Talk:Conservapedia proven wrong

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



The delegate count -- which is what matters -- may still be won or at least tied by Santorum, despite Michigan being Romney's home state.

So the actual prediction is wrong, but we have to see the big picture? This kind of weaseling is something Conservapedia wouldn't accept if done by liberal sources! There were only two feasible outcomes in this election: Santorum and Romney. Conservpaedia picked the wrong one. That's not slightly-missed, that's just missed! AugustO 17:46, 29 February 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I would tend to agree that I find Mr. Schlafly's "weaseling", as you put, to be quite a bit off-putting myself. One of the hallmarks of conservatism is its ability to draw clear distinct lines between right and wrong, and eschews the moral relativism of liberalism. I could understand it in cases where, due to the type of prediction made, the outcome could be open to interpretation. For example, stating that you predict a candidate will do "well" in an upcoming contest leaves an outcome that is open to interpretation. Stating that a candidate will definitely win (or lose), only leaves two possible outcomes: a right on and a wrong one. And I am not alone, nor being hypercritical, with my rationale. If anyone doubts me, I recommend taking up this challenge: Go to Las Vegas and play roulette. Bet on Black 33. When the ball lands on Red 1, tell the cashier that you'd like to be paid, because the ball came to rest in close proximity to the number and color you predicted. Also that your bet had the right "timing and/or substance". You'd soon find yourself getting tossed out on you ear. --JoshuaB 20:02, 29 February 2012 (EST)

The "actual prediction" was for the "actual winner" - the person who won the most delegates. Or do you think Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000?--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Didn't they tie for number of delegates? Also, Conservapedia was reporting on percentage of votes on Tuesday when Santorum had an early lead. --BradleyS 14:07, 1 March 2012 (EST)
Scratch that. Romeny won 16 delegates and Santorum 14. --BradleyS 15:35, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Pitcher and Umpire in One

It seems odd Mr. Schlafly is editing this article so heavily given he founded Conservapedia. This very much compromises his objectivity in assessing the predictions made by Conservapedia. It would be like asking a pitcher to call their own throws. I do, however, understand his desire to respond to alleged mistakes made by Conservapedia though. So, my suggestion is that others work documenting the alleged errors and Mr.Schalfy (and other Conservapedian sysops) can reply in a column entitled 'Conservapedia's Response' (which would take the place of 'Explanation'). That way both points of views can be heard. --BradleyS 00:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

I 2nd this motion. I agree that A. Schlafly should be able to make an official response, but I find his (and cpalmer's) editing of the "results" column to be out of bounds. --JoshuaB 00:11, 1 March 2012 (EST)
I don't fully agree with this. Matthew 12:25: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Conservapedia is under no obligation to go out of its way to criticise itself, and where there are valid mitigating factors for inaccurate predictions then it is valid to state them. If someone wanted to start a fully objective, unflinchingly critical record then they could do so on their own website.
In addition, JoshuaB, I am not a founder of this site, and I didn't make any of the predictions listed, so I don't see why my editing this page should be thought more inappropriate than you or BradleyS or any other user.--CPalmer 11:51, 1 March 2012 (EST)
I did not create this article to be critical of Conservapedia. Long before I joined this site, a "Conservapedia proven right" article was created, tallying a list of predictions that Conservapedia had made that actually came to pass. This is all well and good, but even blind squirrels occasionally find acorns. So as not to be justifiably accused of committing the sharpshooter fallacy I think it's necessary to also keep a running total of failed predictions. A couple of years ago a read a Hamilton College study which purported to reach the conclusion that (surprise surprise) liberal pundits made more accurate predictions than conservative pundits, and in the end, most pundits were no more accurate than a coin toss. So I figure if Conservapedia (unlike any other encyclopedia) is going to be in the prediction business, it seems only fair to measure how well business is going. If one never wants one's predictions to be shown in error there's a simple solution... stop making predictions.
With that said, let's pretend you created a "Liberals proven wrong" article. You then populated it with concrete predictions made by liberals and their definite outcomes. OK, so you add that a liberal predicted Gore would win the 2000 presidential election, and the simple result that he had lost. Later a liberal comes along and not only adds an "Explanation" column to explain how in another universe they were correct, but they then go on to re-edit the simple result to gush on about Gore winning the popular vote, and recounts, and hanging chads, and the Supreme Court... blah blah blah. It'd look a little whiny and pathetic on the lib's part. Well... --JoshuaB 13:12, 1 March 2012 (EST)


Is this a parody? I mean Canada was beaten only by the USA and Germany, which have respectively 8 and 2.5 times the population. That doesn't exactly seem humiliating.--RolandFarragut 08:34, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Joke sports?

