Talk:Liberal creep

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Relationship Between Approval Rating and Accomplishments

Example 1 seems to be linking a President's end-of-term approval ratings and the nature of his accomplishments; that is, "The fact that Reagan was so popular at the end of his time in office is an indicator of how effective/accomplished a President he was," (and the media is intent on downplaying this effectiveness/these accomplishments). I'm not sure how accurate this is; for example, Eisenhower earned high end-of-term approval ratings, but in terms of actual accomplishment there are many who would characterize him as having been little more than a "caretaker" President. More recently, Clinton left office with an approval rating that was slightly higher than Reagan's, so are we to take that as a sign that he was actually slightly more effective/accomplished a President than Reagan?

To be clear, I'm not attempting to claim that Reagan wasn't an accomplished President. I'm just pointing out that his high popularity doesn't necessarily bear any relation to that issue either way. Cua1101 10:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)


Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.--Jimmy 20:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

  1. Be more specific: which claim do you mean?
  2. Be more respectful: it is not for newcomers such as yourself to issue demands - or to interpret the rules.
  3. This is a warning - make helpful comments and contributions, or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor Talk 20:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

When he left, Bill Clinton had never been president, therefore that claim is useless. --TrueValues 20:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed: I am talking about all of the unreferenced claims made in the second example. Please accept my apologies if I wasn't being specific enough by asking if the completely unreferenced second example could be referenced. I was being perfectly respectful; please don't read more into my comments than what is actually there. I was not making any demands; I was merely pointing out the commandments demand references for every claim. According to the guidelines, it is entirely permissible and helpful to make requests for references by using the {{fact}} tag. If you are saying the guidelines are in error or there is a problem with my interpretation of them, please let me know. I consider myself an experienced user of this encyclopedia based on the number of edits and length of time posting articles.
True: I was asking about the second example, any chance it could be referenced? The statement about Reagan doesn't state he had the highest approval ratings prior to the election of George H W Bush. Now if you want to make that claim and provide the reference, I will not object. Yet is will be a distortion of history not to include Clinton's higher rating and this is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, not a blog that distorts the truth.--Jimmy 20:51, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course a source could be found for it. But instead of complaining about it and putting a fact tag on it, you should contribute by finding that source, as opposed to taking the liberal view that "someone else will do it". --TrueValues 20:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Very well put. It took only 2-3 minutes to find a citation for the second example and Jimmy could have done likewise, rather than try to use a fact tag to make a (misguided) ideological point.--Aschlafly 21:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
True: If you are so certain that the references for the multitude of claims that are made in the second example are true, then way don't you actually provide them since you are the one making the claims? I don't have the time to do research for others, especially research for alleged facts that I think are of a dubious nature. I have enough time trying to reference the claims I make in my own article edits only to have them deleted because they are liberal fluff.
Mr. Schlafly: Your assertion about Wikipedia's entry on Newton is utterly false. It is located here. [1] All you have to do is click on the link in the main article titled "Isaac Newton's religious views". Could this reference please be dropped for the sake of accuracy? --Jimmy 21:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Not "utterly false" - the most you could possibly say is that our criticism of Wikipedia is overstated. But I just read their Isaac Newton and "religious views" articles.
The former summarizes the latter by branding Newton a heretic, rather than calling him a fundamentalist. Moreover it conceals Newton's religious motivation for exploring physical science. At least they might have added this quote:
  • ...he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." [2]
I suggest you stop debating and start doing some research and writing. Pointing out your error here has been largely a waste of time. --Ed Poor Talk 21:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools