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

Evolution's Achilles' Heels, Evolution vs. God, etc.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels book is coming out in July of 2014 followed by a DVD documentary.[1]

Given the success of various previous creationist/intelligence design books, it will be interesting to see what other creationist/ID books come out in 2014 and beyond. I am looking forward to this matter.

Also, Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. God now has 1,618,923 views.[2] I am looking forward to when it receives over 4,000,000 views like his anti-abortion video called "180".[3] Conservative 14:40, 7 June 2014 (EDT)

Wasn't there another anti-evolution book that was announced on this site dozens of times over the past few years? It was meant for school children. It was called something along the lines of "a stake in the heart of evolutionism/atheism" and the "runaway train" of the Question Evolution! campaign, among other things. Does anyone know that status of this? --Randall7 17:25, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Bergdahl

I'm curious to know what those who have issues with the Bergdahl repatriation would have had done, had they been in charge? Is the problem the very concept of recovering a soldier who might have deserted? Or is it the number of Guantanamo Bay detainees swapped? Remember that he would likely have been used in propaganda by the terrorists, and he'd been in captivity for five years. CescF 22:41, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

So, what number of the Nazi leadership would you have traded for the 73,000+ MIA from WWII [4], since the US "doesn't leave any behind"? I'm just curious like you. OscarO 15:33, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

We may need to modify one of the news bulletins.

Hi.

One of the news bulletins needs to be changed slightly:

"Fans of the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler go on a shooting spree.[3] Like Hitler, they killed themselves as well. "

While I agree with the comparison to Hitler, the problem is that Hitler most likely didn't commit suicide, and declassified FBI documents imply that they were even tracking Hitler in Argentina. We may need to reword it slightly to take that into account, like "Like what was reported to be Hitler's fate..." or something like that. Pokeria1 12:01, 9 June 2014 (EDT)

Due to competing demands and a lack of time today to investigate your objection, the latter part of the post in question will be removed. Conservative 14:24, 9 June 2014 (EDT)
@Pokeria1, I am sure, that Hitler died in Berlin. There are witness, who have seen the bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun.--JoeyJ 05:52, 10 June 2014 (EDT)
Except the skull fragments recovered from the bunker that were believed to have belonged to both Braun and Hitler indicated that they belonged to a woman with no relation to Eva Braun, meaning they couldn't have belonged to Braun and certainly not to Hitler, either. And claiming witnesses means little, as people can claim witness all the time even when they actually haven't. Don't forget, several people claimed witness to the Duke Lacross Team's rape of Tarawa Brawley, even when they were actually innocent. When skull fragment DNA testing indicates they weren't the corpses, most likely they aren't the corpses. And apparently both Stalin and Eisenhower believed he may still be alive. Pokeria1 09:48, 11 June 2014 (EDT)
The source you are referring to is a book by Jerome Corsi and he is not a very serious historian. For example he believes that the U.S. government did 9/11.--JoeyJ 11:43, 11 June 2014 (EDT)
Maybe, but he also got the idea from Nicholas Bellatoni, an archaeologist from Connecticut State, and Bellatoni even got permission by the Russian Federation to analyze the skull fragments' DNA. I'm basing it more on Bellatoni's testimony than on Corsi's testimony. Pokeria1 14:21, 11 June 2014 (EDT)
So, what about the Argentine Newspapers reporting that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun escaping to Argentina on a sub, or those FBI reports, heck, even Stalin, the head of the USSR at the time, being doubtful about Hitler's demise? There was also a submarine report there as well. For the record, I don't trust Truthers, as they are of the same camp that thinks the landing on the moon was staged, but the evidence supplied in the article is pretty much irrefutable, being from actual documentation and, in one case, DNA testing. And actually, I'm not even sure there were any witnesses, at least those who actually heard the gunshots. And normally if an enemy had committed suicide or was defeated, we inspect the body and photograph it to make sure we got him. Maybe he did commit suicide, I can't say, but the evidence is making that unlikely. That's not to say he's still alive now, though. Pokeria1 11:47, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
Stalin used Hitler's skull fragments on his desk as an ashtray. Don't think he had much doubts about Hitler's demise. OscarO 15:06, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

"All the resources that Barack Obama invested in the Iraq War is going up in smoke."

