Friday, August 30, 2013
Template:Mainpageright
Vetoed! Conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoes more than two dozen bills passed by RINOs. [1] Will Perry run for the presidency next?
The President of Equatorial Guinea has warned African leaders not to tolerate, accept or allow the issue of homosexuality to get roots in their countries. Also, 7 reasons why homosexuals have lower moral standards.[2]
Unlike Darwinists, biblical creationists are raising their standards and achieving many victories.[3]
News from the Left Coast: "'Less liberal' is the new conservative," as Dems find it necessary to restrain reckless spending by other Dems. [4]
In New Jersey, candidate Steve Lonegan wages an ugly fight before an Administrative Law Judge against a prospective primary opponent. [5][6] A grassroots activist today begs him to knock it off. [7]
Happy Flag Day: "A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience." — President Calvin Coolidge
God gives victory when His people fight, especially in His Name. [8]
Liberal policies have destroyed Detroit, and now the city defaults on its debt. [9] It may pay only pennies on the dollar to its creditors.
New Jersey grassroots activists have reason to cheer: two genuine conservatives in a Republican special primary for the United States Senate. [10]
Atheism will fold like an accordion in the 4th largest atheist population in the world.[11]
Why are so many long term trends against atheism?[12]
Russians overwhelmingly reject liberal values on homosexuality. Lawmakers pass anti-homosexuality bill in a 435-0 vote. Weak gay activists are easily overpowered by police.[13]
Liberal denial continues: Joe Biden denies that George W. Bush defeated Al Gore for president in 2000, and the liberal media praises Biden for his denial! [14]
Southern Baptist Convention blasts Boy Scouts over stance on homosexuality, votes to encourage defectors. [15]
America's first atheist monument to stand outside Florida courthouse.[16]
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deputy director Michael Morell has "decided to spend more time with his family" and resign post terror attack in Benghazi.[17]
Why moderates leave an acrid taste in a conservative's mouth. [18]
The modern civil rights movement consists of "demoralizers of the faith" – a far cry from Martin Luther King's day. [19]
The Mainstream Media always ignore this key fact about any mass murder story they cover: it happens in a gun-free zone. [20]
Pope Francis plans to purge the Vatican of the "gay lobby," and speaks candidly about the problem. [21] Why aren't Republican Party leaders as candid?
James Clapper, head of the NSA and now under-fire, said in March that he had no knowledge of the massive phone and email collecting by his agency. [22]
The socialist "paradise" of Venezuela is now on the brink of hyperinflation. [23]
Love Obamacare now? If you live in Ohio, your health insurance premiums went up 88% percent. [24]
NSA officials overheard on how to cause Edward Snowden to be "disappeared". [25]
From the IRS "Keep your religious beliefs to yourself." [26] "You cannot, you know, use your religious belief to tell other people you don’t have a belief, so I don’t believe you need the right to do this, start confrontation, protesting, uh, prot, uh, protest...you don’t apply for tax exemption."
The bright Patriots head coach treats the liberal media with disdain in dismissing their inane hostility to Tim Tebow, on his first day of practice. [27]
Is Edward J. Snowden, who revealed the breathtaking extent of how our government monitors us, a hero, or a traitor? Judge for yourself. [28]
The world's biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry's "Bible" (DSM-5).[29]
Great Conservative Sports Star Tim Tebow is reportedly joining the New England Patriots, from where he will be able to crush twice-a-year the liberal New York team that cut him. [30] God does indeed have a sense of humor.
Why is big government a Goliath and why should you fear it? Start with watching a girl with cystic fibrosis nearly die from some arcane rule, while the government waives said rule for a big campaign donor. Then remember a little bit of history. [31]
Homeschooling surge underway: Education at home is growing seven times faster than K-12 enrollment. The homeschool option makes perfect sense, "significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students." [32]
Michael Reagan: Reform the U.S. tax code. [33]
The joke sport of "rhythmic gymnastics" is part of the 2020 Olympic Games roster.[34]
2013 continues to be a TERRIBLE year for evolutionary belief just like creationists predicted. The formerly popular Whyevolutionistrue blog sees its web traffic plunge in 2013.[35]
Britain has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 212%. Britain's external debt to GDP ratio was 390% in 2011.[36]
How long will you keep Charles Darwin on your currency Britain? How long will you run inefficient Darwinism indoctrinating public schools? Behold! Creationism will grow mightily in your land!
