User talk:Diebot/Template:Main

Archive Index

Obama tried to stop the Osama raid
Has anyone seen this:. Apparently Barack Hussein Obama tried to abort the mission that killed Osama, but was overruled. Is this grounds for impeachment? It is tantamount to protecting the world's most wanted terrorist, and implies collusion in the deaths of over 3000 Americans. Thank God our soldiers did what they had to do despite Obama's efforts to stop them and side with Muslim terrorists. AngusT 16:53, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Maybe it's a coup against the Commander-in-Chief. Rob Smith 17:05, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * "SkyNet became self-aware." --Jpatt 17:41, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * So, given the discussions above demanding absolute transparency people are now taking the word of an obscure 'news' site printing a 'communication' from a completely unnamed 'source' which completely contradicts all available evidence? WilliamB1 18:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes. Are you in any way surprised? RobCorti 18:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Oh what do you know about anything RobCorti? You are just spoon-fed media soundbites and nod your head in agreement. WilliamB1, open your mind. The source is only obscure on the left. Unless you have been asleep for three years, how can you believe a thing Democrats proclaim? Obama can't be trusted on the small things, how do you trust him on important matters? Also, you would recognize a pattern of indecisiveness from POTUS aka Ditherer-n-chief. Fits in perfect with the story. There are so many stories out there I don't know what to believe and that's by design, thanks to a complicit media. --Jpatt 20:21, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * It truly is astonishing how paranoid you all are. RobCorti 21:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Truly, you have an astounding intellect, RobCorsi, to be able to diagnose a psychological disorder on all of us, all without a degree in the science. Astounding!  Karajou 22:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * It is true. I do not have a degree in 'the science'.  I've also apparently being spelling my name wrong all this time.  RobCorti 23:03, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * ABC News set the permanent record straight on "what everybody was wondering" in the first five minutes of its broadcast; Hillary did not hold her hand to her mouth in shock, she was suffering from spring allergies. At least we have those facts straight. Rob Smith 21:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Thank God for ABC News. Forgive RobC, he is from a higher species of knowledge. No need to question anything, move along like zombies. --Jpatt 21:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Perhaps we should all bow down in homage to the occasional representative of Smart-Guys R Us, who spend a few minutes of their time on a daily basis to convince us about learning proper wiki-editing the old-fashioned liberal way. Golly, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves if it weren't for them...we'd probably be just a sorry bunch of lemmings near a cliff!  Karajou 21:51, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * You DO know that lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs, right? So no, you wouldn't do that. RobCorti 22:03, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Of course I wouldn't jump off a cliff. I'm not a liberal.  Karajou 22:29, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * AngusT, have you seen this one which makes perfect sense. Since Bush and the neocons, as everyone knows, blew up the World Trade Center with thier al Qaeda stooges, and Obama has reestablished the relationship (which goes back to the Soviet-Afghan War) in Libya, it makes sense to off bin Laden. He knew too much.  Rob Smith 22:01, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I read that the WH story has changed 27 different times in 3 days about what happened to bin Laden --Jpatt 00:13, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't consider Iran to be a reliable source, but none of this addresses the fact that Obama tried to abort the mission (he just loves abortion, doesn't he) that killed bin Laden. This is protecting a terrorist and treason. Impeachment seems not to be enough, can he be brought up on treason charges? AngusT 13:37, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Let's see, can he be "brought up on treason charges" for a mission he ordered which succeeded without a hitch, purely on the vaguely-worded statement of an unnamed insider that he tried to stop it? Let me answer your question with another question, AngusT, can I have you put behind bars for that murder you didn't commit yesterday, because someone accused you of wanting to do it? JDWpianist 16:38, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * AngusT, I don't think Obama tried to stop the raid at all. Take that story with a grain of salt, just like the other two or three thousand stories that appeared out of nowhere by people who never had access to any pertinent info; that's a lot of conspiracy tales about one man and one event in less than 24 hours...maybe a new world record.  