Yeah, shame on Barack Obama for starting that war. Also, it should be "are going up in smoke," as "resources" is plural. EddyJ 09:34, 12 June 2014 (EDT)

Obama could have pulled out of that war a lot sooner. That country was bound to be taken over by Sunni Muslim extremist. See: What is the cause of the Islamic militant surge? A country that is highly in debt like the United States cannot afford to squander resources. It's all Bush's fault is wearing mighty thin at this point. I never bought into it in the first place. As President Truman said, "The buck stops here."
Furthermore, Obama is now advocating throwing more resources into Iraq. Bush isn't forcing Obama to throw additional borrowed money into the money pit of Iraq. Conservative 22:27, 12 June 2014 (EDT)
I interpret the ISIS attack as triggered by Obama's policy of cozying up to Iran, especially by the nuclear deal he inked in 2013. The Saudis need someone to protect them from Iran. If Obama won't do it, they'll hire ISIS. ISIS is Sunni and most Iraqis are Shiite. The group won't be able to take over Iraq. The country will divide three ways, Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni. Ordinary Iraqis always hated Americans as infidels. Around 40 percent of them supported the attacks on U.S. soldiers. The CIA financed non-sectarian candidates, but they always flopped. The Shiites prefer the sectarian anti-Sunni politicians endorsed by Ayatollah Sistani, which is how Maliki got to be prime minister. PeterKa 10:41, 14 June 2014 (EDT)
It's interesting how ISIS is facing opposition by Teheran, Putin, and the United States. Which will play the leadership role? OscarO 15:15, 14 June 2014 (EDT)
Obama is even considering air strikes to support this unholy alliance![5] Now that the Iraqi army has disintegrated, the U.S. has no dog in this fight. The lives of U.S. airmen would be on the line to protect our enemies from a barbarian horde created by a "friendly" nation. It would be the perfect metaphor for Obamunism as a whole. Well, at least we now know that Obama isn't a Muslim. He's certainly not a Sunni Muslim, anyway, since he has screwed them over pretty royally. PeterKa 03:02, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
Meanwhile Boko Haram kidnaps another 20 girls [6] At least ISIS gets that embarassment off the front burner. So this doesn't affect the US. Funny, I thought ripping Khaddafi's eyeball out and sticking a lead pipe up his rectum was in our "interests and values", according to Obama. OscarO 19:59, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
Two thousand Iranian soldiers just entered Iraq, with more on the way.[7] So perhaps Shiite Iraq will survive after all, albeit as an Iranian dependency. Iraq's oil production is all in the South, so Iran is getting quite a deal. Oh, BTW, President Rouhani says he might that even "think about" cooperating with the U.S. Isn't that big of him? PetPerKa 07:53, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
So the US joins the axis of evil, Putin, Iran, and the US. Obama finally sees things Putin's way, and prefers Bashar Assad to ISIS. Perhaps iran needs nukes to guarantee peace stability in the region. More leading with his head up his culo from behind. OscarO 01:14, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

News item.

Hi.

We might need to note that Gay Days at Disney World received a lot less attendance than usual, in part due to efforts from the Florida Family Association using airplane banners. [8] Pokeria1 12:09, 12 June 2014 (EDT)

"We want all our troops in Iraq to come home now!"

Apparently, there is a story on the main page that has been there since before the 2011 withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. (Unless the editor who put it up there thinks that withdrawing the Marines who guard the embassy would be a prudent move.) EddyJ 09:36, 13 June 2014 (EDT)

I thought the USA had a small amount of troops in Iraq comparable to some European countries (not including Germany where we have a large amount of troops). My mistake. Thanks for the correction. Obama is less of a screw up than I thought.
Without some troops left behind like in previous wars (like Germany, Korea and Japan), the countries of Iraq/Afghanistan will fold to the radical Islamacist because some troops behind shows some commitment. But, I don't think the USA should have gotten into those wars under Bush. And Obama should have pulled completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan right away. The demographics in most Islamic countries with the fundamentalist having more kids points to them taking over in those countries. The USA should have done what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympic massacres of their athletes (pursued the terrorist directly responsible for 9/11 - namely Osama bin Laden and key Al Quada terrorists). And I don't think it was surprising that Pakistan was hiding Osama. We should stop sending them money. Conservative 13:40, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
Doesn't know the first thing about American involvement in Iraq, thinks people should listen to his/her opinion about what America should do in Iraq. EddyJ 14:24, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
Obama's hands-off policy is a continuation of the neocon Bush/Cheney strategy to get Muslims killing each other in the mid east rather than killing Christians and Jews in midtown Manhattan. Divide and rule. OscarO 17:33, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Disgraceful behaviour at soccer world cup