Multi-ethnic, Bible-believing church is adding 40-50 new members a year via the internet. Also, will a "God-ordained meeting" prove to yield more fruit than boring atheist meetings led by boring, white, atheist males? [37]
Atheists and evolutionists: Why are atheism and evolutionary beliefs so stale and boring?[38]
Conservative Rand Paul may challenge the privacy-invading conduct of the Obama Administration in court. [39] Even a few Dems express their opposition to the Big Brother program.
Promoters of marijuana are quiet about the arrest Saturday of a crane operator charged with causing the deaths of 6 people while under the alleged influence of the drug. [40] Authorities still conceal how much pot was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. [41]
Trust the government? How can we in light of the recent scandals? [42]
Leftist vie for the Dem nomination for the special U.S. Senate election in New Jersey, with Rush Holt and media-promoted Cory Booker jumping into the race. [43]
Tag team of scientists show why the eye is still a thorn in the side of Darwinists.[44]
Protecting Christians in populist Muslim countries.[45]
Who is the enemy of the people? Barack Hussein Obama? Or institutions that enable him? [46]
Psychiatry and Darwinism: Pseudosciences in crisis.[47][48]
Primal scream therapy? A liberal evolutionist must have come up with that one!
Marijuana apparently killed again: six deaths in a building collapse have been traced back to a demolition equipment operator who, accordingly to toxicology reports, was allegedly high on pot. [49]
A Great Conservative Sports Star, the center who led the Ravens offense to the Super Bowl victory, declined to attend the White House celebration because Obama is so pro-abortion. [50] Obama-supported "Planned Parenthood performs about 330,000 abortions a year," Matt Birk observed.
"Reading by Bumps: How to navigate the Hebrew Braille Bible, and not go to prison" by Bishop Bert [51]
Obama administration mining Facebook data to predict crimes.[52]
New York City Mayor candidate Anthony Weiner and the New York Times are tying to rehabilitate his sleazy image, but Michelle Malkin has doubts that it will work.[53]
Barack Hussein Obama flip-flops on the Patriot Act.[54]
Why do liberals, RINOs and Darwinist posers like to flip-flop so often?[55][56] Lack of convictions?
High unemployment, mistrust of government and a porous Mexican border makes odds of passing U.S. immigration bill longer.[57]
"The administration has now lost all credibility..."
And this statement comes from the editorial board of the New York Times, a liberal newspaper. [58][59]
The NSA's domestic spying - and they are spying on Americans - violates the Fourth Amendment. [60]
The special Senate election in New Jersey got a lot more interesting today. Governor Chris Christie named a close ally as a caretaker Senator, and several candidates said they would try to qualify. [61]
A Tea Party activist denounces Chris Christie for calling a special election instead of simply appointing an interim United States Senator. (And calling a special election so fast most candidates won't have time to qualify.) [62] While we're at it: is Chris Christie really a Republican? [63]
The Bully-crats: [64]
Trolls' attempts to silence conservatives just won't work. [65]
Robert Bauer: former White House Counsel, who could be the one most responsible for the IRS targeting of the Tea Party and conservatives in general. [66]
10-year old boy fends off armed home intruders with a gun.[67]
Remember this Father's Day: The left's policies are undermining the family.[68]
The Common Core State Standards for education are unconstitutional and illegal. See here for all the laws they violate. [69]
BREAKING NEWS: Steve Lonegan will start at once to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot in the New Jersey special Senate election. [70][71]
Chris Christie called a special election to fill Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat to benefit one man only: himself. And why is he drawing big money from prominent Democratic Party financiers? [72]
The Obama administration is as transparent as a tar pit.[73] American conservatives, like the ones in Florida and Texas, like the refreshing, clear waters of government transparency.
The IRS discriminates because they are a bunch of self-serving, liberal, money grubbers.[74] Eliminate the IRS and slash U.S federal government spending.
Real austerity and not "faux austerity" will help European economies.[75] How long will the liberal heathen rage and deny the obvious?
