Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

Contents

Obama trade agenda

You heard it here first, Republicans in the Senate will surrender to progressive demands in order to pass this legislation. As bad as the deal is, this GOP leadership is the worst in generations. --Jpatt 22:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

You may be right. I was shocked that no Republican Senators voted against this terrible giveaway of jobs.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

Reviews of our atheism article.

Could you post a link to these reviews please?--CuthbertA 14:36, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

People should keep in mind that all of our articles are being "reviewed", all the time, by the public. The fact that the atheism article is being reviewed by "a Christian community" is only noteworthy if that community is noteworthy. But the community isn't identified. Is it a specific church? An entire denomination or sect? A small Bible group? Some identification would be useful, as would some description of the type of review. Are some people simply reading it? (People do that all the time; it has 5.6 million hits.) Are people writing up a scholarly analysis? When and where will it be published? SamHB 15:06, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, as far as scholarly analysis, the book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences by the Rev. John J. Pasquini, ThD., cited Conservapedia atheism material several times in his book. In addition, the prominent intelligent design proponent Michael Behe positively reviewed the book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences. Conservative 17:11, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
That's my point. The atheism page has a lot of visibility. The fact that some friends of yours are also reading it in secret is boring. SamHB 17:27, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Gentlemen, a perfect clandestine operation is an operation that goes completely unnoticed by the general population. On the other hand, a covert operation is an operation where the agent/agents identities is/are hidden. Gentlemen, this covert operation is on the internet. I dare you to find it!
"Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move." - Sun Tzu. "Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations." - Sun Tzu. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.
"知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆" - Sun Tzu Conservative 16:33, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
True and the most important facet of secret operations is deception, deceiving the enemy into believing something is happening when it is not. I believe that is the case with these reviews.--CuthbertA 17:22, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Oh, Cons! You're reverting to the "old" Cons, with all the silliness about Sun Tzu and nonsense in non-ANSI character sets. You were doing so well recently as the "new" Cons. Could you bring that persona back, please? And please don't tell us that your CP account is operated by multiple people; we're tired of that nonsense.
If you really are having some people "review" the article in secret, one might wonder why you put that fact on the front page.
By the way, I dare you to figure out what I had for breakfast this morning. SamHB 17:27, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
CuthbertA, the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler didn't believe that there was going to be an attack on Normandy orchestrated by the creationist General Dwight D. Eisenhower among others. :)
Churchill was not as keen on D-Day, which involved a dangerous hundred-mile crossing of the English Channel into northern France. The British had already tried an amphibious assault on their own, targeting the French port of Dieppe in August 1942, with disastrous results. [1]
It took a creationist to get the job done right!!!! :)
By the way, 2015 is going to be the WORST year in the history of atheism!!!! It is already happening!!!!! See: Decline of global atheism and Growth of evangelical Christianity in Europe and Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms. Conservative 21:40, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

Yet it was atheists who "ripped the guts out of the Wehrmacht" at Stalingrad, atheists who stopped the panzers at Kursk, the biggest tank battle in history, and an atheist who took Berlin... Rafael 17:39, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, the harsh Russian winter (and Hitler's folly for attacking that time of year after it proved unsuccessful for Napolean) and the Russian strategy of scorched earth withdrawal had a lot to do with the Stalingrad victory for Russians. ""The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off...” - General Douglas MacArthur
Second, the USA entered into the war late and when it did it was fresh as a daisy (not war weary) and had a lot of industrial might and troops behind them. This certainly played a role in the Russians being able to prevail in Berlin.
Darwinism/evolutionary racism had a lot to do with the origination of WWI and WWII (see: World War I and Darwinism and Social effects of the theory of evolution) And Charles Darwin was an agnostic/weak atheist. Conservative 19:22, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Yes, Hitler did invade at the same time as Napoleon, but that was the best time to invade. They could have attacked in the winter, like the US and Britain did in 1919, but that didn't go well at all. However, that's where the similarity ends.

Napoleon invaded in June and arrived in Moscow in September. He found the Russians had burned the town down and, because his army was not equipped for a winter war, fell back with winter and the Russians chewing away at his rear.