Here's story number three thousand and one: Bin Laden slipped on a banana peel, banging his head open on a toilet pipe.  SEALS never got him.  No proof, but maybe it's true 'cause I said so!  Karajou 17:08, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Wisconsin item on MPR
There are numerous things wrong with your summary of the article and the way it is portrayed. For one, the cream puff has not been named the official state dessert; it has only been introduced to the legislature by a Republican state legislator, and even then at the innocent suggestion of a 4th grade class. Also, your summary says that liebrals voted for the cream puff to be the official state dessert; in addition to the vote having not occurred yet, the state legislature in WI is controlled by Republicans, and the bill would have to be signed by Republican governor Scott Walker. Did you even read the article, or are you just slamming liberals with no regard to both reading comprehension and the truth? I' going to assume that you didn't read it. Your summary is all assumption, lies, and innuendo. TedCarter75 00:48, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I reworded it slightly to address your comments. More generally, I encourage you to lighten up a bit.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Wikipedia More Accurate For Political Information Than In The Past
Thanks for linking to the intersting article on the research of Brigham Young University's Adam Brown. It's a pity that the article mislabeled Conservapedians. But a more interesting question is: is there a similar analysis for Conservapedia? I tried to repeat Brown's test for Conservapedia on a much smaller basis using only the last governatorial elections, but sadly even the articles on current state govenors are lacking in depth - and a couple of govenors don't have a personal article at all. AugustO 09:50, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Lost in translation
Since I very much doubt the terrorist organisation originally released a statement in English, I'm guessing that what the media is reporting is a translation, which likely explains the use of the term God rather than Allah. As such, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement on this basis alone. WilliamB1 13:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * That significant problem aside, the current wording doesn't make sense anyway: "but the repeated references to "God" rather than "Allah" such a lack of authenticity."??? WilliamB1 13:15, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I concur, isn't Allah simply their word for God? JacobSmith 13:27, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Christian Arabs call God Allah. It's no different from Spanish-speakers calling God Dios. DouglasL 13:44, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * No, "Allah" is not the same as "God" - that's why they are two very different words. The phrase "God bless" also suggests a lack of authenticity.  But good catch on the typo, which I've fixed.--Andy Schlafly 14:02, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * The original Arabic communication refers to "Usama bin ladin rahamat Allahi" ... Or "Osama bin Ladin, mercy of God/Allah", depending on how you insist that "Allah" be translated. --RahamatAllahi 21:21, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Even if you personally disagree with the idea that Allah translates as God, it nonetheless remains the case that some people believe it does; and as the information noted by the previous post indicates, this is the situation here. As such there is no reason to assume that the statement is not authentic based on this issue. WilliamB1 22:24, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * "God" is not a name as such, but an office or title. DevonJ 22:56, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Devon, are you serious? I hope Heaven isn't run by a bureaucracy!


