to talk to reporters at the same school, but when he spoke with the actual students, photos taken at the time showed that it was without props. We should be one of the sources getting the story right in this case.
As a side note, just how long has it been since Obama's actually done a true press conference and not just statements to a press pool - since July I think? --ChrisY 20:20, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals are trying to dampen the ridicule but pictures don't lie. Obama had the teleprompters there, and using them to speak with reporters would be just as absurd even if the liberal explanation were true.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Here's the link my friend sent me with the photos from the day. It makes sense that he'd use the prompters to talk "on script" to the press, but not need them to talk with children. I'm not a fan of Obama's but if this really was the case we should be more concerned about telling the story that is true than telling the story that makes him look bad - that's what sets us apart from people who mislead to advance an agenda. --ChrisY 21:24, 26 January 2010 (EST)

The liberal apologist site you are talking about took the "explanation" proffered by the White House as "gospel", yet decided to say the story was "untrue" based only upon what they were told by Obama's people. Hardly a disinterested source, right? And could members of the Obama apologist press be considered any more reliable? Are there not literally thousands of bona-fide reports about the liberal media ignoring unflattering Obama items? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:36, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Of course, and I'm not defending Obama's policies, just pointing out that this seems like a clear case of a story being misreported. The photo of him by the teleprompters shows no children, and the photo with the children show him sitting among them without prompters. Unless someone has a photo of him standing before the schoolchildren speaking from a prompter, the "official" explanation seems reasonable. I'm not defending Obama's politics, just pointing out that this particular story was misreported. It's not accurate to report that he used a teleprompter with the kids, and Obama using a prompter to talk to the press isn't really "news" - it's business as usual for him, as has been reported here many times already. As I said to my Blue-State friend, the story that I'm interested in is how many more months have to go by before Obama takes open questions from the press instead of reading talking points to them. --ChrisY 21:48, 26 January 2010 (EST)

The quote on the front page is from Jay Leno, and the liberal apologist ignores him and pretends that only right-wing blogs have criticized Obama for this. The photo of a pompous Obama standing in front of teleprompters in an elementary school classroom is priceless, and Leno's criticism is right on target. The teleprompter does not show who is in the audience, by the way.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 26 January 2010 (EST)

My last comment on this before moving on is that Jay Leno is an entertainer, not a news agency obligated to fact-check a story. The Associated Press and the Weekly Standard have checked and concluded that no teleprompters were used during Obama's talk with the kids; they were only used with reporters, and in a separate room. It's fine, then, to have the Conservapedia headline retain the mocking irony about bringing teleprompters to school on the same day that he's addressing kids on "taking the easy way out" - that's a double-standard worth calling out. The statement that Obama used the prompters to talk to the kids is untrue, though, and should be removed. Thanks. --ChrisY 22:24, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Chris, the front page accurately quotes Jay Leno and full describes and links to the source of that quote, the New York Times blog. The New York Times has not "removed" it. Is your liberal friend complaining to it??? Once again, it seems there are two sets of rules used by liberals: one for themselves, and a much stricter (and often unjustified) standard for conservatives. Many even defend use of a double standard.

Leno's statement, by the way, was substantially true. It was deceitful for Obama to set up teleprompters to address reporters in an elementary school, because that creates a false impression for viewers that he was speaking from his mind rather than reading from a script. And some of those viewers were misled students, whether present in that room or subjected to the deceitful video in classrooms elsewhere.--Andy Schlafly 23:00, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Aren't we talking about the "messiah" here? The most "intellectually-gifted" president of the 21st century? The one who liberals think is so smart he can stave off global warming with his mere appearance in Copenhagen? The one who's just called "The One"? If he's so intelligent and so brilliant as they say, then why on earth does he need teleprompters at all? Karajou 23:25, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Nor can he, without the degree in economics Ronald Reagan had, seem to solve the financial crisis. Amazingly inept for such a "intellectual giant" isn't he? I think the answer is really pretty simple. He tells so many lies that he, like most people, gets so confused keeping track of them, he needs the prompters to remember what he said last. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:31, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I'm a pretty hardcore conservative, and I can't tell you how hard I laughed when I heard this. I have an open mind about this, but claiming that using teleprompters is deceitful seems like a liberal double standard. Even Ronald Reagan used a teleprompter. JeffT 08:58, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think you see the difference here. How does a super-intelligent being referred to as the "messiah" and "The One" need a teleprompter? Answer: he's less intelligent than liberals would have the world believe. Karajou 12:35, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Of course Obama is not as smart as liberals think he is. I never disagreed with that. Do you agree that teleprompters are not deceitful? JeffT 12:42, 27 January 2010 (EST)

@Karajou, isn't it a problem that the news story still says that he used the teleprompter to talk to the children? --JohnnyBD 16:22, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Quiet. Users with a record of contributions can complain. Accounts created just to harass us, and not contribute, are not welcome. JacobB 16:25, 27 January 2010 (EST)

In response to JeffT, Reagan never pretended to be smarter than he was, and Reagan often spoke without teleprompters. It was deceitful for Obama to set up two teleprompters in an elementary school classroom and then pretend to be speaking from his mind, when in fact he was merely reading a carefully vetted script.--Andy Schlafly 17:04, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I'll make this my last post on the issue. There is no substance to the claim that Obama was pretending to speak from his mind. In fact, the teleprompters are clearly visible on the white house's own video. As adept as Obama is at deceit, he could have done a much better job if in fact he was trying to deceive. He was giving an address to the press. Reagan or Bush would have used a teleprompter. I'm a hardcore conservative, Mr. Schlafly. I have less tolerance for double standards by conservatives than anyone. Heck, I expect double standards from libs. I have an open mind about this but I have seen no compelling argument that he was pretending to speak from his mind. I welcome it, but I have not seen it. JeffT 17:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)