Hitler invaded in June and arrived in Moscow in October, where the Russians had dug in for a brutal siege. The Germans gave up by December - around the time the US entered the war - and dug in for the winter. The Germans reached Leningrad in September and the siege there lasted until January 1944. In July of the following year, they struck south towards the oil fields of the Caucasus and hit Stalingrad in August. The Russians, again, gave fierce resistance, at one point clinging on to a beachhead of, IIRC, some fifteen yards depth while supplies poured across the Volga from Voroshilov's brutally efficient war machine in the east. The Germans dug in for the winter, again. When the Soviets counterattacked and surrounded the Germans, Hitler forbade the Sixth Army to break out. The Germans were supplied by air until the Soviets denied them airfield after airfield. Without supplies, the Soviets crushed the Sixth Army in what Churchill considered the turning point of the war. At about the same time, US personnel started arriving in Britain.

Hitler's folly was fighting on two fronts at once (IIRC, he had written in the 20s that Germany could not win a war on two fronts) and allowing Stalingrad, with its personal connotations, to distract his forces from their main objective.

On June 6, 1944, the Russians were already in southern Poland, facing three times as many Germans as were in the whole of France. The atheists did pretty well, with or without the winter.

I recommend Winston Churchill's History of the Second World War. If you're after a more modern approach, Antony Beevor's books on Stalingrad and Berlin are excellent.

Speaking of books, can you recommend a good biography of Eisenhower? Apart from his two foreign policy meshuggenahs, I get the impression he was the most visionary president of the twentieth century and I'd like to know more. Rafael 12:34, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, a high school history teacher told me that Hitler attacked Russia at a bad time and because he was such an excellent teacher overall and in terms of his lesson preparation, I just assumed he was right (which admittedly I should not have done). We all agree that Hitler's decision to attack the Russians opened an additional front and was a serious military strategic error. In addition, Operation Barbarossa was delayed and scholars debate the implications/importance of the delay (Bradley, John; Buell, Thomas (2002). Why Was Barbarossa Delayed? The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. Square One Publishing).
Lastly, as much as I like the topic of history, apart from biblical history, I don't see my reading an history material any time soon. But I appreciate your recommendations. When I finally do get to reading some history books, I plan on reading the book A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind by Martin van Creveld. Conservative 19:56, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, judging by your slothfulness in finding these reviews on the internet, I doubt you got up in time to eat breakfast! :) Conservative 22:15, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Nice one! I actually laughed out loud, and I don't normally laugh at things I see on the internet.
You're actually a little close to the truth—I had nothing for breakfast this morning, but not for the reason you think.
But seriously, I had no idea I was supposed to be trying to find the reviews, and therefore that I was slothful in not doing so. Your MPL item simply said that it was "being reviewed" (well, now it says "examined".) It didn't exhort everyone to figure out what that Christian community was. I apologize for not having risen to the challenge.
Now, if I could just figure out why I'm always so hungry before lunch.  :-) SamHB 23:32, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

The Vatican, climate change, and "capitalism"

I see a top Vatican adviser has denounced "capitalism" for ruining the environment.[2][3] I wonder how this guy interprets the parable of talents (Matt 25:14-30). A tale of a greedy servant who doubled his portfolio by making explotative investments? The servant with the smallest carbon footprint certainly didn't win the competition. The media is (mis)reporting this as an attack on "climate change skeptics," although it doesn't look like he made any statement regarding the scientific issues involved. PeterKa 01:42, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Amtrak train engineer - homosexual activist (as per gotnews). Is he an atheist too?

The Amtrak train engineer is a homosexual activist according to gotnews.com.[4]

Does anyone know when is the last time he attended church? The conservative journalist Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth wrote: "Anyone who has researched the subject of homosexuality knows that many of the most staunch advocates of homosexuality are those who hold a decidedly secular outlook."[5] See also: Atheism and homosexuality Conservative 02:33, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

So it is beginning to look like the train conductor was an American Andreas Lubitz. So much for feeling superior to the Germans. Somehow, we need to find jobs for these sexually confused individuals where they can't do so much damage when they inevitably snap. Whatever happened to fashion, Broadway, and interior decoration? PeterKa 03:04, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
The Amtrak train wreck appears to have been an accident and possibly negligence. The investigation should reveal more details. Conservative 03:23, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
Report: Engineer of crashed Amtrak train declined to give statement to police. One man noted, "Judging by the Lois Lerner standard, he'll be sentenced to 8 weeks paid vacation." VargasMilan 03:26, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
They've established that Bostian accelerated the train while he was approaching this notorious curve.[6] How is it possible that he is not in custody at this point? PeterKa 19:18, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

Jade Helm 15

32% of Republicans agreed that "the Government is trying to take over Texas". What does CP think? ABauers 20:55, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