Since when is hockey a joke sport? Hockey requires a lot of conditioning and it is not a wimpy sport. When America won the 1980 Olympics for the sport of hockey, it was a very big deal for Americans. Second, skiing in the context of the Olympics is definitely not a "joke sport". Hockey and downhill skiing for men and figure skating for couples/women are some of the biggest draws for audiences and are featured prominently in television coverage. Conservative 06:20, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It appears Canada won no golds in downhill skiing, but rather "freestyle skiing", including "moguls". I don't know whether those are "joke sports" or not, though. I too was surprised to see ice hockey described as such - I thought it was taken quite seriously in the States.--CPalmer 09:30, 2 March 2012 (EST)
From someone who skis, moguls skiing is much harder than downhill skiing. It involves skiing through large bumps(usually 1-2 feet high) on the slope in a generally regular pattern. It can be very difficult and is very tiring, very quickly. Ayzmo :) 12:44, 3 March 2012 (EST)


There's a prediction on the prove right page from last year about the Question Evolution Campaign. Its "result" mentions how it has resulted in a tremendous increase in web traffic to the CMI website based on Alexa. If you do an Alexa result now you'll find that it was only a spike and that web traffic for CMI's website went back down to normal fairly quickly. Not to mention that the average time spent on the site is 3 minutes. And it has sunk 11k places in the last month in Alexa's rankings. Perhaps this should be added? Ayzmo :) 12:44, 3 March 2012 (EST)

According to the number of unique visitors to shows an upward trend.[1] In addition, the composition of a Question evolution! campaign 50 page pamphlet is moving forward plus other materials will be forthcoming. [2]
Unlike atheists, Christians are a very persistent and patient people with a 2,000 year track record of evangelistic success (see: Global Christianity). On the other hand, global atheism is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate which certainly is not good for evolutionism promulgation.
So to dismiss the Question evolution! campaign at this point would be foolhardy - especially since evolutionists have yet to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists (although an atheist website infested with wiki vandals which isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article falsely claims they have adequately answered the 15 questions. In terms of quality and notability, it is very telling when a liberal website like Wikipedia which was founded by an atheist and agnostic doesn't deem your atheist website notable even after your website has been up for some time now. Even Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize from his fellow liberals even though he did nothing to earn it.). Conservative 17:05, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Canada humiliated??

As a Canadian, I think I have a pretty good gauge into the Canadian morale at the end of the Olympics: WOOT!. I'm pretty sure we weren't humiliated, and if no credible sources are found (I found none), I will remove the sentence on humiliation. JonM 23:00, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Pope and Castro

Is this another point where Aschlafly stoically claims that he is right unimpaired by evidence?

AugustO 16:39, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

I am very disappointed in the expertise/workmanship of Italian ophthalmologists/optometrists and camera makers. Italian clothes and eyeglass frames are fantastic looking, but obviously Italian ophthalmologists/optometrists and camera makers let the Pope and his team down since Fidel Castro is dead! :) Conservative 19:47, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

How is Conservapedia proven wrong about the Castro if nobody has proof it is him? Personally, I believe he is still alive but I don't trust the liberal media for the answer, nor do I trust Communist countries to provide the truth. Fidel still alive is a boon to stability of the nation. Other dictators have had multiple impersonators, what trust factor makes Fidel above doing that? --Jpatt 20:57, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia's response column

The column should not be deleted. It is fair to give Conservapedians a chance to respond to alleged mistaken predictions. If they decide to fill their response with post hoc rationalizations, then so be it. --BradleyS 13:57, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Pregnant woman headline