What's really "transparent" about Barack Hussein Obama? His war on America, and American women, that's what. [76]
Conservative landslide victory Tuesday, by a remarkable 67-27% margin, for an open congressional seat in Missouri. [77]
Tyranny gets a new face today. It is not just the IRS. It is the Democratic Party Caucus of the United States House of Representatives. [78]
BREAKING NEWS: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey will not name an interim United States Senator immediately. He will call a special election, to take place this October, to name a replacement for the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. [79]
New Jersey voters! Vote today. A Tea Party group publishes its last list of endorsements in races from sheriff to township council. [80]
The lamestream media admit that Tim Tebow is being excluded not primarily because of his quarterbacking skills. [81] Why should the public support the NFL as it discriminates against outspoken Christians?
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) died Monday. Now Governor Chris Christie must appoint someone to replace him. Whom will that be? [82][83]
Liberal hatred of the First Amendment: [84]
Evolutionists failed to overturn Louisiana pro-creationism law - again! Also, another creationist mother is eager to have her daughter read a draft of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.[85]
Forbes: Religion is an essential driver of economic growth. Evangelicalism is improving the cultures of third world countries and boosting their economies. [86]
UN Agenda 21 threatens San Francisco Bay. But two activists are preparing to sue to fight it. [87]
Liberal censorship continues, by making a big deal out of an offhand reference to "no homo" by a triumphant basketball player. [88] But there's no exception to the First Amendment allowing censorship to promote the homosexual agenda.
Are the Koch Brothers hoping to buy the Los Angeles Times? If so, conservatives should applaud, not decry, them for that. [89]
Anti-Darwinism has now entered into a mainstream public university. Indiana's Ball State University is now offering a course which is intelligent design friendly.[90]
Same-sex marriage is defeated in the liberal state of Illinois, despite Obama's push for it in his home state. [91] Has Obama become irrelevant?
The academic journal Sociology of Religion shows secularism losing momentum and beginning to decline in both Europe and America by 2050. Other academic research shows it may begin to happen much earlier.[92]
August 2012: A summer of triumph for biblical creation belief. Will August 2013 be a watershed month as well?[93]
Media-promoted Tiger Woods "shot his worst nine-hole score as a professional" but afterward his comments were again self-serving: "I'm sure I'm not the only one who struggled out there." [94] Actually, Woods' score is worse than 69 other players.
The number of adherents of liberal Christianity who will be spit out of Jesus's mouth will be many.[95]
The country with the world's biggest atheist population is very interested in information debunking Darwinism.[96]
The first review of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students is in! Rachel finds the book "very interesting". Sarah is "very interested" in reading the book.[97]
Evolutionists, learning science is exciting. The force feeding of stale, evolutionary bunkum is not.[98][99]
New Jersey voters! This Tuesday is Primary Day. Herewith a voter guide. [100][101][102]
The IRS and the White House definitely worked together. The visitor logs show how often IRS Commissioner Shulman visited – and how rarely anyone else did with whom he would have had meetings, of not with Barack Obama. [103]
A Tea Party activist withdraws his earlier call for a temporary criminal registry, in wake of the scandals surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. This is the same agency that will police Obamacare. [104]
Liberal double standard: when undefeated Michele Bachmann declined to run for reelection, there was liberal claptrap galore by the media. Then her Dem opponent pulled out of the race too, and the media are nearly speechless. [105]
Eric Holder gave a private party for his friends in the Mainstream Media, and less than half of them showed up. What does that say about those who did? [106]
After cutting Tim Tebow, the New York Jets now try to stop the building of a family amusement park. [107] Why should the increasingly anti-Christian NFL receive favoritism??
Associated Press reports that Americans may lose the health plan they like under Obamacare.[108]
Student Loan money profits are being siphoned off to pay for ObamaCare.[109]
An activist advises people to elect a sheriff who remembers his Constitutional duty to those who elect him. [110]
"Memorial Day 2013: How it was. What it will be" by Bishop Bert [111]
1960s liberalism is not only financially unsustainable, but its champions are a dying breed.[112]
Understanding gold market dynamics.[113]
Evolutionary racism directed towards an accomplished footballer puts a sour note on a football game.[114] Why are so many liberals racists?
When a republic turns into a democracy, it will surely fail. [115]
Remembering a fallen police officer in Phoenix, Arizona. [116]
Media bullying alert: the lamestream media spend all day picking on undefeated conservative Michele Bachmann, who repeatedly won in a liberal district. Rather their cheap criticism, the media should be asking why they could never defeat her.