There are something like 20 lawsuits brought by Texas against the federal government, so there is no denying a conflict. Also, supporters of same-sex marriage want the federal government in D.C. to impose it on Texas.--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
But is Obama trying to take over Texas by military force? ABauers 21:03, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
No, and there is no reason to as long as liberals continue trying to take it over by regulations and judicial supremacy.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
So are 32% of Republicans wrong, and only 28% correct? If so, what could motivate those 32% to believe something that is incorrect? ABauers 21:11, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
The poll question did not asking about a takeover by force, rather than by judicial decision or regulation. An ambiguous question will elicit a response that cannot be interpreted as meaningful.--Andy Schlafly 21:16, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Encyclopedia of Conservatism Project

Does anyone or any Conservapedians want to launch a Conservapedia: Encyclopedia of Conservatism which would be featured on the main page?

The project would focus on creating/expanding Conservapedia's articles on liberal/moderate/conservative leaders/politicians and political organizations. In addition, political movements could be covered as well.

The project page would have three sections in terms of articles that need to be created or expanded: a conservative section, a moderate section and a liberal/leftist section.

Feel free to create/join a conversation about this at Conservapedia: Encyclopedia of Conservatism Project. Conservative 14:17, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

A friendly site

Please see: http://www.vocabulary.com/lists/15744#view=notes

--Joaquín Martínez 09:27, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

News bulletin change request.

Hi.

I think we really should change one of the news bulletins. Namely, I think we should at the very least remove this tidbit from the news bulletin about Christian Europeans not attempting to stop the Holocaust: "For that matter, why didn't Pius XII excommunicate Adolf Hitler and other top Nazis?" If not reword the entire news point to avoid implying that Christianity at large didn't do anything at all to help the Jews.

First of all, despite what you might think, the Pope doesn't actually have the power to excommunicate people. That authority lies with the local bishops in the area. If you're going to pin blame on anyone, do it to those who actually DO have the power to excommunicate, ie, the local bishops. Second of all, at the very least Hitler had already left the Catholic faith, and in fact also demanded for Christians of all stripes to be wiped out (it might surprise you to learn that a lot of the people killed in the Concentration Camps were actually Christians), so trying to excommunicate him would be utterly pointless as he's not even a Christian. Protestants may believe that you're automatically a Christian if you're baptized, even if you've left the faith, the old "once saved, always saved" fallacy, but we Catholics don't believe that at all. Now, I can't speak for the Catholics in Germany who may have smelled the burning flesh yet did nothing, but I can assure you that Pope Pius XII as well as several clergymen up to even Denmark actually did a LOT to try and save all of the Jews that they could. For starters, a lot of the Catholic priests actually doctored IDs and papers to ensure the Jews were given new identities, hiding their Jewish heritage from the Nazis, and also hid them inside the churches. In fact, that's actually one of the reasons why the Catholics and other Christian sects actually made clear that during bombing raids, the churches be spared. And yes, even Protestant sects attempted to spare the Jews as well, although not for any direct morality against slaughtering or rounding up humans so much as they think their being converted would settle the issue. It's still something though. Now, I might admit that Pius XII may not have actually openly spoken out, but here's the thing, if he did openly speak out, he'd pretty much make things even worse for not only the Jewish people, but also the Catholics, as Hitler and his men would have started rounding up various bishops. Also, Pius XII's efforts in trying to save the Jews was extensive enough that the Chief Rabbi of Rome not only converted to Catholicism, but actually chose his Christianized name to be Pius XII's civilian, pre-Pope name specifically as gratitude towards his efforts.

Implying that only a few Christians tried to stop the Holocaust is actually a huge disservice and extremely disingenuous. If anything, it's more accurate to state only a few Christians didn't even attempt to do a thing about the Holocaust at all. So really, this should be changed. Besides, this sort of thing ends up promoting the disinformation that the Soviets pushed that Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" despite all the evidence being against it, and I thought this was a Conservative-based Wiki. Pokeria1 17:13, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

You put a lot of effort into your objection and I am not sure TerryH reads the main page talk page.
Second, I amended the main page post in question to a Pokeria/TerryH compromise version. Conservative 18:39, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
I'd prefer removing the excommunication bit entirely since again, it's pointless to try and push for someone's excommunication if they've already left the Catholic faith anyways (at least in the case of Hitler). It's not like the Protestant faith where they believe you're still a Christian even if you stop going to Church. But I guess we'll have to make do for the moment. Pokeria1 19:06, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

You May Already Have Won...

