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)
Jpatt proven right. Establishment GOP are our adversaries.--Jpatt 17:09, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
This deal is bad for all involved as it also gives away too many sovereign rights of nations to large corporate entities. JohnSelway 17:57, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
Kakistocracy--Jpatt 21:15, 23 June 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, re: Egyptian article/video/satire

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)

Patriot Act vs. Freedom Act News Item on MPR

In the MPR item on the Patriot Act vs. the Freedom act, the link provided is, flatly, disturbing. Specifically, my issues lie with the points below and the entire tone of the article. Emphasis will be mine throughout.

  • Referencing a "shared user" folder used by Apple computers to provide a clear path for app downloads on her new computer, titled "adi" which the author deleted and was restored three days later:
    "‘Adi’ is a special, private nickname for Adolf Hitler, employed by his nearest and dearest... 3 days, 3rd Reich. Aren’t they clever?! Hitler’s Invisible Presence; there, but ‘not there’. To ‘remind’ me. Evil eye. Evil ear. Evil heart."
Comparing the US Government to Nazi Germany is nothing new, but, to me, it doesn't grant you a huge amount of credibility as an author if you take it a step further and flat out state that our government is A: a mass of Neonazis, B: so inept at spying that you found them in your "shared user" folder, and C: so obsessed with symbolism that they name their backdoor after Hitler, and wait three days to restore it, because that's the number of the 3rd Reich.
  • "Think back to the Obamacare Strong-Arming in 2009 and 2010. Then, forward a bit to the Supreme Court’s caving on its responsibility to rule Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL. One by one, A.k.a. Obama’s Opposition fell back, politically struck dead by an Invisible Hand. How? Right before our eyes, the wicked Power-Over of the NSA’s unconstitutional Patriot Act played out. Constituents fumed. Pundits spit fire. Why? Did they not see The Unseen? The Monster created by what soon may well be proven the wickedest false flag in American history – the Attacks of September 11, 2001..."
My biggest issue with this quote is the implication that 9/11 was a false flag operation, and the majority of this portion was included to give context to my next issue, but I'm interrupting to make special note of the "false flag" implication.
  • "As at election time, coast-to-coast, robust deployment of the latest ‘political management tool': anonymous Digital Death Threats. À la Adolf Hitler, civilian and military assassinations, enforcing the terror. Shall We The People take a survey, starting with 111st Congress, elected in 2008? If you’ve received a death threat, anonymous or otherwise, raise your hand. If harm to your family, property, business, or career in politics has been threatened, raise your hand."


Are we truly expected to believe that the Obama administration is competent enough to blackmail and threaten enough Congressmen to push Obamacare through without misplacing the evidence or sending the wrong threats to the wrong people?
  • This is, admittedly, a description for a hypothetical YouTube video, but it speaks to the author's mindset, as well.
    "Adi’s Neuordnung, run out of our White House. A credit rolls on a news-ticker: Special thanks to The Patriot Act’s Creation of The Digital SS!
"State-Sanctioned Intruders, inside your sacred spaces, firmly planting the Nazi Flag, despite any and all security protections you put into place. Invisible, silent, Strong-Arm Invaders appointed with 4th Reich Armbands – Adi’s Finest, digital-style – ruthlessly patrolling your lebensraum. Omnipresent Occupiers entrenched in your private devices, your entertainment electronics, your land and cell lines; heavily armed with State Power To Persecute. Ever-watching, ever-threatening. Stealing. Storing. Evil ears, evil eyes, evil hearts."
My argument here is that the Patriot Act was enacted in the wake of September 11, seven years before Obama took office. The continuity involved in something like this would be amazing. A Republican Congress, with a Republican President, approved the Patriot Act, a bill designed specifically to allow a liberal Congress, with a liberal President, to create the 4th Reich. Our current political parties can't even agree on a budget without closing the national parks, much less create the dystopia this author lives in.

There are reasonable criticisms of the Freedom Act all over the internet, ones that don't rely on massive, 15-year plans in 70-year conspiracies, false flag attacks on American soil, rampant blackmail, cronyism, and naivete at the highest levels of government.