 * As to the retranslation of the surprisingly quick statement, the phrasing still seems unusual to me (and thus not necessarily authentic), but perhaps more discussion here can analyze it further.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * In the Decalogue God says, "I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me." If the word "god" is not an hierarchical term then perhaps God is an idiot? DevonJ 12:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't know for sure if you speak Arabic or not, but the phrase "Rahmat allah" (minor "correction" to what I noted above) is actually relatively common. "As-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmat allah" (peace be with you, and mercy of god) is a longer form of the common Muslim greeting. As well, the version "Rahmatullah" (spelled the same in Arabic script) is a well recognized name.
 * The original Arabic sounds perfectly natural, but translating it literally without making it sound stilted can be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The point to take away though is that the original Arabic does use the Arabic word "Allah", complete with the special ligature. This is simply the case of a translator deciding to render "Allah" as "God". A choice that is linguistically sound (as "allah" simply means "god"), but unusual to people who are accustomed to Muslim texts rendering "Allah" as "Allah" rather than "God". Poor word choice of the translator should not however be construed as reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the original statement. --RahamatAllahi 09:22, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Allah means God? There is a sound theological case to be made Allah means Satan. So let's stop with the generalities. Rob Smith 10:24, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I, for one, would love to see you make that case with reference to Arab-language scholarship, Rob. LloydR 10:56, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Hmmm, we're talking about the English language. And I'm not certain in Islam, where there's no separation of church and state, there's historically toleration of dissenting views. Let's call it NPOV. As to Christian scholarship, no one argues Jehovah God amended his statement, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9). The Koran, Islam, and consensus of Arab scholars all deny the resurrection and divinity of Christ. So clearly, Allah is not the same God of the Judeo-Christian bible. Rob Smith 14:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * To be clear, I did not say that "Allah" means "God", I said that "allah" means "god". In that, when talking in Arabic about Thor, and Zeus one uses the word "allah". So, in the same way that "ein Gott" in German means "a god", "un dios" in Spanish means "a god", and "kami" in Japanese means "a god", the word "allah" in Arabic means "a god". This should not be meant to imply that the Muslim god is the same as the Christian god. Rather, it is a simply translation of the generic terms. In order to distinguish between "allah" (generic) and "Allah" (Muslim god), the former uses contemporary spelling rules (إله, a-ll-ah), while the later uses a special ligature that uses more archaic spelling rules (ﷲ), or an unusual version of contemporary spelling rules (الله‎, a-l-l-ah). This is much the same way as European languages use capitalization to distinguish between a generic "god" and the Christian "God". --RahamatAllahi 14:16, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes that would fit with 2 Corinthians 4:4, ''In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them  Rob Smith 14:31, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * As the Quran says to Christians: "Our Allah and your Allah is one". Islam says that Muslims pray to the same God as Christians. Maybe you can claim that God isn't speaking to them, but it doesn't change the plain fact that they're trying to talk to the same God we are. BradB 14:38, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes I understand the etymology of the Semitic word, "Elohim (sometimes El or Elah), English form "God," the first of the three primary names of Deity, is a uni-plural noun formed from El=strength, or the strong one, and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness", however I believe we are discussing doctrinal differences.  Rob Smith 14:48, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * "Allah" is an English term distinct from "God" or "god". There is nothing to translate term "Allah" to in English; it is English.--Andy Schlafly 14:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * "Allah" is an English transliteration of "الله‎". There is nothing to translate the term "Allah" to English because it is already an English transliteration. If you want to translate (not transliterate) "الله‎" to English, it translates to "God". This is doctrinally and etymologically supported, as noted above. BradB 15:05, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