I am going to reinstate this one, as I don't believe the reason for removing it was correct. The headline says: "Ignored by the lamestream media: an eight-month pregnant athlete is competing in the 2012 Summer Olympics, and she found that her "stability increased" due to her pregnancy." This is not a question, it is a statement of an incorrect fact that has been proven wrong. It does go on to question whether the reason for this is that the story is too pro-life, however that does not change the preceding statement to a question, and it certainly does not make it correct. A question would be "will the liberal media follow this story?", but this is more like "the liberal media haven't followed this story, I wonder why?". If you disagree, please let me know why - it is not my intention to start an "edit war". Cheers, Alan AlanA 20:38, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

You're really stretching it a bit don't you think? "Ignored by the media" you cite NYT but is there any discussion from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, WaPo, LAtimes on the athlete in question? NYT makes the statement wrong even though it's not important enough for the rest of the liberal gang. Silly if you ask me and if that's the worst of Conservapedia, then have your cake. --Jpatt 20:50, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
Do a quick search - its not hard to find it mentioned in many of those news sources you listed AlanA 00:35, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
In furtherance of Jpatt's comment, Conservapedia did not predict the 8-month pregnant woman would win. I don't think anyone expected her to win a medal. But her qualifying and competing should have been a bigger story in the lamestream media than it was.--Andy Schlafly 21:17, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
If you don't think it fits with this article on that basis then fair enough. Would you consider adjusting the wording in the main page to "not satisfactorally highlighted" instead of "ignored". AlanA 00:35, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

sorry, you haven't proven your case about October 13th and October 15th

First, you have to show that the contacts for India, Texas, the Russian connection, a former missionary to China and the Christian organization which outreaches to young people did not happen and the registration of the online communities did not happen. Furthermore, on both those dates there were about 800 less atheists and 1,100 agnostics by the end of the day and about 83,000 more people calling themselves Christians. Global creationism keeps on growing while the most fervent evolutionists - namely agnostics/atheists are shrinking. See: decline of atheism. See also: Internet atheism.

Secondly, the main page reported material from another website and you still have not shown who the authors of that blog are.

Third, the subjective views of what's newsworthy by evolutionists is insufficient to make your case. Conservative 10:59, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, you are raising a good point: Why is so much space on the main page of Conservapedia given to anonymous bloggers? --AugustO 11:02, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
I have to agree with AugustO, unlike liberals, accountability is a conservatives trait. Dvergne 11:07, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
Dvergne, I thought you were one of the good guys. Turns out that you seem to think that hassling a senior admin, a guy who's been here since pretty near day one, is a constructive way to contribute to the project. Typical evolutionist/liberal/atheist trolling. MattyD 11:12, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
No, not meaning to hassle him, I have always thought accountability is key. Many liberal/progressive policies are created using unaccountable methods/ideas. Having had to deal with and cleaned up unaccountable behavior in my professional life I don't really like seeing it anywhere. --Dvergne 11:17, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, you wrote: "Why is so much space on the main page of Conservapedia given to anonymous bloggers? Because conservative creationists love to hear news about their fellow creationists whuppin' evolutionism around the world.[3] And make no mistake about it: Evolutionism is in for some serious whuppin' in 2013!!!!! [4] Conservative 14:49, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

Shouldn't that read: Because conservative creationists love to get reliable information about their fellow creationists whuppin' evolutionism around the world? The constant stream of meaningless announcements certainly doesn't count as news! --AugustO 15:03, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
And we don't really know who is writing all the Question Evolution! blog posts. Whilst I agree with the aims, for all we know the blog could be written by staffers of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers or even by these guys themselves! Do you know who is writing the blog pieces ? Also why isn't the patatalk thingo working. I went in there and got abused by some atheist troll ! . --Dvergne 17:48, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, as far as liberal protestantism which holds to evolutionism and has members prone to superstition, their ranks are shrinking in the world due to people leaving their bland and lifeless churches and due to their barren women who hate babies and their men who lack machismo!!!! [5] [6][7] Is your church's denomination shrinking? If so, I expect them to receive a whuppin' in 2013!!!! Conservative 18:21, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

"Secondly, the main page reported material from another website and you still have not shown who the authors of that blog are." Well, empirically, one would notice the following pattern that regularly crops up regarding links to
  1. A headline with a spelling or grammatical error is copy-pasted from the QE blog to Conservapedia.
  2. Someone points out this error on Talk:Main Page.
  3. The error is not only fixed on Conservapedia, but also the original author of the blog post has made the exact same correction on the blog post within hours.
From this, an empiricist would deduce that the author of the blog post is obviously someone obsessed with or following Conservapedia talk pages to not only catch an error that slipped by the publication process but also fix it in the exact same way that User:Conservative did.
Seriously, though, give up the charade, User:Conservative. It's making you, not evolution proponents of whatever faith, look silly. GregG 20:47, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