Wikipedia continues to lose influence in the world in 2013.[117] Also, interest in Project 200 plus keeps expanding.
Undefeated five-term congressman Michele Bachmann announces that she will retire from her position, and may run for higher office. [118] The liberal machine was never able to defeat her in a Dem state.
Professor attacked by liberals. His "crime"? Teaching students to think for themselves. [119]
Judge-Shopping, or, How Eric Holder Got Away With Spying On A Reporter's Emails: [120]
The liberal nanny mayor of New York City doesn't like street cafes now. [121]
The IRS scandal that the news is not covering, because it's tied in with Obamacare: [122]
Eric Holder now faces investigation for perjury before Congress. Is Barack Hussein Obama paying attention? [123]
France struggles to find a strategy to turn around their economy even though it is right under their nose.[124] The Bible, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek
Many things happen in life that cannot be explained by science or philosophy. Atheists and agnostics self intellectually cripple themselves and are clueless about much of reality.[125]
Example of how modern conservatism is more conservative than Republicans from yesteryear: Bob Dole, Republican nominee in 1996, admits that "Reagan couldn't have made it. Certainly, Nixon couldn't have made it .... We might've made it, but I doubt it." [126]
A United States Senator finally says it: Barack H. Obama is throwing away his moral authority to lead. But in fact he never had legal authority to lead, either. [127]
Conservapedia pauses in prayer (not a liberal "moment of silence") in honor of Memorial Day.
RichardDawkins.net keeps getting smited! Has a plague of locusts eaten Richard Dawkins' daily website visitors?[128]
How long will you refuse to humble yourself before the Lord, Richard Dawkins?
Vox Day and a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign agree: The speed at which the secular left is collapsing is happening at an unexpectedly fast rate. [129]
Google USA estimates 101,000,000 search results for the search "Evolution and just so stories".[130]
"President Obama forgets to salute," but the lamestream media downplay gaffes by liberals. [131]
A Tea Party activist urges Congress to seize the moment, now that Obama's luck seems to have run out. [132]
Another study finds that obesity may decrease brain function.[133] See also: Atheism and obesity and Lesbianism and obesity
Have liberal policies destroyed Sweden? "Stockholm rioting continues for fifth night." [134]
The inventor of the concept "Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder" admitted, before he died, that he made the whole thing up. Think about that when the school district tells you to drug your kids. [135]
Dems admit they lack the votes to pass their amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill, where 60 votes are the minimum needed in the U.S. Senate. [136]
The cold temperatures this spring have even hurt the sale of sporting goods. [137] Yet liberal denial about the cold weather persists, in order to perpetrate a fictional global warming.
World's most popular site devoted to atheism/agnosticism sees a massive loss of global market share according to Alexa. Also, new Question evolution! campaign group leader expected to be installed in June of 2013.[138]
Obama's paternalistic, sexist reference Thursday to a heckler as a "young lady" is no problem for the liberal media, [139] but an Hispanic golfer's offhand racial quip about Tiger Woods is unforgivable.
7 creationist groups have now joined Project 200 plus. Also, 7 ways the Question evolution! campaign is strengthening itself.[140]
An IRS official takes the Fifth Amendment. Or does she? Besides botching her plea, she shows hypocrisy in claiming a freedom she does not grant to others. [141]
Liberal double standard: racist remarks by Joe Biden are no problem, but the lamestream media and Tiger Woods make a big deal about an offhand joke by an Hispanic golfer. [142] Will media bullying enable Tiger Woods to end nearly 5 years without his winning a major?
The BBC News opened a story with this nonsense: “A study of Neanderthal skulls suggests that they became extinct because they had larger eyes than our species.”[143] Why does Darwinism spawn such lame just so stories?