In two minutes of searching for an alternative, I found this (admittedly biased, but at least grounded in something approaching reality) article. [Quick edit here. Forgot to sign] IHop

I heard that Hitler didn't use the term "Third Reich". VargasMilan 14:18, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I can't speak to whether or not Hitler himself used the term, but it was used in the propaganda of the time, and it is a lasting legacy of Nazi Germany that it is known as such. Regardless, the exact name Hitler used is not particularly germane to my problem with the link involved. My problem is that the page linked:
  1. Is bare inches from declaring the Bush administration responsible for 9/11, in collaboration with the Democrat Party,
  2. Actively proclaims that the US Government is capable of, and willing to, connect to a computer that has not been connected to the Internet since it came off the factory floor,
  3. Promotes a paranoid, deluded image of a dystopian government that is simultaneously capable enough to blackmail, bribe, and threaten its elected representatives, while simultaneously being so inept that they are bound by such absurd practices as "name the back door into computers after Hitler's childhood nickname," and "wait three days after this back door is found in a pathetically obvious file location, to send a message, meanwhile, the person we're monitoring can do whatever they want."
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but this author seems almost ready to declare the Queen of England and Vladimir Putin to be reptilians. IHop 15:14, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

This all comes back to a point I've made over and over again. I first came to Conservapedia when I heard Mr Schafly talking about the project on the BBC back in 2007. Then, MPR was a wonderful place for a non-American to get a fresh perspective on the US and what real Americans were thinking. Now, most of the MPR comes from two places - a blog and a site that "borrows" news items word for word from other sources. As MPR is locked down, and whoever posts these links doesn't seem to concerned about quality control, I maybe swing by the site once a week now, in case something interesting comes up. I wonder if the number of visitors has changed since MPR became a link farm for TeaPartyCrusaders and ConservativeNewsAndViews? Rafael 09:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

IHop, reading your assessment, I expected to encounter some exhibitions of distress from the author, but found them notably absent. I looked for your second item and found that her real concern was that the computer she bought seemed to have connected to the internet without her intending it to. It is entirely possible that the bundled software was programmed to do so, which in itself is grounds for concern that, as well as the possibility of it occurring, seemed to escape your notice. The reference to the "Adi" file may have represented a file downloaded by the rogue software, the name of which, and its subsequent reappearance, appeared to her to be the icing on the cake, so she had a little fun with the name.
I think it's enough to say that the subtleties of her depictions, as I said, may have escaped your notice, so I won't pursue their interpretations beyond what I already have. VargasMilan 20:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
While it's absolutely possible I missed some subtlety in the article, I can't imagine one that would substantially change the overall tone. That said, if I missed something that changes the tone, then I would greatly appreciate the insight.
About the computer in question in Point 2, though. It's not that the computer connected to the Internet without a prior connection being set up. That is impossible without A) a built-in mobile wireless connection, B)an unsecured network within range, or C) a direct wireless connection to the Apple update servers. Most computers perform automated updates between the hours of 1-4 AM, since that is generally when people are in bed, and the update won't inconvenience the user. Before it can connect to the automated update servers, however, it creates a "user" named "adi." Apple computers are set by default to check for updates every three days.
IHop 10:21, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Question about uploading images

I'm wanting to upload images to illustrate the following orbital characteristics/directions

  1. apoapsis
  2. periapsis
  3. prograde (orbital mechanics)
  4. retrograde (orbital mechanics)
  5. normal (orbital mechanics)
  6. antinormal (orbital mechanics)
  7. radial (orbital mechanics)
  8. antiradial (orbital mechanics)

Would someone with the appropriate rights be willing to assist me? Red links will be addressed before images are uploaded.

Atheism Testimonials

If at all possible, could someone link the people praising our atheism article to some other things they've written? From what they're saying about it it's obvious they have their heads on straight, and I think a lot of us homeschooling parents would be able to use some of their materials in our lessons. --ChrisBaker 12:35, 17 June 2015 (EDT)

You have to scroll down the page HERE. Conservative 13:50, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
Much obliged, sir. This will be a great teaching aid! --ChrisBaker 18:46, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
Yep, our organization try's to do that. I have also been pushing for us to start a little campaign to get more conservative editors on sites like conservapedia so people don't have to rely on the overly atheistic sites such wikipedia. I have a colleague in China who tried to register to edit here but he said registration wasn't open so you might want to fix that before we start a drive to get some more editors here from our side. FFAF 10:03, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Racist Terrorist...