This has become a theological/semantic debate and while interesting, it does nothing to change my original point. Even if you may disagree with how the media has translated the term, as the original statement shows, the term Allah was used. Given the apparent absence of this term was the grounds for questioning the statement's authenticity, it is not longer reasonable to do so on this basis. WilliamB1 15:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Ok, so who changed Allah to God, and where was it published? Was it a government counterterrorism source reprinted in the media, or a media source itself making the alteration? Rob Smith 15:21, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Someone most likely working for a media organization translated the original Arabic into English so that English speakers would be able to understand it, and that personal translated "ﷲ" as "God". The validity of that translation is linguistically valid, but theologically debated. (Muslims widely insist it is the same god, while many Christians assert that it is a different god.) It is apparent however that the translation was done without regard to any theological arguments, and as such is, in my opinion, a poor translation. Context (theological or otherwise) is absolutely important in any proper translation. --RahamatAllahi 22:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * So the assertion is made a media translator is feeding us bulldung rather than the U.S. government. That answers my question. Rob Smith 00:13, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

# of people who think obama was born abroad
I would like to point out a problem in the mainpage text about the % of people who believe that obama is not a natural born citizen, in that the link says that it was around a quarter last year, and is now at around 10%. Although reading it. it seems rather confusing, stating 77% believe he is a NBS, and yet 10% do not, with a missing 12%. For the actual text "the percentage of those who say Mr. Obama was likely born abroad has fallen from 20 percent in a Post-ABC poll one year ago to 10 percent in the new poll; only one percent of respondents say they have "solid evidence" to support that belief." IF i have mistaken something please let me know ^_^--SeanS 20:42, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * The article implies a massive jump in the number of people who think Obama was born in the U.S., but the poll numbers don't really support the theme of the article. Note how the article implies at the end that people who doubt Obama was born in the U.S. are wrong!  Is that unbiased reporting??  Are pollsters supposed to take a position that an answer is wrong??--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Well, true; it is kind of biased. However, the point of this is that the specific poll the article talks about does show a drop in #, so the mainpage is still inaccurate for the given source. .--SeanS 23:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


 * What do you think is inaccurate about the main page headline? We often cite articles for their facts, not for their biased opinions.  After removing the bias, the facts are that nearly 25% of Americans still have doubts about whether Obama was born here.--Andy Schlafly 00:01, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * In 2002, a poll showed that nearly 20% of Americans still had doubts about whether or not Elvis is dead. Neither of our figures speak to the truth of the matter nor persuade in the least. BradB 13:57, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * The statistic suggests a lack of credibility.--Andy Schlafly 15:34, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Flooding
Every single news article on the floods that I have seen uses the term 'flood' or some derivative of it. Even the cited article uses it in the headline. I think a story on the main page should focus on the actual issue, which is the floods themselves, not a concocted story with no basis in fact. WilliamB1 15:16, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * No, the article avoids using the term "flood" ... and not even your headline here uses it!--Andy Schlafly 15:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Forgive me, but irony often doesn't come across well in written communication. You are joking aren't you? (I ask in all seriousness). Or are you actually suggesting that using the literally and scientifically correct term 'flooding', which is derived from 'flood' is part of some plot by the media? WilliamB1 15:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm not joking, and I'm not suggesting a "plot". There is an undeniable secularization of language.  Or do you deny that?--Andy Schlafly 20:17, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Are you suggesting that 'flooding' is a secularization of 'flood'? I must say, I enjoyed the secularization of language essay, but I think the link here is a bit strained. EricAlstrom 20:33, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I welcome other attempts to explain it. Atheistic newspapers do not prefer "storming" to "storm", but they do prefer "flooding" or "flood-waters" to "flood".  I bet newspapers also prefer "Christian" to "Christ".--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Shall I google that for you, Andy? Seriously though, it's an interesting question, which I wasn't sure about before googling it myself. The difference between "flood" and "flooding" is grammatical. A flood is a self-contained event that happened in the past, because it's the noun form. "Flooding" is the active verb turned into a noun, which is typically used while the event is still happening, because it's not sure what the extent of the flooding will be before the flood is finished. For comparison, consider "lies" versus "lying." JDWpianist 11:14, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Please excuse my incredulity, but meteorology aside for a moment, I cannot quite get my head around the notion that the word 'Christian' is somehow secularized. It is by its very definition not secularized; it is the very antithesis of the notion of secularisation. WilliamB1 10:26, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Actually thats true. christian is the term for people who follow jesus, and so is kind of not secular. what term would you prefer for those who adhere, truthfully or not, to the teachings of christ? If we read what you wrote wrong, and thatwasnt what your getting at, let us know :)--SeanS 10:36, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Maybe we should compare the source story to the Genesis 6-9 narrative (KJV - my personal favorite and what I have within arms reach). I found the following - the news story has two instances of "flood" and six of "flooding/flooded/floodwaters". Gen 6-9 in KJV has two instances of "flood" and six of "flooding/flooded/floodwaters". Are you suggesting, then, that the KJV of the Bible is as secularized as the MSM? EricAlstrom 11:47, 8 May 2011 (EDT)


 * (Sorry for the two posts, I had an additional thought that just came to me :) When I was growing up, my church was particular to using the phrase "Followers of Christ" instead of Christian, which I actually prefer, even now. So, if something along those lines was what Mr. Schlafly was saying, I happen to agree. EricAlstrom 11:51, 8 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Right. I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian".  Most church names (e.g., "Church of Christ") don't use that term either.  It's a diluted term preferred more by atheists.