Thomas Sowell recommends parents having their children read the book The New Leviathan which has a number of essays which debunk various liberal sacred cows.[144]
Barack Hussein Obama's "I am an idiot" defense about his recent scandals undermines his "cult of expertise" and statist redemption fantasies that he has been peddling.[145]
Ask yourselves right now: is this still America? Representative Mike Kelly asked that of IRS Acting Commissioner Miller. We should ask it of ourselves. [146]
Contrast the regal behavior of Barack Hussein Obama with the humble behavior of George Washington. [147]
Expert says that the discovery of a 20-year long rainfall in Ireland points to the Great Flood of the Bible being historical.[148]
Why do so many faux Christians deny the Great Flood and try to turn it into a non-Great Flood?[149] Did Jesus, Peter and Moses lie?[150]
Animals are where they are today, not because they evolved there, nor yet because of continental drift, but because they went there after the Great Flood. [151]
A description of "Common Core Education," the harm it can do, and a list of New Jersey primary candidates pledged to stop it. [152]
Outspokenly Christian Kevin Durant gives $1 million to the tornado victims. Durant uaually outscores LeBron, but the liberal media do not promote outspoken Christians.
Why does Glenn Beck, who loves to chart conspiracies on his famous chalkboards, ignore a conspiracy right under his nose? [153]
28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" under ObamaCare, and even the liberal media are beginning to panic about this. [154]
Classic communist tactic by the Obama Administration: it files a document in court alleging that a reporter at Fox News is a possible co-conspirator in the "crime" of informing the public. [155] In fact this goes back further – to Henry II. Are we all Thomas Becket now? [156]
Teen awarded for improved capacitor - Intel gave a $50,000 scholarship to a girl whose titanium dioxide capacitor can store almost three times as much electrical energy as previous capacitors and is intended as a battery alternative. [157]
Most mainstream media got the story wrong, claiming incorrectly that her invention can charge a cell phone battery in 30 seconds. (Charging a battery too quickly reduces its life, which is why Motorola and Samsung and the rest keep the amperage low.)Franklin Graham, one of America's most prominent evangelical Christians, says the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service included two of his ministries.[158]
Are many evangelical Christian churches primarily growing in America due to birth rates or due to evangelism?[159]
"Quiverfull" evangelical Christianity, which does not believe in contraception, is now spreading in the UK.[160] In the past 30 years, the number of Anabaptists in North America, including the Amish, has grown significantly, from 313,000 baptized members in 1978 to more than 535,000 in 2010. [161]
Unfortunately for militant atheists, secularist philosophy breeds sub-replacement levels of fertility. See: Decline of atheism
Reuters reports: "Europe is in the midst of its longest recession since it began keeping records in 1995 — even surpassing the calamity that hit the region in the financial crisis of 2008-2009."[162]
Biblical creationism is growing in Europe and its growth rate will accelerate amidst Europe's economic woes.[163]
The UK has experienced one lost economic decade, and it's about to enter a second. [164] When is the UK going to remove Charles Darwin off its currency?[165]
Turkey, a world leader in anti-evolutionism, had its Moody’s credit rating upgraded to investment-grade quality. [166][167]
What is the real IRS scandal? It's the tax code itself. [168]
A video was recently produced on the topic "Why Christianity and the Bible are true." [169]
Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women?[170]
Bradlee Dean has this scathing commentary on Minnesota's gay "marriage" law. [171]
Previous Conservapedia Breaking News
Overrated Sports Stars
(Difference between revisions)#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills; his own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league and then became a benchwarmer in the French League. His own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].#[[Tom Brady]] — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value. [[Pro-life]] [[Tim Tebow]] is a far better athlete and speaker. #[[Tom Brady]] — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value. [[Pro-life]] [[Tim Tebow]] is a far better athlete and speaker. #Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions.#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions.#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. When Tebow came to the Jets, [[liberals]] championed the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career. As a result, Tebow was forced out of the Jets team and released at the end of the 2012-13 season.#[[Tiger Woods]] — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.#[[Tiger Woods]] — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.