A new U. S. recession. Friday, May 29, 2015 the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis will take a second look at the January-March GDP percent increase, which was very close to zero last time they looked. Two negative three-month percentage increases in a row...it's recession time (it's a widely-shared rule of thumb). News outlets like to announce the results with no warning whatsoever so you're too jarred to question their usually bogus analysis. VargasMilan 09:17, 21 May 2015 (EDT)

The U.S. economy is giving conflicting signals in terms of what will happen in 2015.[7][8][9][10] Conservative 18:58, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

The verdict: a -0.7% decline for January through March 2015. They'll take a third look at the end of June. VargasMilan 08:52, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Australia rejects referendum?

I don't really think this is news as a referendum in Australia is only used to alter the constitution, and this is not a constitutional matter. This is what the Prime Minister is explaining and it's also confirmed by the pro-homosexual leader of the opposition and advocates as well. I'm not sure who put that article there (it looks like they either didn't understand or perhaps didn't even read it) but could it be changed or removed? It's not even news, it's just ... nothing.

I thought a proponent of homosexual marriage criticized Abbott for his statement.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
The Leader of the Opposition agreed with Abbott that there should not be a referendum although he himself is pro-same sex marriage - he just believes Parliament should decide, not a referendum. Abbott is in the minority here. The last opinion poll on the subject has 72% for, 21% against (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-growing-support-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html ) and Abbott himself admits that even in his own family he is "probably the last holdout for the traditional position." (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ireland-samesex-marriage-vote-wont-sway-tony-abbotts-support-20150524-gh8cmn.html ) AlanE 00:56, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
The Australian prime minister has promised an open parliamentary debate on the issue and in all likelihood Australia will allow it by the end of the year. Tony Abbot clearly has a weak stance and is caving in to the homos

Why do liberals defend brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein but then get all worked up over an alleged juvenile offense by Josh Duggar?

Make no mistake, what Josh Duggar allegedly did was sinful and possibly an undetected crime, but his sisters have reportedly forgiven him, along with his wife, in laws, and parents. Meanwhile, they don't want to talk about Uday Hussein and Saddam Hussein. Liberals are still angry they were deposed. I don't get the severe lack of logic of liberals.

I would defend the Iraq War today. I respect, but don't agree with Rand Paul's assessment on the costs of war. But the War in Iraq was absolutely noble. BlueStateGOP 14:36, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

(A) Why is Hussein relevant to Duggar? One is a private figure, the other is an authoritarian dictator.
(B) Which liberals think Hussein was good? Some liberals might think Hussein would have been better than war, but that's quite different.
(C) What does Conservapedia think on Duggar's Christianity, conservatism, and molester status? ABauers 20:39, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
(A) You just made my point even stronger. Duggar is a private figure and thus politicians should not express any type of extra condemnation of an alleged juvenile offense.
(B) Liberals are still angry that Saddam Hussein and Uday Hussein were overthrown. Some defend Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a better place for women, even before Obama let ISIS take over.
(C) molester status? Josh Duggar was never arrested, even as a juvenile. Why do you think the U.S. Constitution is silly, because apparently the concept of due process seems foreign to you? It's this line of liberal anti-Bill of Rights thinking that has led to many of the police community riots we have seen in the past year. BlueStateGOP 10:13, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

Irish Referendum

Should we mention that Ireland overwhelmingly (62%) voted to legalize gay marriage? [11][12] ABauers 20:34, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

It was mentioned on the news page as evidence of Ireland's abandonment of Christianity, and is still there now. I understand liberal denial is characteristic, but does it even extend to claiming the words which are right in front of their faces are not there? Perhaps that's why so few liberals accept the Bible. ChrisBaker 01:06, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

News pick: Nebraska Legislature abolishes death penalty

Christian Science Monitor. This is a wonderful development, especially for those who understand the Church's teaching on capital punishment. GregG 20:48, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

Amen. SaulJ 16:37, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Greek monks resist homosexual agenda

A good story here. Could someone put this on MPR? StaceyT 17:59, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Jpatt, you're an imbecile

This article is satire. It even says so at the top.

The piece may be satire, but the points it raises are valid. We have an affirmative action President who, while he may at some point in his life have worked a day or two, definitely does little work now, and clearly thinks that liberal pseudoscience like climate change is not only a credible national security threat, but a greater one than REAL things such as ISIS and Iran! --ChrisBaker 20:14, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Got it. I guess you have never been wrong. Did you vote for the smartest man alive?--Jpatt 20:12, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Personal tools