... seems to be much more appropriate a description than "bigtime facebook user"! --AugustO 14:57, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

BTW, Andy, how do you know that he was a "bigtime facebook user", and not only a common one? --AugustO 15:28, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

From media reports, it seems he also had an unhealthy addiction with very hardcore pornographic materials and was into atheistic forums too (perhaps why he did it in a church) FFAF 10:05, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Also I don't find Facebook to be that bad if used for constructive purposes. I am involved in a number of pro-Christianity and anti-atheism groups (such as FFAF) that would not be able to get their positive word out about our lord saviour jesus christ, blessed by his name, or other such positive christian messages. FFAF 10:08, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Voter ID news pick

North Carolina's Legislature passes an amendment to its voter ID law to allow voters with a "reasonable impediment" to obtaining voter ID to vote. This measure, obviously based on South Carolina's provision approved by a three-judge panel in 2012, is a very good one. More of the strict voter ID states should adopt it. GregG 20:53, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

This bypass procedure seems to undermine much of the purpose of a voter ID requirement. The point of the requirement is for there to be independent verification of identity, not for the person merely to vouch for himself.--Andy Schlafly 12:29, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
I disagree. The procedure would still require those possessing qualifying photo ID to present it when voting; it would address those voters for whom obtaining ID is unduly burdensome (think those that need to pay the costs associated with getting a [corrected] birth certificate from where they were born or going to an ID-issuing location). Also, voters using the reasonable impediment procedure would still be required to provide non-photo identification (such as the last 4 digits of a social security number), similar to the HAVA requirements for first-time voters who registered by mail. Unless, of course, you think those voters not willing to meet these burdens should be barred from voting.  :P GregG 19:08, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Lubitz vs. Roof

Andy, after Lubitz's mass-murder-cum-suicide, you even changed the definition of terrorism to claim that "the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism". Now, I wonder will Conservapedia refuse to ask whether Roof's action was an act of racist terrorism? It seems to fit the description!--AugustO 08:28, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Much of the terrorism in the Middle East has been racial in nature, so I wonder what the adjective "racist" would add to the term "terrorism". Some might find the term "racist terrorism" to be redundant. What liberal denial seem to resist admitting is that "atheistic terrorism" occurs.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
  • Much of the terrorism in the Middle East has been racial in nature Really? I think that most of the terrorism in the Middle East is religious.
  • That's a yes, then, I suppose.
--AugustO 14:20, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
I haven't seen any compelling evidences that point to this being racial in nature. What Dylan did was nothing more than a simple atheistic attack on all of Christianity. --GordonR 15:17, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. GregG 20:54, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
I said "compelling evidences." I know that the liberal media has cooked up all kinds of false racial evidences to hide the fact that he was a liberal atheist. --GordonR 02:24, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
Obvious troll GordonR is VERY obvious troll. 2 edits, both to talk main page, both obviously trolling. Davidspencer 03:23, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
This site...*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*. Trying so hard to ignore the racial motivations of this monster. Roof posted a manifesto citing Earl Holt, a well known white supremacist and conservative activist. I hope you're just bad at reporting news, and not seriously trying to account for the actions of a militant racist. --Tryagain 13:36, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
Tryagain, no one in the conservative media is trying to hide—or failing to condemn—the racism of this atrocity. Andy has said a month or two ago when pruning the articles of the Conservapedia news feed that the news feed is not a straight news feed of general news or commentary on the news, but designed to especially report conservative perspectives of world events that are not being reported elsewhere. VargasMilan 22:33, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
To clarify, I don't think I over-interpreted, but judge for yourself—Andy said: "Trim headlines to insightful news items, not just any news". VargasMilan 23:14, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Before his shooting spree, when was the last time that Dylann Roof went to church?