Muslim player Fredrico Chaves Guedes (aka "Fred") praises Allah for being granted a penalty kick after taking a dive in the opening game of the corrupt world cup! See at the 39 second mark of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gnobU3TIA

Defending Freedom of Speech, Academic Freedom and Freedom on Inquiry

As outlined in a new section of Wikimedia Foundation there is a controversy about WikiConference USA which was advertised as open to all, including the "skeptical". When a noted critic of the WMF registered to attend the conference and had submitted a timely proposal to make a presentation, his registration was cancelled the afternoon before the conference began. Please consider signing the following petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/wikipedia-make-wikipedia-conferences-truly-open-to-all-by-allowing-greg-kohs-to-attend Thanks Wschact 13:02, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Kohs was kind enough to grant permission for use of his chart in CP's Wikipedia article. :Greg Kohs is an entrepreneur Wikipedia waged jihad against. Readers should support him. OscarO 16:59, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Benghazi Attack

This is the guy the NYT sips lattes with. Geez, I guess he was hard to find. OscarO 17:27, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Is God a conservative or a libertarian?

Aquinas said something along the lines of how can man, with his finite mind, ever hope to understand the infinite ways of God.

Am I the only one who finds the "Is God a Conservative or a Libertarian?" link bordering on the blasphemous in its attempt to pin the Lord down to a geographically and temporally specific ideology? Does God want us to be Conservatives or libertarians is a fair question, but the Lord Himself? Rafael 17:26, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Goods clearly a libertarian, a big believer in free will. OscarO 17:29, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
If He wants ten percent of our earnings, He apparently assumes a market economy. (No progressive taxation either.) PeterKa 02:09, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

5 maintenance tasks that need to be done - some of which could be automated

Some editors like to do wiki maintenance tasks. I started on two of these maintenance task, but I don't have the time to do it all myself.

There are 5 maintenance task that need to be done:

1. De-orphan pages which have no category tags or links to them from other pages.

2. Remove about 8% of the wiki pages which are ex-editors' user pages and user talk pages who have not edited in the last 3 years. And this task could probably be automated, but it could be done manually too.

There is a list of editors/users here: http://conservapedia.com/Special:ListUsers

If you go through the list and put delete page tags on the user pages and user talk pages of users who have been inactive for 3 years, then those pages can be deleted.

You can also find the pages that need to be deleted by looking at the pages that have these templates on them and then see if the users have been active in the last 3 years: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AUseful+links and http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AWelcome

3. Delete the templates that are never being used.

4. Build up the 2 sentence stub articles so they have at least 500 words. Using the random page search function, I estimate the stub articles are at least 30-40% of the wiki articles.

5. Within 10 years, about 50% of links become broken links. Xenu's Link Sleuth can crawl your website and find these dead links plus make a report: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html

Alternatively, using this Firefox tool https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/linkchecker/ or this chrome tool https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-checker/aibjbgmpmnidnmagaefhmcjhadpffaoi?hl=en these dead links can be found.

I did this link maintenance already for the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles.