I think the case for October 13th is clear cut. It said, under Featured on Conservapedia, "October 13, 2012 is going to be an unlucky day for Darwinism". This bad luck was based on events set to transpire on the 13th, and since these events never occurred Conservapedia was wrong. Unless my reasoning here can be shown to be wrong I'll be re-adding the 13th. WilcoxD 17:50, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

The anonymous blog didn't show anything newsworthy happening on either the 13th or the 15th of October. AugustO 03:23, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

I am certainly not going to be bogged down dealing with unsupported liberal nonsense. Try inserting your liberal nonsense now.
"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - Sun Tzu
"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." - Sun Tzu
Feel free to squabble on the talk page. Feel free to tell me when you surrender though and I may consider unlocking the page. :) Conservative 04:15, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but I think you should try to get some sleep: you don't sound very coherent, and you are not addressing the main point: for Oct 13 and Oct 15 you promised major events happening, in importance comparable to the assassination of Julius Caesar. According to your usual source (the anonymous blog ), nothing newsworthy has happened. Ergo: you made a prediction, it was wrong. As your predictions are featured on Conservapedia's main page, it looks like Conservapedia is endorsing these prediction - and therefore having been proofed wrong, too. AugustO 04:50, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Why is this page locked

I thought that one of the qualities of a conservative is to admit when they are wrong or have made a mistake, unlike liberals who normally try and palm it off and blame someone/something else ! Dvergne 00:17, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Bump Dvergne 22:46, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
It shouldn't be locked. I've just unlocked it.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
I locked it due to evolutionists inserting their subjective and unsupported assertions. Conservative 10:03, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Subjective and unsupported assertions?

Date of Prognostication Conservapedia Prediction Actual Result Conservapedia's Response Date of Result
October 13th 2012 Under "Featured on Conservapedia" it is stated that October 13th is going to be an unlucky day for Darwinism[1] The 13th turned out to be a lucky day for Darwinism and unlucky instead for a Question Evolution campaigner who caught a cold. This pushed back the events that were supposed to happen on the 13th to the 15th.[2] October 13th 2012
October 15th 2012 On the main page it is stated that evolutionists should beware of October 15th, 2012. nothing newsworthy happened

What's not true about the above? --AugustO 10:28, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Please un-protect this page

Today, User:Conservative has protected this page again (Protected "Conservapedia proven wrong" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)). Please un-protect this page! --AugustO 13:40, 8 November 2012 (EST)

The page you cited says: "October 13, 2012 is still going to be a VERY BAD day for Darwinism. We have a good working relationship with an excellent and dedicated Texas creationist group. We do want to expand our outreach in Texas though. A member of our team is going to be contacting two Texas creationist groups on October 13, 2012. Texas is a key battleground in the creation vs. evolution battle."[8] You need to show that those phone calls did not occur or they were unproductive. You didn't do that.
Plus, on October 13, 2012, there were 800 less atheists/evolutionists and 1,100 less agnostics/evolutionists that day.[9]
In addition, Bible believing Christians out evangelized and had more children that day than liberal, evolution promoting Protestants whose men lack machismo and whose women are frequently cold fish! [10][11][12][13]Conservative 14:29, 8 November 2012 (EST)
Your great plan for this day was making a couple of phone call? That is pathetic. As you took an average to get your numbers of "800 less atheists/evolutionists and 1,100 less agnostics/evolutionists" per day, that's not a "very bad day" for Darwinism, that's just a "day as bad as any other". Neither on Oct 13, 2012 nor on Oct 15, 2012 you have performed any newsworthy act, and so your predictions failed. I'd like to have those items included in the list of examples of "Conservapedia prove wrong" as I hope that this may have a salutary effect on coming "predictions" and "announcements" of earth-shattering events.