From the Huffington Post:

"He was on the roll of our congregation," Rev. Tony Metze of St. Paul's Lutheran Church, told The Huffington Post. Metze is also the pastor to Roof's family, and said he has been providing them with "Christian care" since the shooting. The pastor did not respond to questions on how often Roof had attended the church or if had been there recently. He referred HuffPost to the South Carolina Lutheran synod bishop, who did not immediately respond to request for comment.[18]

Is that essentially what Lubitz's pastor said? Conservative 13:51, 22 June 2015 (EDT)

College is a con

I think the news item would benefit immensely from including the second sentence as well as the first: "It benefits immensely from right-wing McCarthy wannabes, who in an effort to restrict academic freedom and silence political dissent, depict universities as left-wing indoctrination centers." That sentence makes very clear what the Salon/Alternet article was really saying, and what was meant by the phrase "cloak of liberalism". SamHB 00:25, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

"Germany, ...."

Looks like rejecting homosexual marriage didn't help the Germans win the match. SaulJ 20:54, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

You're right about the outcome of tonight's game. But the bigger issue is this: should Germany even be allowed to participate in the tournament???--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
I think the question you're trying to ask here is something along the lines of: "Is the moral opprobrium regarding the denial of marriage equality, as was the case with, for example, apartheid, a sufficient reason to ban a country from international sporting competition?" Right now, I would say no. Even among the gay rights activist groups that I follow, nobody really seems to be saying that, yet -- do any of the gay rights activists you read say that?
That said, as marriage equality becomes more and more the norm, as it will, (gradually, and with setbacks) countries that do not allow people to marry because they are not of the opposite sex will probably come to look as backwards and out of touch with a generally-shared international culture of rights as did, say, parts of the US before the Loving case. SaulJ 22:29, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
In other words, some may hope for a future whereby any nation that rejects same-sex marriage will be excluded from tournaments like the World Cup, right?--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Some may, I suppose, but nobody of note is now -- yours is literally the only analysis I've read that speculates on the possibility. Given how quickly marriage equality has become the norm in heavily-Christian societies such as the United States and Ireland, I can only imagine that activists won't need to resort to a strategy targeting international sports. But I've been wrong before. If you had asked me in 2000 if we would have legalized gay marriage before, say, 2020, I would have thought it impossible. SaulJ 23:15, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Imposition by a 5-4 vote from D.C. is hardly a ringing endorsement.
As to the broader point, didn't Obama break protocol and refuse to attend the last Winter Olympics in Russia because of LGBT opposition to Russian policies on the issue? It seems likely that only reason that nations are not excluded from tournaments based on this issue is because too many nations would walk away if that stunt were attempted.--Andy Schlafly 23:24, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
"Imposition by a 5-4 vote from D.C. is hardly a ringing endorsement." Perhaps not, but that's how our system works, and I don't have to point you to the polling data that show that a growing majority of Americans support marriage equality. I don't really know enough about the politics of international sport to further comment on your speculation, though, as I said above, I think the "only reason" the strategy of excluding particular nations from international competition hasn't been pursued might have more to do with the activist community deciding it's not really a fruitful strategy. Opposition to white-minority rule was an internationally-coordinated campaign, and excluding rogue nations like Smith-era Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa from the Olympivs/international cricket/etc. made sense because of the scope of the opposition. While LGBT rights activism, broadly put, has its international dimensions, most international effots are focused on repressive things like the Ugandan so-called "Kill the Gays" bill or Putin's more egregious laws, and not on the more narrow question of marriage. SaulJ 23:57, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
The liberal media thought abortion was an inevitable trend, but history has proven otherwise. Public support is directly correlated to media bias on an issue, and over time that bias on an issue gives way to competing views. Support for abortion has predictably declined as a result of the public becoming more aware, and less tolerant, of the biased presentations in the media about it. Likewise, support for same-sex marriage will decline also as the public starts to demand more balanced presentations of the issue.
It is difficult seeing the percentage of those who accept the Bible changing much due to a 5-4 Court ruling, and the Bible stands clearly against it.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

re: "marriage equality" - "Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997. This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only." See: Homosexuality and promiscuity.

Like all liberal ideological talking points, so-called "marriage equality" is a farce. Never take any claim by a liberal at face value. Leftists constantly lie.