I think these 5 maintenance tasks being done would enhance the user experience for the readers plus these are maintenance tasks that need to be done. Conservative 12:37, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Automating some of these tasks

I mentioned Xenu's Link Sleuth above in order to help automate spotting the dead links. I think that deleting the the inactive editors who have not edited for 3 years could be automated as well. Maybe using something like User:EdBot. Conservative 13:36, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

EdBot's been dead for 3 years. Actually longer, since the upgrades Ed refers to occurred circa 2008 or 09. OscarO 17:04, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

speedy

Please delete the articles from the Category:Speedy deletion candidates.--JoeyJ 07:08, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Done. Conservative 13:50, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

More disgusting Muslim cheating at soccer World Cup

Did anyone see the Russia vs. Algeria game? Muslim Algerian fans shone a laser in the eyes of the Russian goalkeeper during a set play, allowing Islam Slimani to get a header past him. The result is that Russia are knocked out while Algeria get rewarded and go through to the next stage! Everybody thanked Allah for the goal. RoryF 17:57, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

I would much rather play futbol than watch it. I find it incredibly stupid how the USA can tie Portugal, lose to Germany, and advance to the next round. What a backward set of rules. --Jpatt 22:17, 26 June 2014 (EDT)
Portugal lost to Germany and tied the US; should they go through instead? Ghana lost to both the US and Portugal; should they go through? What other set of rules would you propose? --JustinD 23:08, 26 June 2014 (EDT)
Jpatt - Portugal and the USA both beat Ghana, both lost to Germany, scored the same number of goals and drew against each other, however Portugal conceded more goals so the USA went through. Makes sense to me - Ghana didn't win any games at all. Who do you think should have advanced? RoryF 10:10, 27 June 2014 (EDT)
  • Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have both written soccer-bashing articles. It seems to me that a good sport is one that promotes health and fitness, something soccer does better than American football. The main thing that holds it back it that the U.S. has never done well in international competition. PeterKa 20:04, 27 June 2014 (EDT)
Justin, Portugal and the USA tie. Portugal was deemed the winner, the USA the loser in points. Both advance. The USA loses to Germany, advances because of Ghana. Please spare me, the results are lame. I propose only winners advancing. Rory, supporters and fanatics are perfectly fine with all that surrounds the game and see nothing odd about it. To fans of non-joke American sports, the points system is flawed. I understand that this point forward, any loss is an elimination. It would be nice if it were like that from the onset because let's face reality. The USA will not win the World Cup. But they are contenders from not of their own accomplishments. It's like saying the last place team can be in the playoffs even though they are guaranteed to lose. How exciting. --Jpatt 21:02, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

JPatt, do you follow sports at all? At the end of the round robin, the USA and Portugal tied with identical records -- 1/1/1 -- and thus four points each. So they go to goal differential to break the tie, and the US advances based on a better goal differential. It's really simple, and hardly noteworthy. EddyJ 14:50, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

EddyJ, do you venture outside or are you chained to your computer? Sorry, I was questioning the points scheme of the entire World Cup whereby teams lose and advance. You know what's more exciting than a 1-1 tie? Hacky sack. --Jpatt 15:09, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
A 1-1 tie is a game where anyone can win, right up until the last minute. Sounds pretty exciting to me!! Did you watch the Brazil vs. Chile game? That was very exciting, as is the Costa Rica vs. Greece game that is on right now.
I don't really like soccer as a sport because I think it rewards poor behaviour in a way that makes falling over more rewarding than keeping on one's feet and playing on. I do, however, enjoy the spectacle of the World Cup and I can understand what all the excitement is about. RoryF 18:08, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
You got me, OK so I don't like watching and calling futbol boring is upsetting to many. I can't help it. I don't find it a joke sport, it just doesn't hold my interests. Now if a basketball court were the size of a futbol field and the score was one to one...I'd find that boring too.--Jpatt 22:37, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
There are people in my neighborhood who cheer loudly when my country plays soccer against other countries. And there are liberals in my area who run soccer leagues/clubs that don't keep score because they just play for fun. Being liberal underachievers, they don't realize that winning is fun! :) Conservative 22:03, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
70% of Americans don't follow the World Cup [9]
Speaking of the World Cup, the current news entry mentions that the top 4 in that event were all Christian nations. Can someone insert a link to the source making that claim? I know Brazil's likely one of the top 4, but I don't know the other three's specific identities, and it seems to be a blanket statement without some sort of citation. Pokeria1 17:10, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

Is this anything?

http://witscience.org/first-scientific-proof-god-found/ RoryF 09:59, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

The linked article is satire. There is no such educational institution as the "Wyoming Institute of Technology". See [10]. GregG 10:28, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
Oh whoops! I definitely should have read it more closely then. I looked up Bob Jones University on this site and saw that it was real, got all excited and posted it. How silly of me RoryF 11:26, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