First, you didn't show who the author of the blog post was. Second, the person said he/she was contacting two Texas creationist organizations. Lastly, it is certainly possible for a population of individuals such as Darwinists to have a VERY bad day every day of the year - especially if their men lack machismo and their women are often cold fish! [14][15][16][17] Conservative 15:16, 8 November 2012 (EST)

  • First, you didn't show who the author of the blog post was. Why should I? Someone made some phone-calls to like-minded people. That's not news.
  • Second, the person said he/she was contacting two Texas creationist organizations. Creationists contacting creationist organizations is not news.
  • Lastly, it is certainly possible for a population of individuals such as Darwinists to have a VERY bad day every day of the year - especially if their men lack machismo and their women are often cold fish! That's just tasteless. You should be ashamed.
--AugustO 15:37, 8 November 2012 (EST)

The estimate refers to "Americans" who vote...

Obama got ca. 600,000 votes more than 50%. You have evidence for more than 600,000 cases of voter fraud? But no, that's probably another unfounded "insight". --AugustO 09:49, 8 November 2012 (EST)

"restore edit - it was supported with a link to a credible source" The link only showed that there are an estimated 4,000 non-Americans registered as voters in Minnesota. Extrapolating this to the U.S. gives you perhaps 250,000 127,000 (see correction below) wrongly registered in the whole of America. And it isn't said that all of those registered aliens did vote - so you are a couple of 100,000s of. --AugustO 10:34, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Extrapolating in a sensible way from the linked article, there may have been 250,000 non-Americans who voted in California alone, for example.--Andy Schlafly 10:39, 8 November 2012 (EST)
How does your extrapolation work? I took the number of registered voters in Michigan (5,364,000) and the number of registered voters in the U.S. (142,072,000). That gives you a sensible estimation of less than 114,000 falsely registered voters in the U.S. If you work with Michigan's and the general population instead, you get less than 127,000 falsely registered voters. So, I took the greater number to err on the side of caution. But I don't see how you can come up with 172,000 non-Americans who voted in California alone "in a sensible way", i.e., other than making up the numbers. --AugustO 10:51, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Correction: At first, I worked with the numbers of Minnesota (21st in population), but the article is about Michigan (8th in population). I corrected the numbers - which makes Aschlafly's extrapolation even more implausible. --AugustO 11:12, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Your estimate does not factor in the relative levels of illegal immigration in the states, and the relative lack of safeguards against it.--Andy Schlafly 11:25, 8 November 2012 (EST)
  • no, my estimation didn't factor in such relative levels, as I didn't want to make up such factors: hasn't Nate Silver shown that such made-up factors are quite irrelevant?
  • you are saying that "easily" 2.5% of all votes in California could have been casted by non-Americans - and no one has spotted or reported at least dozens of cases? [3] You really should call for observers from the O.S.C.E.!
--AugustO 11:54, 8 November 2012 (EST)


  3. Voter Fraud not among top concerns of California voters today

Why is this page locked again?

--AugustO 15:53, 27 December 2012 (EST)

This page is open for any substantive suggested edits.--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 27 December 2012 (EST)

"The prediction said American voters, not all votes cast"

Do you have any evidence that non-American citizens cast ballots in the 2012 Presidential election, much less the 2,463,793 votes that would need to be voided to make the statement that Obama won a majority false? I mean, if you can demonstrate this, this would be very useful in an impeachment proceeding. If you cannot substantiate massive voter fraud on the level of millions of votes, then it shouldn't be on this encyclopedia, according to our first commandment.

(Also, the 50.4% figure for the percentage of votes cast for President Obama needs to be updated to the final figure of 50.96%. I would have updated it, but the page is locked for the apparent reason that User:Conservative is upset about being called out on his QE! predictions not turning out the way he/she/it/I have intended.)


