User talk:ChrisGT90

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User talk:ChrisGT90 as edited by ChrisGT90 (Talk | contribs) at 04:22, August 3, 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Why is it..

..that you appear to be a clone of my outlooks? I sure do hope you aren't following the their footsteps. ~ JonG ~ 21:01, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

You mean our mutual interest in minor grammar/formatting fixes? Sometimes I don't know what information is best to include in an article, or how to say it, or where it should be, but I can recognize an incorrect sentence when I see one. I don't plan on just doing that though; I started an article on Pascal's triangle. I haven't seen your page before. Maybe we just have a similar understanding of what we do well. ChrisGT90 21:51, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

You can edit liberal myths directly now. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 12:53, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Thank you. ChrisGT90 12:58, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Edits

Do not, under any circumstances, undo the edits of the FOUNDER AND OWNER OF THE SITE! JacobBShout out! 21:01, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Andy is a smart man, but no human is perfect. God is infallible, we are not. Only by recognizing our errors can we reach the truth. ChrisGT90 13:13, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
I agree, ChrisGT90, with your appraisal of the state of man. If you read our Conservapedia Guidelines, however, you will see that is an instruction, not an observation on the part of Jacob. If you have issues with Mr. Schlafly's edits, or those of any Administrator, take it up on the discussion page before reverting. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:34, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Tomorrow song

Conservatives prefer forward-looking approaches. What do you think it is about the lyrics to the song that you deleted that isn't conservative?--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

It's a viewpoint that could apply to absolutely anybody: conservatives, liberals, anarchists, fascists, or anyone else. Hitler could have used the song (if it had been around the time) -- "Life may stink now, but we'll get rid of all these Jews and then have a glorious future." Conservatives do look forward, but so does everyone. It does not express a value that is uniquely conservative.
Also, the band reunited to perform the song live for Bill Clinton's inaugural ball. If it were truly a conservative song, the band wouldn't have performed it to celebrate a Democrat's victory. ChrisGT90 13:11, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
I disagree that all ideologies view and emphasize the future the same way. Communists, for example, are notorious for grinding everything to a halt and demanding full worship of their current and prior leaders. The New Testament is the opposite: it focuses heavily on the future, an eternal one at that.
That said, I'm open to a more detailed study of the lyrics ... provided we can first agree that different ideologies do prioritize and emphasize the future differently.--Andy Schlafly 17:27, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
I think we'll have to disagree on this one. I'm sure that every political party has platformed on the future. Even in campaigning candidates say "If I'm elected..." which is about the future, albeit very near. While Communists may encourage worship of the present leader, much of their promises to the people are about the way things will be in the future.
In our society, every bit of criticism or praise is focused on our current leaders (kind of like those Communists), but their promises are about things that will come to fruition someday. If anything, it seems liberals would fit the song's ideas better than conservatives: conservatives enact policies that make sense now, while liberals try to preempt nonexistent threats like global warming with policies that aren't necessary immediately, but supposedly are necessary to "ensure our future," or some made up excuse like that.
Here are the lyrics from the song: [[1]]. It seems to be about an incident in a relationship. While I see how this song could be applied to conservative values, I don't see anything that prevents it being applied just as well to most value systems. ChrisGT90 22:42, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
Your link is broken. Perhaps the parenthesis is out of place? In response to your comments, communist China looks very much to the past, and places great emphasis on it.
I don't see how all ideologies could possibly emphasize the future versus the past in exactly the same way. To take just one conservative insight, the Laffer Curve, it points out how future behavior changes to increase government revenue when taxes are cuts. Many liberals are unable to grasp this given their mindset that places less emphasis on future behavior.--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
There was an extra parenthesis at the end. The link is fixed now. As far as the future is concerned, it seems that parties emphasize whatever aspect of the future they need to in order to sway the public to their side. Conservatives may point out the Laffer Curve as it relates to the future, while liberals may place emphasis on something else in the future. (They are very much concerned about the future when it comes to the environment.) Whether the way they look at the future is right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact is that both groups look to the future in the ways that they believe are best.
In regards to Communist China looking to the past, do you not draw great insight from the Bible? I personally hold the founding fathers in very high esteem, they are figures from the past as well. Looking into the past offers great insights, and shouldn't be ignored. Whether they praise the past or simply examine it depends on who's spinning the story.
Every party/affiliation/faith/value system will look into the past. You can spin it any way want, but it's something all of them do. They may look at different aspects of the past, but all of them value the past. Every party/affiliation/faith/value system also seeks to improve the future. That, too, is something you can spin any way you want to. Like they do with the past, they will look at different aspects of the future, and you can devalue certain aspects until you decide that a particular groups view of the future is not worthwhile, but that doesn't change the fact that they are looking to the future. They may not look to the future in the right way, but they're still looking there. Every political organization ostensibly exists to change the future -- nobody tries to improve people's lives by changing the past. Whether that's what they actually do or not is not another story, but every system can still claim that "looking to the future" is one of their core values.
As for the song, just leave it in the list. I don't care anymore. ChrisGT90 00:22, 3 August 2010 (EDT)