Coca-Cola

American teenager allegedly beaten by Israeli police

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/05/328886978/american-teen-visiting-israel-reportedly-beaten-by-police Is Israel really a true friend? --Kennywillis 21:37, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

Israeli police dispute the story and the video. Perhaps more clarifications will emerge in the news.--Andy Schlafly 21:47, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
Honestly, I lost respect for both sides. --Kennywillis 09:33, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Liberal applies N word to Obama

Isn't this cute? It's the latest in the endless liberal quest to make conservatives look like racists. I see it as a variation on the fake campus racism incidents that Coulter writes about periodically. PeterKa 00:39, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Our chickens are coming home to roost

It is obvious that Obama is on a tare. This lawless president is punishing America in every way he can. This article tries to explain why. I think it belongs on the main page. Does anyone expect him to put up with a Republican Congress? We'll be lucky if there isn't a coup before Obama's excellent adventure is up. PeterKa 05:09, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Years ago, we were told that immigrants would, "do the jobs Americans aren't willing to do." Because of Obamacare, all the new jobs are less than 30 hours a week. Yet unemployment is still at 6.1 percent. So the economic logic for increased immigration is gone. Why do we still need immigration reform/amnesty? To "do right by the children," meaning children from Central America the Obamunists have tricked into migrating to the U.S. and jumping the border. These illegal migrants are now languishing in disease-filled concentration camps. Obama is creating human misery that will be used to justify bringing in their families, or at least adults who will pose as family members. To liberals, what matters is that potential voters for the Democratic Party are being imported. PeterKa 20:55, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

"Target just told criminals that law biding citizens"

The phrase "law biding" should be "law-abiding". Perhaps our resident fourth-place spelling bee prize winner can fix it. Thanks, GregG 10:39, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Heheh. --Kennywillis 11:17, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
There's still a mistake: "abiding" is missing its initial "a". I also miss your previous comments about why you don't shop at Target and boasting that you spelled your newly-coined word "athbesity" correctly. GregG 21:38, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
I decided to cut Target some slack because I see now that they did not ban guns in their store. They merely prefer customers do not carry guns. But as we all know, "The customer is always right!". But after all is said and done, I like other stores better for a variety of reasons. Conservative 22:29, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

speedy

Please delete the Category:Lunatics.--JoeyJ 15:07, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Deleted. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:28, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Blocking of JohnsonR

Hi, I am following user Conservatives advice to make another account and appeal a ban. The Circumstances. I immediately called out user PetyrB on being a parodist and asked him if he was playing "A Game of Conservapedian Thrones". To cut a long story short I was banned for vandalism by another parodist, James Wilson when all I was trying to do was bring PetyrB to the attention of the administrators, so i therefore appeal my ban. Thanks you.--JohnsonT 09:43, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Appeal granted.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
My thanks.--JohnsonR 11:49, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Netherlands and Argentina

Isn't it kind of wrong to say that the Netherlands and Argentina couldn't make a goal only because they support same-sex marriage? Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the fact that they play soccer! It'd be like me saying that the Miss USA for Mississippi could never win because they have the highest obesity rate in America. Just sayin'. Thanks. Atum 12:20, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

"Christian nations are the best in the World Cup again" The German squad of 23 men includes at least three Muslim players (Sami Khedira - Mesut Özil - Shkodran Mustafa). --AugustO 16:00, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
In response to Atum, a nation's culture does affect its competitiveness. Atheistic nations like Britain, for example, are weak at team sports like soccer (football).--Andy Schlafly 19:02, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
A few days ago, you said Christian nations were dominating the top four. Now it appears three of them were godless, gay loving nations. Which is it? --StevenRS 19:45, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
The Netherlands is no longer a Christian nation, and it was defeated by one that is. There is no inconsistency. The results are precisely as expected.--Andy Schlafly 21:12, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
So only two of the final four were Christian? That's a far cry from when you said they were "dominating". Seems like you're moving the goalposts to fit your narrative. --StevenRS 21:21, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
"Moving the goalposts" - that's an expression which I haven't heard in a long time! Three out of the final four are Christian: Germany, Brazil and Argentina. Three out of the final four are same-sex marriage nations: Brazil, Argentina, and the Netherlands.--Andy Schlafly 21:53, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