 * Ditto for the secularization of the term "flood", which is obviously reminiscent of the Great Flood. "Flood-waters" is a particularly silly secularization - does anyone think it might be anything other than water in natural disasters?


 * As to the KJV, note that the initial references are to "flood" in Genesis_1-8_(Translated).--Andy Schlafly 13:01, 8 May 2011 (EDT)


 * So, two things. Firstly I was surprised to learn that the term 'Christian' is apparently preferred by atheists when the logic of the secularization theory would suggest that they'd omit any reference to Christ whatsoever. Secondly, based upon that revelation, I was surprised to find that this website is apparently filled with atheist material. At this very moment I count 6 uses of 'Christian' and 1 of 'Christians' on the main page. Will all of these be changed to 'believers in Christ'? WilliamB1 13:27, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I know plenty of liberal churchs that use christ or some form of that, and my church (a fundamentalist bible church) also calls us christians., infact, we use it every single sermon. so, christian isnt ALWAYS secularization. --SeanS 13:59, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Christian vs. Christ
AugustO 14:51, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Christian and Christ are not interchangable terms. A Christian is a follower of Christ: he belongs to Christ, he isn't Christ.
 * Modern translations of the Bible often use the term Christian where you find in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ), in the Lord (ἐν κυρίῳ), believer (πιστός), etc. in the original Greek version. The CBP is no exception to this rule: see  Galatian 1:22, 1 John 4:1
 * The first mentioning of the word Christian was in the Bible: According to Acts 11:25, the term Christian (Χριστιανός) was used in Antioch for the followers of Christ (Χριστός). A Χριστιανός belongs to Χριστός in a similar way as a ROMANUS belongs to ROMA.
 * The term was meant to be deragatory, but the apostle Peter advised his brothers not to be ashamed (1 Peter 4:16): εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ.
 * I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian". That's wrong: the first Christians may have had problems with this term, but the early Christians hadn't - at least not after Ignatius of Antioch made the term popular. Keep in mind that early Christendom' is generally seen a the time before the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
 * So, before there even existed a sizeable number of atheists, the term was in common use!


 * "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? " (James 2:7)
 * "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. " (Acts 26:28)
 * "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. " (1 Peter 4:16) Daniel1212 22:28, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

...and with that I think the notion that 'Christian' is somehow a secularized version of 'Christ' has been disproved. WilliamB1 16:41, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Thor
I'm slightly confused as to how Thor is a conservative movie. Can someplease explain please.--SeanS 19:40, 7 May 2011 (EDT) Good question. Natalie Portman is in it, she's no conservative. Ronsin1976


 * It's a tale of good versus evil, based on a comic book hero. And like most comic book stories, it is far more conservative than liberal.  Spiderman was an other example of a conservative movie based on a comic book hero.--Andy Schlafly 20:26, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I fail to see how the actors matter, and Ahh, i see now. thanks for explaining ^_^--SeanS 20:51, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism
The Biblical Archaeological Review, not a conservative Christian magazine, recently published an article by Yosef Garfinkel entitled, “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism” which i think some would find edifying, as far as it goes. Biblical minimalism,” as it is known, has gone through a number of permutations in the recent past. Its modern career began about 30 years ago, when BAR was still a youngster. Since then it has been part of the ongoing debate regarding the extent to which historical data are embedded in the Hebrew Bible." In the mid-1980s the principal argument involved the dating of the final writing of the text of the Hebrew Bible. The minimalist school claimed then that it had been written only in the Hellenistic period, nearly 700 years after the time of David and Solomon, and that the Biblical descriptions were therefore purely literary.... THE FIRST NAILS IN THE COFFIN. The discovery of the fragmentary Tel Dan stela (lower left) in 1993 provided the first extrabiblical evidence for the existence of King David. The Aramean king who erected the stela in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. claims to have defeated the “king of Israel” and the king of bytdwd, or the “House of David...”