You say you are a conservative, but your last wordism says otherwise. I'm going to run a little program and see if we can't get a little objective insight into your motives. JacobB 17:35, 27 January 2010 (EST)

JeffT, Reagan rarely actually used a prompter. He liked 3x5 index cards with the order of points bulleted, even if a prompter was set up. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Right. Don't take seriously the incoherent poster who exhibits liberal style while claiming twice to be a "hardcore conservative." Obama's over-reliance on teleprompters is deceitful as he and his supporters pretend that he is smarter than he is. Apparently Obama can't give a simple statement in an elementary school without using two teleprompters. Why doesn't the real author of Obama's statement simply post the script online and avoid the cost and deceit of the charade?--Andy Schlafly 18:09, 27 January 2010 (EST)

An analysis of JeffT's contributions reveals a liberal style of 2.87 - very high! I don't think you're the kind of contributor we're looking for. JacobB 19:09, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That's an amazing quantification, Jacob! Is the 2.87 the result of running a computer program on his edits? What is the scale for that standard (e.g., what numbers would apply to conservative style)? This deserves an entry of its own, or perhaps there is already an entry when Mark did original work on this.--Andy Schlafly 19:15, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Yes, this is from the program Mark developed. The essay is at Essay:Quantifying Liberal Style, but the source code for the program is being kept hidden from the general public so vandals won't know how to beat it. You, of course, have been sent the source code, as has TK, but I'd be happy to send it again! JacobB 19:22, 27 January 2010 (EST)

It is an essential part of the liberal narrative to pretend that liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid. This gives them an excuse for listening only to other liberals and dismissing anything a conservative might say. My liberal friends in New York City are proud to say that they never read the Post.

By keeping up this pretense, liberals have an excuse to ignore all evidence which contradicts their ideas and theories: "Oh, that source is conservative. What could they possible know?" But it's easy for an objective person to see through this deception.

Anyone who actually cares about the truth will constantly and diligently compare what they think with what is actually going on in the real world. In case of conflict, the biased person (i.e., most liberals) will say, "Who ya gonna believe, your lying eyes or me?" People who love wisdom will change their opinions to conform to reality. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

A German family granted asylum in U.S. so they can home-school their children. I hope they do well here. --ChrisY 15:20, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Just what do you mean, "for a change?" Since you've come here you've been cited for 90/10 once, then continued to engage in endless talk after that, banned, and now you are adding incredible rudeness and deprecation of the site? Come back when you're a little more willing to help and not insult. JacobB 17:07, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That is a great news story, though. JacobB 17:08, 27 January 2010 (EST)

As I had clarified to Jacob via email, my comment was meant to say that with all the negative things going on in the world and with the current U.S. leadership, it was good, for a change, to stumble on a refreshingly positive story we can be proud of. My apologies if anyone else took it to mean something different. --ChrisY 17:57, 27 January 2010 (EST)

[19]

Would the Associated Press EVER have the chutzpah to do the reverse? "Liberal Ties Bind Four Suspects?"

Unfortunately, I think Mr. O'Keefe and his associates are in for a very bad time--there can be no doubt that the administration will attempt to crucify him after the humiliating way he exposed the corruption in the President's pet organization, ACORN. Look for what was likely the kind of investigative journalism that goes on every day to be spun into accusations of something bordering on terrorism. --Benp 17:26, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That's an excellent point, Ben. The liberal media would never have an article saying "Liberal ties bind four suspects." They'll stop at nothing in their attempt to portray O'Keefe as a wingnut. Maybe they hope if he's convicted, ACORN will get its funding back? JacobB 17:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Far from doing what the liberal press has said, it seems the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a "busy signal" day and night. O'Keefe & Company suspected that the public lines were being deliberately blocked while the staff used private lines to conduct its political business. If so, Senator Landrieu was betraying her public trust and deserved to be exposed. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:58, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That would certainly be consistent with the sort of investigative journalism O'Keefe has done in the past, TK. Sadly, I suspect that his actions will be spun in the worst possible light--the administration will do their best to make an example of him, both as a means of shifting focus away from answering questions about Landrieu's suspicious activities and as revenge for his previous successes. Standard operating procedure for this administration: when it's possible that one of your allies is guilty of wrongdoing, point the finger at somebody else. --Benp 18:17, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I am following this story. I fear in spite of good intentions, and yeoman work in exposing ACORNS illegal activities in the past, O'Keefe may have fallen into the trap liberals often do, thinking that the end justifies the means. :-( I am praying he didn't, but if he did, we will add that to the news as well. Too early to tell right now. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:55, 27 January 2010 (EST)

New Jobless Claims Drop Less Than Expected? Who expected that? The Keynesian economists who failed to predict the recession? :) conservative 22:20, 28 January 2010 (EST)

While digging through my usual headlines, I found this story in Discover. Though the GMA makes no claim to his results [the story provides a link to another Discover article], they say that he acted unethically, gave spinal taps without training [which could have paralyzed the kids], went against the children's clinical interest and gave no real ethcal backing for his tests. A serious charge against one of the modern figures of the anti-vaccine movement -- CodyH 01:02, 29 January 2010 (EST)

"They say", "they said" are liberal inventions, CodyH. Charges are only really serious if there is proof, otherwise one can say anything, and on the Internet they do, as well as politics. Making this post is the equivalent of saying "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Problem is, there isn't always fire, see? It is interesting until something substantial in the way of proof is offered, then it might become serious. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:30, 29 January 2010 (EST)

1. ↑ Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.