Also, you said Argentina was a gay loving nation. So they are both Christian and pro gay? I guess a Christian, pro gay country is better at soccer than atheist pro gay countries, but both are worse than Christian anti gay countries? I'm just trying to get your theories straight. --StevenRS 21:24, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

I get annoyed when people blatantly say that the folks at Fox News are stupid rednecks or something like that, but the fact that you're saying some un-sourced fact that probably came from a Christian-biased website is pure ridiculousness. When I think of Conservapedia, I think of a site that doesn't have Liberal bias, not "The Christian Wiki"; I came here because it's Conservative, not Christian. I want to help with automotive articles, musical artists, etc, but if y'all keep throwing outrageous statements like this into the open, I don't know what to do. I read YoungCons and Libtard Show, and none of those are as "wow, bias" as some of the stuff on here. I love the idea of this project and support it, Mr. Schlafly, but some of this stuff is too far. Not every "Republican" is "religious", me as an example. Atum 19:55, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

See the results of research reported in a journal: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism. Conservative 20:01, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
Is Germany really a Christian nation? According to various reports I've read, it is one of the least religious nations in the world. Though it's a difficult thing to measure terribly accurately, I've seen them ranked in the top 20 least religious, and sometimes the top 10. Most western European nations, in fact, rank highest in terms of numbers of atheists and agnostics. If being Christian and anti-gay are key to sports domination, the final 4 in this year's World Cup seem among the least likely to have done well, with 3 having legal gay marriage, and 2 having high numbers of non-religious. Should Russia and some other Eastern European nations have been dominant? GarethN 11:12, 13 July 2014 (EDT)
The Blaze, which I would think would be a reliable source by this site's standards, has Germany tied for the #5 most atheistic nation in the world, beating out The Netherlands by 1% (within the margin of error, sure, but still), and the UK, which didn't make the top 10. How are they a Christian nation? GarethN 11:23, 13 July 2014 (EDT)
Germany is majority Christian.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 13 July 2014 (EDT)
Hardly, if at all. Wikipedia has them at 50% Christian. The Blaze has them at 51% identifying with any religion, and with that figure including Muslims, Jews, and others, it's clear that's less than 50% Christian. The UK, by comparison, is closer to 60% Christian. Is 50% the turning point at which a nation becomes poor at sports? Why are the few nations with legal gay marriage or high numbers of atheists doing so well? GarethN 17:35, 13 July 2014 (EDT)
Germany has a cultural legacy of the Protestant work ethic and they are executing with Germanic efficiency their 14 year plan focused on world soccer domination.[11] Germany wins fourth World Cup title by beating left leaning Argentina, 1-0.[12] Conservative 20:16, 13 July 2014 (EDT)
  • Germany is 64 percent Christian, according to the 2011 census.((24.87+24.55+0.71+1.05)/80.22)[13] PeterKa 22:09, 13 July 2014 (EDT)