Related: http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm Daniel1212 20:09, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Trump Ratings
I don't draw the liberal/conservative connection on Trump's ratings. In fact, I'm not surprised at all that the recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice went down in the ratings. I don't know why this season (and previous ones) have had episodes lasting two hours, when there's about 30 minutes of entertainment in each one. But three hours for any show is boooooring. I've watched almost every episode of the Apprentice, and I felt like I should have won $20,000 to donate to the charity of my choice for winning the challenge of sitting through the three hours of this week's episode. And since it's happened to him before, you think he would learn from his mistakes. Just my $0.02. --MarkN85 16:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

The Presbyterians are becoming Unitarians
Have you seen this? There is no denying that this is bad news, but the silver lining is that it will allow church's that adhere more faithfully to the Holy Book to make converts. JimmyRa 00:33, 11 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Even the article in the liberal New York Times admits that:

The Presbyterian News Service estimates that approximately 100 congregations have left the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the last five years. Several were large congregations, which could help explain why the vote in some presbyteries switched from 2009.
 * Yes, the news isn’t all black. Though, I do find it disturbing how the homosexual agenda has infiltrated some of the more liberal “churches”.  I think the remedy is the study of scripture and prayer.  But some kind of campaign is also needed to save those in denominations that have strayed. JimmyRa 11:31, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * The PCUSA and other liberal churches might as well become Unitarian. If you don't believe in the entire Bible, there's really no point in believing in any of it. DavidE 11:34, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Parrots & Starfish
I noticed the link on the front page regarding parrots talks about how parrots actually understand what they are saying and not just repeating things they have heard, but the page for parrot says otherwise. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if this page just needs an update, but I really don't know anything about parrots and feel like I'll put something incorrect if I were to edit it myself.

And on an unrelated note I wanted to mention that the article on starfish states the evolutionist's point of view as if it were fact ("Fossil starfish resembling today’s have been found dating back 450 million years.")and doesn't give any creationist's answer. I was wondering why this could be, and if anyone could fix it. I honestly don't know a thing about starfish and wouldn't know what to write there. (Sorry for mentioning this here but that article doesn't have a talk page.)
 * Starfish content fixed. Evobabble removed. conservative