Thanks, GregG 19:54, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Something like 30 million votes were cast without the traditional safeguards of poll-watchers, rules against politicking in proximity to voting, etc. A 2.46 million margin is less than 10% of the non-traditional votes cast without safeguards.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)
How does this demonstrate that non-citizens voted in the 2012 Presidential election? Regardless, if enough non-citizens voted in order to make Conservapedia's prediction not false (over 2.4 million, or 1.91% of all votes cast), one would logically expect a plethora of cases of non-citizens having voted to have surfaced or that you would have evidence of non-citizens voting in massive numbers. Do you have any actual evidence that millions of non-citizens voted in the 2012 Presidential election?
By the way, in response to the section above, can you update the last example to state that Obama won 50.96% of the vote, not 50.4% of the vote (which was a preliminary number I found on the day after the election). Thanks, GregG 20:08, 27 December 2012 (EST)
What is a "non-traditional vote"? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean. --DamianJohn 20:47, 27 December 2012 (EST)
One example of a "non-traditional vote" is when a Democrat worker takes a stack of mail-in ballots and arranges 35 days before the election for nursing home patients of not entirely sound minds to put their names on them without any poll-watchers.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 27 December 2012 (EST)
Do you have a source for this occurring? I would like to take a look at the evidence to see how accurate your characterization of the alleged events is and whether such votes would be legal/ethical. As far as I am aware, absentee voting by the indefinitely confined is well-accepted. Regardless, none of this has to do with the claim that millions of non-citizens voted, as you allege. Do you have any evidence that millions of non-citizens voted?
(By the way, footnote 33 should be removed or rephrased, as legal mail-in votes are legal votes that ought to be counted. Unless, of course, the footnote was intended to suggest that there was voter fraud in mail ballots on the scale of millions of votes, which should have a source as per our first commandment.)
GregG 21:53, 27 December 2012 (EST)
Sending in mail-in ballots without the safeguard of poll-watching is not traditional voting. And of course some of the 30 million mail-in ballots will be by non-Americans.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 27 December 2012 (EST)
You still have not answered my question. Do you have any actual evidence of large-scale voter fraud in the 2012 Presidential elections? If so, please provide it. GregG 22:02, 27 December 2012 (EST)
It is indisputable that there was large-scale voting without the traditional safeguards to ensure integrity. It's analogous to having school exams in the absence of any safeguards or standards against cheating on the tests.--Andy Schlafly 22:20, 27 December 2012 (EST)
I agree, the same thing happens here in Australia, where the unionized staff in the nursing homes basically make all the older people of not so well a mind vote for the pro union labor party Dvergne 22:29, 27 December 2012 (EST)
That might have happened in the Deep North,D. but these days, down here, (and in Sydney) the Australian Electoral Commission supervises all nursing home/hospital voting. But you would know that, wouldn't you? AlanE 23:05, 27 December 2012 (EST)
Yes, thankfully the AEC has been keeping a better watch of it in the more recent elections, however my grandmother did say it was occuring up until the mid 00's. It wasn't actually the nurses voting for the residents, but more the nurses suggesting to the residents who to vote for and given the nature of the relationship between the residents and the nurses I'm sure quite a few votes where swayed using this method. Dvergne 00:01, 28 December 2012 (EST)
Not a lot actually. Probably none.AlanE 00:26, 28 December 2012 (EST)

I have a lot of respect for people who are able to admit they were wrong about a future event. I have much less respect for people who make tenuous arguments about how they were actually right, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. --DamianJohn 23:51, 27 December 2012 (EST)