John Kerry

Pardon my skepticism, but I'm pretty sure that no one has yet succeeded in actually getting a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. Yes, people in the past have helped negotiate formal treaties, but when has either side ever actually stopped? Besides, this is an issue that will ultimately require the two sides to figure it out themselves. What will really need to happen is something resembling what happened in the British Isles; eventually, both the British and Irish realized it was pointless to keep blowing each other to pieces, and decided to negotiate peace once and for all. Hopefully it won't take an Omagh to solidify it (that I do remember, being almost 9 years old at the time), but I wouldn't count on that. RedG 11:51, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Kerry is a failure. Just like his boss. Hope and change! Even Biden admits Obama didn't deliver on his hope and change promise. At least Carter could point to the Camp David Accords. Conservative 14:20, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
And that makes him different from any other American Secretary of State how, exactly? The Camp David accords are about as close to any kind of success there, and in the end that didn't even manage to bring about much change. I wish that anyone could affect said change, but no one here has had altogether much impact regardless of political leanings. RedG 16:42, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
Did Obama bring hope and change or is Joe Biden right that he did not? [14] Did Obama deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize? Conservative 17:01, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
No, obviously he didn't, but in fairness he didn't exactly ask for it; I'm hardly a big Barack Obama fan, but you have to be even-handed. No, he hasn't succeeded in the Middle East, but that doesn't make him any different from previous presidents irrespective of their politics. RedG 21:02, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
I think Obama probably made things worse in the Middle East and the world at large. All the U.S. federal debt he racked up certainly doesn't make the US's economy or the global economy any stronger. Many US voters seem double-minded right now. Many want a ton of benefits, yet lower taxes. Plus, most voted for Obama twice which was a display of extremely poor judgment. The Iraqi Kurds might find the breakup of Iraq a good thing though. I think Iraq was bound to eventually breakup anyway. Conservative 21:16, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
I'm not sure there was a tremendous amount Obama could have done that would make it better, although the "bright line" in Syria was definitely a bad move. As long as the Israelis continue to foist "Jewish settlements" on Palestine and hold land in violation of international law, and as long as a few militants claiming to represent Islam (which is hardly true, most Muslims would rather they go away) continue firing rockets at each other and at Israel, this will keep going on. It's too bad Rafic Hariri was assassinated, he really looked like the one who could pull it all together. In general, it's just sad that these people are playing these games with so many peoples' lives... RedG 22:15, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Times Square Kiss

It was Victory over Japan Day, not Victory in Europe Day. --AugustO 19:32, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Really? Thanks for your correction!--Andy Schlafly 19:39, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
Well, I was'Nt there, but Eisenstaedt - the photographer - said:
In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture. If the sailor had worn a white uniform, the same. I took exactly four pictures. It was done within a few seconds.
--AugustO 19:50, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
Our picture "Victory over Japan Day, Times Square Kiss", 1945, was taken by Lt Victor Jorgenson; he took this shot from a different angle than the more famous Alfred Eisenstaedt picture. --Joaquín Martínez 21:06, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
Joaquin - was the photo taken on Victory in Europe Day, then? Perhaps it was not taken on Victory over Japan Day.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Semantic HTML on Main Page

User:Conservative recently added the headline "Review of 72 Studies finds Evidence Supports Abortion", using four nested <big> tags and two <br> tags. The <big> tag is deprecated; semantic functions should be put in CSS. For example, using the attribute style="font-size: xx-large;" produces the following:

Review of 72 Studies finds Evidence Supports Abortion - Breast Cancer Link.[15]

Also, the two <br> tags are unneccesary; the browser is in the best position to wrap text appropriately based on the user's browser settings and window size. I know User:Conservative is interested in good web practices, so I hope this will not fall on deaf ears. Thanks, GregG 23:15, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Thanks, I recoded it. Conservative 23:22, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
Having the word link is redundant with the number with the square brackets. Also, will having an overarching headline become a standard feature of the main page? It certainly diminishes the visibility of the other main page elements and makes it look as though it is the headline for all of the main page content beneath it. Perhaps this should be reserved for earth-shaking news like "Supreme Court overturns Obamacare" or "House impeaches President"? Thanks. Wschact 08:06, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
The word "link" refers to a hypothesized connection between abortion and breast cancer, not a hyperlink. I agree with your assessment about the prominence of headlines at the top of the main page. GregG 09:46, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
So, the word "supports" should be "supporting" under your reading. I honestly parsed it: Review of 72 Studies (1) finds evidence (2) supports Abortion and (3) Breast Cancer. Neither reading parses grammatically. Thanks, Wschact 11:44, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

Other important news

Thursday morning, July 31st, the Bureau of Economic Analysis will report whether there has been a second quarter of GDP decline, and if so, that the U. S. economy is (tentatively if a small decline) in recession. But given Obama's administration's propensity to attack those who report bad news about it, this bureau may give a result of low growth, and then "adjust" it to a decline rather than growth in the next month or two so the bad news is spread out over time. VargasMilan 03:25, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

Unused files

Please use the images from here in articles or delete unnecessary images.--JoeyJ 07:15, 5 August 2014 (EDT)

Young earth proved!