StephennE 02:05, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * The parrot page does need an upgrade and additional content. I did see the video with the African gray parrot being able to understand simple language, but that bird could be an exception rather than the rule.  As to starfish, I don't know that much about them, but I do know one is best friend to a sponge on TV :P  Karajou 02:49, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * TK and Mr. Schlafly both told me this is not a young earth creationist website but "Conservative" is an admin who gets to remove "evobabble" when a lot of Catholics like me accept an old earth. Both perspectives on age should be presented because there is no consensus among Christians which is correct. Nate 12:09, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I like how fast this was responded to... I got a response a few hours after I posted this. :) @Karajou I think that just proves, rather, that any parrot of that species can be taught to understand human language to an extent. Many other parrot owners have said they think their bird understands some language based on the context they use words in. Nonetheless it is worth mentioning in the parrot article. ;)@Nate Yeah I don't see any reason not to give both points of view, but that article had only one, and the one that is contradictory to the general population of Conservapedia's viewers no less. It's just that Christians generally don't believe in old earth/evolution because the Bible doesn't specifically support the view and that you have to stretch the meaning of the Bible to get an old earth context out of it. Read literally it points to a young earth. But whatever, I'm getting off-topic. StephennE 20:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I did say that the parrot talking and understanding "could be" the exception here, so I could be very wrong. Now, if we could train them to make coffee, then a lot of problems would be solved! Karajou 20:54, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Haha yes, I would pay just to see a parrot make coffee, no less own one that does! StephennE 20:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 * First, I don't accept that it actually is contrary to the general population of Conservapedia viewers. Second, it doesn't matter unless that speculation has recently overridden the editorial policy TK and Mr. Schlafly told me. This is not a YEC website so it's not fair that "Conservative" gets to go around removing "evobabble" when regular editors will get blocked immediately for changing his edits. I also don't accept your story about literalism. There's more than one way to do it. As to Genesis, definitely not all Christians believe in a young earth or reject an old earth and the theory of evolution. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is consonant with Catholic Church doctrine so non-YEC Catholics (the majority by far) are not "stretching" anything. I take it you've never heard of the Day-Age Theory or Framework Theory if you think YEC is the only way to read Genesis. These are exegetical methods for interpreting the creation story; they do not conclude that God created the earth and its wonders in 6 literal 24 hour days 6000 years ago but that the story is allegorical. The Vatican endorses teaching and learning about the theory of evolution as well as the possibility that it explains the diversity of life. The Vatican has never in recent history endorsed the YEC method of reading Genesis. Therefore you will find that a lot of Christian Conservatives in this country and elsewhere don't accept a young earth. They're just not Calvinist YECs like this site seems to sometimes portray as the only Christians in this country. Nate 08:04, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Re: evobabble - Setting aside the issue of the accuracy of evobabble and the often transient nature of evobabble, the material was not footnoted and was not presented in a way that was appropriate with a counterbalance YEC remark. Due to other matters I wanted to attend to off wiki, I chose the most expedient way as it seemed the problem was not being fixed by others. conservative 10:52, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Since you chimed in here that you were removing it you could have simply put a "fact" tag on it like we do at wikipedia. I'd document the statement if I could find it in the page history but it doesn't seem to be there. Where did it go? Nate 13:56, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I never said there is only one way to interpret the Bible and that only my way is correct, I said that the general population of Conservapedia viewers are YEC (As evidenced by the fact that there are so many articles here regarding why evolution/old earth is incorrect, and not many, if any at all that support old earth/evolution). And I've always felt like Catholicism is almost a different religion entirely, they always seem to support things contradictory to what Protestant Christians believe. I heard Catholics who support homosexuality, certain liberal attempts at making America more secular, gun control laws, and even one who said that the Bible is wrong.(Yes, a Catholic I was talking to once told me he thinks the Bible is completely incorrect... He says he thought that people have been revising the Bible so much throughout history that it doesn't even resemble what it once did, so he comes up with, in his own mind, what he determines to be right and wrong, what to believe and not believe, etc.) Okay, I'm done ranting... This is getting way off-topic again. StephennE 15:25, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Interjection: Catholics are certainly Christians. What your describing is not mainstream Catholic belief, and I assure you there are also Protestants who believe the same things you describe. Small factions's beliefs should not be used to determine ideology.-- I Duan  17:54, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Re: Interjection: I never said they weren't, and I know that those people I were talking to were outside the mainstream belief of Catholics, I mean that it seems whenever I come across someone like that they are Catholic. But on the evolutionist/old earthist thing, it seems that a rather large number of Catholics do believe in that. More so than Protestants, anyways. StephennE 22:41, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 * With all respect, I'd rather hear from someone who will give me permission to edit the article and who will restore the "evobabble" so I can work on adding some YEC balance. Nate 15:35, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't a YEC add the YEC details? How much do you know about it exactly? But I don't see the point in restoring it, it was a short sentence and would need to be completely reworded anyways just to give a truly neutral point of view. It would have to say something like 'According to the evolutionist point of view... etc. etc. etc. insert evobabble here etc. From a YEC standpoint the Starfish is etc. etc. etc. insert YEC P.O.V. here etc.' When what it said before stated that starfish fossils were found to be 450 million years old (using flawed radiometric dating)(Which needs a citation at any rate) as if it were fact that they were so many millions of years old or whatever. Restoring the text would only mean you would have to delete it again anyways, since the sentence was too one-sided. StephennE 16:42, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

AP poll
Hello, I think in the item about the AP-GFK poll, the word should be "skewed" rather than "skewered" EricAlstrom 20:16, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Arnold and Marie
Given Arnold's own admissions of inappropriate behavior with females other than his wife, is it really fair to imply Maria was the cause of the break-up? SharonW 13:01, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Sharon, if Arnold had married a conservative in the first place, they would still be happily married. BradB 13:10, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/print Daniel1212 18:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Che Guevara
Wikiquote is one of a family of wiki-based projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and it favorably portrays the murderous  Che Guevara - the rebel "brain of Castro]], and type of Bin Laden (also killed quickly, after capture)  and hero of the Left.

A conservative view is can be seen here: Daniel1212 21:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * So in a few years we can look forward to bin Laden posters and T-shirts on college campuses as bin Laden assumes his iconic status at the head of a national liberation movement against the imperialist and capitalist oppressors. Rob Smith 12:06, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

maybe not MPR worthy but
how much of a hypocrite osama was >.>--SeanS 09:57, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Australian Atheist Convention/Economy
I thought I should point out that while the supposedly conservative Victorian state government is funding that atheist convention, the Federal government's most recent budget gave $222 million in extra funding to the National School Chaplaincy Program (source) - which, of course, atheists are having a whine about despite it being welcomed by schools.

I'm also not really sure that the economy is "descending downwards". Unemployment is below 5%, official interest rates are also below 5%, the currency is pretty strong and GDP grew by 1% last quarter. This is pretty good compared to most other developed countries. EJHall 21:20, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * It is still moving in a downward direction plus somewhat dependent on supplying commodities to China and Asia rather than manufactured goods. Until China develops a wealthier populace overall and other trading partners, I would tend to think it is fairly dependent on the U.S. economy which isn't in good shape. I tend to agree with Peter Schiff, who if memory serves, essentially said that over the long term and perhaps in the short term as well, it doesn't make sense for China to keep loaning the USA money when Chinese could be enjoying more of the fruits of their labor. I think you misread what I said (or merely read too much into what I said) as I merely declared the Aussie economy is descending downwards. It would be helpful if I knew more about the historical trend of Aussie GDP, but nevertheless I cited a number of good indicators that the Aussie economy appears to be heading for a recession that is on the horizon. conservative 21:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * By the way, the Chinese economy is slowing. On the other hand, experts such as Jim Rogers and others have cited some good reasons why they are bullish on Asia long term. One thing that is positive that is happening in China is that Christianity is growing rapidly within their country which is a very positive thing in terms of further improving their societies health. conservative 22:42, 14 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Whether or not the Australian economy will experience a recession in the future (and it will), my point was simply that an economy with low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, a strong dollar and positive GDP growth can hardly be described as "descending downwards".
 * The boom/bust cycle of economies is well documented - every economy in the world (including Australia's) will experience a recession at some point in the future. It may be that Australia is on the brink of a recession, like the US was in 2007/2008, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying that the economy is descending. EJHall 01:07, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Princess Diana
There appear to be two contradictory stories on the main page. In one liberals are accused of promoting conspiracy theories regarding the death of Princess Diana. That in itself is odd since there is nothing to suggest that holding such views concerning this incident is limited to any particular political ideology. A more recent story asserts that the liberals are trying to censor the film containing these conspiracy theories by banning it. Firstly, that is factually incorrect since the film has not been banned nor are there any indications that it will be. If you try to divide every story, every issue and everything in existence between 'liberal' and 'conservative' you are always going to end up contradicting yourself at some point. WilliamB1 09:54, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
 * As the story goes, Lady Di was murdered in a CIA plot at the behest of the MI-5 & the British royal family because she was pregnant with a Muslim's child and there was concerns about a Muslim being in the line of succession for the crown and head of the Anglican Church. Rob Smith 12:11, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm not sure if this film is actually banned in the UK. From what I've heard the director decided not to air it because his lawyers warned he would certainly face libel charges. It would be similar to a clockwork orange when the director chose not to air it here if that was the case, but like I said I am not sure at all and I might be completely wrong. TonyB 13:24, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

"Atheistic Canada"
Canada is not an atheistic country. Around 82% (~81.176053808769415063614587991816%) of the population is religious, with 16.5% (~16.532555800146664694042839114026) reporting no religion. Data here. Please change that line. Thank you, JacobSmith 23:20, 15 May 2011 (EDT)