One of the reasons predictions are informative is because they lead to analysis of whether the prediction was correct - analysis that would not occur if the prediction were never made. Few would be surprised if less than 1% of the claimed votes are not as they first appear.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 28 December 2012 (EST)
I think you need to just face the fact that you thought Romney would do better than he did, and you were wrong. This equivocating and referring to "American Voters" etc is a bit of a put-on. You keep alluding to widespread voter fraud but you fail to provide any support at all for anything like the amount you are alleging. Besides, any fraud on the Democratic side needs to be counterbalanced by any fraud on the Republican side. In the end, it is all very unbecoming for you, and is not likely to impress anyone with an open mind. Even guys like Dick Morris had the integrity to come out and admit they got it wrong. Why can't you? Does being a conservative mean that you must be infallible about everything? --DamianJohn 00:48, 28 December 2012 (EST)
I didn't think Romney would win. Indeed, predictions on this site about Romney were far more negative and realistic than on sources like Fox News. The issue here has nothing to do with Romney winning or losing.
It's quite possible, and even likely, that Obama won a narrow majority of legitimate American votes. But it's also possible that he did not. Indeed, Wisconsin has recently requested an investigation, and there have been numerous publicized examples of voting irregularities. 30 million votes without the safeguards of poll-watching is more than ten times the margin at issue in this discussion.--Andy Schlafly 00:53, 28 December 2012 (EST)
The difference between the candidates was nearly 5 million votes. [18] There isn't any evidence that has been presented that the amount of dodgy votes comes even close to approaching even half this figure. In any case, what allowance have you made for the inevitable voter fraud that occurred the other way? (Or do you believe that only Democrats would commit voter fraud?). Even if, somehow, it were true that the Obama campaign was able to steal 2-3 million votes through early voting improprieties, are you sure that Romney's team didn't also steal some as well. Even if they were only able to steal half the number (say 1 million votes) this still wouldn't result in Romney having the popular vote stolen from him. Either way, it is all just supposition and wishful thinking, my numbers are just as made up as yours. By the way I also remember reading on here plenty of bombast about Romney's chances prior to the election, though to be fair that may not have been from you. --DamianJohn 01:08, 28 December 2012 (EST)
I used the difference between Obama's total and the total for all other candidates because Mr. Schlafly's statement that "most American voters will have cast their ballots against Barack Obama" could reasonably be called correct if Obama won but with less than 50% of the popular vote. GregG 01:15, 28 December 2012 (EST)
If that is the case I'm sure the left wouldn't mind if the voting apparatus was inspected. After all, the election was a "fair" one, or so they say. Karajou 01:21, 28 December 2012 (EST)
Karajou, you misunderstood my point. In giving the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Schlafly, for the purposes of evaluating this provision, I deemed that every Presidential vote not for Obama was a vote against Obama (whether it be for Romney, Stein, Johnson, or whoever). It has happened (especially due to the presence of third parties) that a fair election results in a President being elected with 50% or less of the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000, Clinton in 1996 and 1992, Nixon in 1968, Kennedy in 1960, Truman in 1948, Wilson in 1916 and 1912). That a President wins with 50% or less of the popular vote does not itself indicate that the election is unfair. GregG 10:34, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Voter fraud news stories from these links [19][20][21][22][23]. ACORN and its clones never gave up on it; there have been multiple stories during the past several months pertaining to the refusal to get ballots to the military; stories related to voting machines picking Obama when Romney was picked, ad nauseum. If competent people cannot get to and inspect the machines and the voting records, then these stories are all we got. And maybe that's exactly what the left wants...that we are not allowed near the voting records. Karajou 00:57, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for providing the links Karajou. Going through the links you provide, there is no indication that the amount of fraud approaches anywhere near 3 million, and most of the stories are about earlier elections, and one of them was even about Republican fraud. --DamianJohn 01:14, 28 December 2012 (EST)
First, we don't know the actual number; it could be higher than 3 million, or it could be lower than a thousand. Second, voter fraud must never be tolerated by anyone, and that Republican deserves as much prison time as any Democrat engaged in the same thing. If you see it, you stop it. Karajou 01:24, 28 December 2012 (EST)
It is always good to end discussions with a note of agreement.  :) --DamianJohn 02:39, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Suggested addition

Can you please add the following row:

May 1, 2012 Conservapedia predicts that Barack Obama will lose reelection due to an "arithmetic pattern": never before has control of the Presidency alternated between political parties in a 2-2-2-2 pattern. Barack Obama was elected to a second term. November 6, 2012

Thanks, GregG 16:15, 2 February 2013 (EST)

In addition to GregG's suggestion, I would like the article to be unlocked. Period. Barring that, I would like the article temporarily unlocked so I can add information on Castro being seen alive in public.

Hugo Chavez

Conservapedia said that Chavez died in a hospital but on February, the 18th he returned home.--Alex00 11:29, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Tiger Woods

If there are no objections I am going to re-add Tiger Woods to this list. Conservapedia claimed he was overrated (and all but finished), but he has since reclaimed the world #1 ranking and is on the verge of setting new records. He may be a media favourite, but #1 is #1 and I think it's almost impossible to overrate the world's best. RyanFT 12:07, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

Boston Marathon Bombing

I didn't even know this page existed until just now, so I'm going to refrain from editing it directly until I get some advice from some of the more experienced editors. However, I feel the Boston Marathon Bombing deserves a place on this list as a lot of statements were posted on the Main Page, main talk page and various other articles claiming to be fact (many times unsupported) only to be contradicted as the real information became available. Let me know what you think. Fnarrow 00:43, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Personal tools