The lamestream media like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for liberal reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of Greatest Conservative Sports Stars):
Andre Agassi — his rival Pete Sampras was far better, but Sampras is conservative. Agassi is a big donor to Democrat politicians. Lance Armstrong — favored by the liberal media because he publicly denied belief in God, he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the Tour-de-France seven times with what has been described as "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." David Beckham - retired early to the weak American MLS league and then became a benchwarmer in the French League. His own British 2012 Summer Olympics team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the liberal media. Tom Brady — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value. Pro-life Tim Tebow is a far better athlete and speaker. Boomer Esiason — the liberal media like how he criticizes conservative Tim Tebow, but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations. Kobe Bryant — was an overhyped bust at the 2012 Summer Olympics; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of Michael Jordan; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points merely because he hogs the ball. LeBron James — over-promoted by the media to an absurd extent, LeBron has repeatedly underachieved in key playoff games and failed to win the scoring title despite constantly being given the ball. Christian star Kevin Durant, who outscored LeBron (and Kobe) in the Olympics, and other players are as good or better. Magic Johnson — lucky enough to play on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by Michael Jordan and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President George H.W. Bush, which thrilled liberals. People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [1] Peyton Manning — a quarterback who won only one NFL championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The liberal media treated him like the Second Coming of Christ in order to oust conservative Tim Tebow from his leadership position in the swing state of Colorado prior to the Presidential Election 2012. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions. Steve Nash — an outspoken liberal who supported Obama, Nash was chosen twice by the lamestream media as the NBA MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available. Mark Sanchez — the New York Jets quarterback is being touted as the team's best QB over conservative Christian Tim Tebow despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. When Tebow came to the Jets, liberals championed the former USC star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career. As a result, Tebow was forced out of the Jets team and released at the end of the 2012-13 season. Tiger Woods — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise. Danica Patrick - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements. Wayne Rooney - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old. Ronaldinho - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party" Cristiano Ronaldo - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive. Lewis Hamilton - Affirmative Action race driver. Lionel Messi - Stands accused of criminal tax evasion. Usain Bolt - Will never run the times of 2009 again. Sebastian Vettel - Beneath the nice guy exterior lies a deceitful, win at all costs person who thinks he is above following orders.Talk:Roman Catholic Church
(Difference between revisions)::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT):::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT):::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and [[Since33AD]] are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT) The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT) If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST) Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.
Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.
Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.
With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) "... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. "... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates. This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here. What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.
At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT) You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
File:Joan Mitchell Low Water 1969 - Carnegie.jpg
Low Water, 1969.
Oil on canvas, 112 x 79 inches (284.48 x 200.66 cm).
Carnegie Museum of Art.
Fair use
Source: http://modern-nostalgic.blogspot.ca/
The image, protected by copyright, is only being used for informational and educational purposes. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law.
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
The following page links to this file:
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.Thursday, August 29, 2013
Talk:Roman Catholic Church
(Difference between revisions)::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT):::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT):::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and [[Since33AD]] are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT) The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT) If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST) Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.
Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.
Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.
With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) "... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. "... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates. This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here. What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.
At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT) You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Talk:Overrated Sports Stars
(Difference between revisions):::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---egNot too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.
Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --Krayner 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. Gtbob12 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT) Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else. Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT) "Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution. Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. KingHanksley 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT) But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. Gtbob12 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT) Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--Krayner 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.KingHanksley 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT) The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that AIDS is not a gay disease? --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. AndrewTompkins 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. Gtbob12 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT) LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\ How does his name impact anything at all? AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) MVP is by popular vote by ... the lamestream media. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican. The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a swing state in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) ...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) So anything that occurs in a swing state during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --MatthewQ 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT) I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a swing state as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT) If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --MatthewQ 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT) The entry is obviously about the hype, the overrated aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT) How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. AndrewTompkins 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --DanJG 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of Hollywood Values does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --DamianJohn 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --SharonW 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT) With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --DanJG 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) AlexanderSz 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only fair way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --SharonW 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time
Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--CPalmer 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT) So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --SharonW 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--CPalmer 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --SharonW 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT) If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site not too long ago claim that rooting for the underdog was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --DanJG 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT) The lamestream media do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--Andy Schlafly 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story. Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --SMagnet 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--CPalmer 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs. He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--CPalmer 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)Ok, let's start from the top
1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).
2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.
3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.
4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.
5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.
6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.
7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.
8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.
9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.
10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.
All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. FernandoTorez 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--CPalmer 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT) Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? FernandoTorez 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT) I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--CPalmer 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)Is this a joke?--Krayner 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
This entry is about overratedin the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--Andy Schlafly 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. Wschact 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.
Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.
Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity? --Krayner 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
Removed David Beckham form the list. This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?
Where is Dennis Rodman? --Alex00 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --HHB 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game. The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--Andy Schlafly 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT) Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field. I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --HHB 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT) You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---egNot too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).
I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. Jacob Anderson 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)