And when called on the carpet regarding their lies, leftists frequently resort to anecdotal evidence.Conservative 10:15, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

2016 Republican Nominee Race

Hey guys, with such a crowded field for the Republican Presidential field I am starting to wonder if it will be detrimental to the race. Whereas the Democrats have only two well known names in the race (Clinton and Sanders) the Republican field is so full of names that I wonder if their individual messages/positions will get through all that noise. What do you guys think? Personally I lean towards Bush being the favourite. JohnSelway 23:35, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

The large crowd makes it more difficult for a first-time candidate to gain sufficient support. Ultimately the race could narrow down to the more familiar names, such as Bush v. Huckabee. But it is exciting to have so many candidates in the race, and the end result will be more conservative than otherwise. The Democrats' approach for picking a nominee seems far worse.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Bush will fizzle rather quickly. A Fox News/beltway GOP favorite but that is about it. I expect Walker will jump in with Koch backing.--Jpatt 01:10, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
Interesting points, thanks Jpatt and Aschlafly. I agree it is exciting but I fear that with Celebrity style candidates (like Donald Trump) sucking up the media oxygen it makes it more difficult for more grassroots conservatives to make an impact. I know almost nothing about the process the democrats use - I'm sure I can read about it here though. JohnSelway 02:20, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

Sanders is another McGovern and unelectable. He doesn't have the appeal of identity politics and guilt factor of the "first black president" and there is no indication he will run as the first Jewish president (perhaps due to fear of anti-semitism. In addition, Jewish values like the importance of family/education, etc. etc have made American Jews successful and Sanders' campaign is about the "have nots"). Clinton's scandals/health/age concerns seem to be weighing her down. She seems to have a bunker mentality. And running in a campaign is a grueling experience and although she has the ambition, I am not sure she has the energy to run.

If the Democrats win, it will be due to sowing up the black/hispanic/women/asian/young people vote and Hillary being the first woman candidate. In addition, Democrats seem to worry less about scandalous behavior and are more concerned about the "free goodies" that government doles out.

But blacks haven't gotten much from Obama's presidency and the economy and the current educational system is poor for young people (who have a lack of job experience and there seems to be a lack of confidence in their education to adequately preparing them for work). And the weak/fragile economy could effect the hispanic/women/asian votes. Furthermore, the economy could get worse between now and November 2016. For example, the economies of Greece and some European countries and China look weak right now and the global economy does effect the American economy.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of Republican/general public enthusiasm for RINOs. The RINO vote is split between Bush/Christie. And lately Rubio has seemed more and more RINOish.

Huckabee doesn't have the cash to run a strong candidacy and his prospects for getting more cash look unfavorable.

Although the press has a tendency to try to savagely attack evangelical conservatives, Scott Walker is likeable, has a good track record in his state, is a very tough candidate, is a disciplined candidate who is not gaff prone and he seems to be favored by the Koch brothers. Donald Trump has the money, name recognition and mental toughness, but his egotism/"The Donald" gives him less gravitas/likeability than Walker. In addition, I think Trump will be a less disciplined candidate who stays less on message than Walker and I think Trump will be more gaff prone.

It is a very tough race to call and anything can happen, but I think Walker has the best chance at this point. Conservative 06:52, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

"If the Democrats win, it will be due to sowing up the black/hispanic/women/asian/young people vote..." God forbid they "stir up" the majority of American citizens, which is exactly what such a coalition would represent. SaulJ 10:16, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
SaulJ, politics based on people's genetic makeup is not lofty politics. It is cynical politics that often divides people (whites vs. non-whites, women vs. men, X ethnicity vs. Y ethnicity, etc. etc.) and does not lead to solutions that are more apt to raise all boats. Conservative 12:34, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
For the foreseeable future, I don't think any American presidential politician is going to rally a sizable majority of Americans. Given the culture war, cynical identity politics and divided opinions about economic policy (class warfare and battles between takers and producers), I think divided government is going to be the rule for the foreseeable future.
Ronald Reagan managed to get about 58% of the popular vote in 1984 and Nixon got about 61% of the vote in 1972, but I think those days are over. People are more cynical/skeptical now and Reagan like charisma will only get you so far. And the United States hasn't had strong political leadership for some time. Hence, the 17 trillion dollar federal debt, etc. etc.
Maybe a crisis will happen and a demagogue will win a sizable majority due to people's desperation. But absence of that, I don't see any American politician winning a sizable presidential election majority for some time. Conservative 11:50, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
I also think that with the current 17 trillion dollar deficit, the large baby boomer population aging and seemingly being very resistant to raising the eligibility requirements for social security, the younger generations are going to feel more and more financially squeezed due to the rising costs of supporting a non-working older generation. If this continues, more friction between the young/old will occur. Social security was not designed for people living as long as they do now.
Also, the United States does not seem to be going in the right direction. If the USA continues to go on the path it is on, its financial situation could get worse. If this happens, people will be looking for scapegoats and mud slinging and negative campaigning could increase. Of course, this could potentially perpetuate divided government.
It will require a lot of work/commitment to erase the 17 trillion federal deficit, improve the U.S educational system and create a situation where people would more harmoniously work together. Short of a religious revival in the United States, I don't see this happening through human efforts alone. Conservative 12:24, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

SaulJ, by the way, the secular left does not care about minorities, women or homosexuals. What they care about is power. See: No truce with the left and Atheism and social justice and Western atheism and race and Atheism and women and irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence and Atheism and actions against homosexuals. Conservative 14:59, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

ISSUE ON MAIN PAGE

It should be the 4th of July, not the 4Rth of July as it says on the left of the page. FFAF 20:30, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

Thanks. I will fix it. Conservative 20:31, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
Even better, it should be Independence Day !!! I fixed it.--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

"Oregon State issues gag order against opposing homosexual marriage"

I read the decision referred to (I don't agree with it either); it contains no such "gag order" of the scope indicated by the headline. The order applied only to statements threatening to refuse business on the basis of sexual orientation, not to "opposing homosexual marriage" more generally. (This sort of clickbait appears to be par for the course at TPC, along with risque and intrusive advertisements.) GregG 00:12, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

re: Greece

Who thinks this will wind up like Iceland where the Greek/European bankers take a big loss, the Greece economy tanks for awhile and then the Greeks bounce back? Not sure if this applies. The people of Iceland seem more disciplined than the Greeks. See: Greece isn’t the first country to have a debt referendum. Does Iceland provide useful lessons?

Who do you think is going to blink first in this game of chicken? It seems like a game of political brinksmanship at this point. If so, typically these things get decided at the very 11th hour. The bankers have a lot to lose if Greek defaults. They may decide that something is better than nothing and cave in to Greek demands.

What do you think will happen to the European/global/USA economy?

Will the Greeks leave the EU and go back to the drachma? If so, when?

What do you think the future of the EU will be? Conservative 00:32, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

I think Greece will leave the EU. JohnSelway 00:41, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
Here is what Trump says who is pretty good at dealmaking: "Trump said the U.S. should rely on Germany to take care of Greece's debt problem, calling it "peanuts" for them. "Germany is very powerful, very strong," Trump said. "I’d let Germany handle it. We have enough problems; let Germany handle it. Germany will take care of it. This is peanuts for Germany. They’ll take care of it."
Trump believes if Germany doesn't step in he fears Vladimir Putin will come in and "save the day."
"Frankly, Putin probably comes in to save the day, if Germany doesn't," Trump said. "So I think that Greece is going to be better shape than people think."[19]
I think there is a 80/20 chance that Germany will cave in due to the political influence of their bankers and the possible loss of imports due to the European economy possible tanking. And it will be the German taxpayers who are left holding the bag or pain sharing between the German taxpayers/bankers. If Germany caves, then Italy/Portugal/Ireland have more leverage.
Long term things are going to get financial ugly in Europe with their aging population and many anti-growth policies. Conservative 00:53, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Actually, the more I think about it, the odds are 50/50 that Greek will completely default and wind up leaving the EU. The culture clash between Germany with its greater economic discipline and leftist Greek spendthrifts seems like too wide a divide. Rueters may have it right: Advice for Greece: Never play chicken with Germany

Maybe the leftists Greeks will cave and come crawling back to get their bailout money. Leftists are often weak, but often they doubledown rather than lose face so it makes things hard to call. Conservative 01:28, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Personal tools