If you actually understood the scientific method, you would know that nothing in empirical science is ever "proved." Scientific conclusions are either supported by a preponderance of evidence, or they are falsified. Perhaps you meant to say that "old Earth" is falsified by these findings, but it would take a great deal more evidence (preferably from a scientific source) to falsify the well-established scientific fact of a billions-years-old Earth. AndrewLe 20:46, 5 August 2014 (EDT)

Is science the only method for determining a matter? The words "Young earth proved!" link to this article Young earth creationism which provides both scientific and biblical evidence for a young creation along with evidence against an old earth/universe. The Bible, which has many supporting lines of evidence (not just scientific evidence) as far as its veracity, indicates that the world is about 6,000 years old. I stand by the word PROVED!
Also, if you had gone to all of the resources offered on the web page Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?, including a link to this web page, you would know that the Bible indicates that the world is about 6,000 years old.
Lastly, are you an atheist? Are you an agnostic? If you answered yes to either of these two questions, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism/agnosticism are valid? Conservative 21:41, 5 August 2014 (EDT)

Voting systems

The MPR item "RINO Senator Pat Roberts falls short of 50% in his own primary against a first-time candidate, but wins because Kansas lacks a run-off system." raises more questions than it answers. In general, CP should do a much better job of explaining voting and the controversies surround it. For example, does Kansas have an open or closed primary system? Recently, Eric Cantor lost an open primary in Virginia because Democrats and independents crossed over to vote for his Tea Party opponent. Run-off voting can be implemented in a number of ways. Some states have an open primary for all parties and then the top two vote-getters (not necesarily a Republican and a Democrat) face off in the general election. Some implement the run-off by holding a second election on a later date, but this puts a lot of financial burden on the candidates and the people conducting the election. A better solution is "Instant Run-off Voting" or "Preference Voting": The ballot allows voters to list the candidates in order of preference, and the vote stays with the top choice. If no candidate receives a majority after the first round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is dropped and the votes of his supporters are redistributed to their next higher choice. This avoids the cost of a second election and a second primary campaign.

While it may be interesting that Pat Roberts did not get 50%, there are better statistics. In the open Kansas 2010 primary between Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, 324,000 people voted. On Tuesday night, with 95 percent reporting, only 251,000 had voted. So, the lower voter turnout hurt Roberts' share of the vote vis a vis the other candidates. The victory margin is still small compared with the total number of eligible voters in Kansas. So, the MPR item could has just as easily said "with the margin due to a low voter turnout." Thanks, Wschact 10:42, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

The Office of Population Affairs

The Office of Population Affairs was created in 1970. I do not think its existence can be blamed on Barack HUSSEIN Obama as he was only about nine at the time. To attribute to him the Office of Population Affairs would mean that he is quite the mad genius, and a child prodigy. Which I am not sure fits in with the Conservapedia's favored line of thinking that Obama is incompetent.--CamilleT 19:52, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

Its current existence can be blamed on Obama. He is the current president. "The buck stops here." - Harry TrumanConservative 20:50, 7 August 2014 (EDT)
Does that mean you also blame Ronald Reagan for it? He never closed it down.--CamilleT 21:36, 7 August 2014 (EDT)
Is this same Ronald Reagan who chose Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court nominee? O'Connor made a poor non-pro-life rulings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I). I also believe in zero-based budgeting as far as government programs. Otherwise useless government programs never die or keep increasing in cost.
The last American president that I liked was Calvin "the business of American is business" Coolidge. Silent Cal was infinitely preferable to the loquacious Barack Obama. Obama is like the ineffectual Jimmy Carter who talked a lot, but got very little done in terms of productive activity.
Calvin Coolidge - personal integrity, conservatism, peace, prosperity, tax cuts and balanced budgets. Conservative 22:23, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

America's opinion on Gaza hostilities

CBS Poll: Only 6% Of Americans Lay Blame On Israel For Gaza Hostilities.

Do they know how the zionists have stolen the land of the Palestinians? Do they know the precarious conditions in the refugees camps? Do they know the way innocent people of Gaza is been murdered? Do they know that less than 1% on Gazans are terrorist and 99% are not? Do they know that it is a war crime to kill people just because you don't find a better way to control the real enemy? --Joaquín Martínez 22:46, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

Bible prophecies indicated that: the Jews would disobey God, be scattered, their land would go desolate, they would be persecuted yet preserved, they would return to their land and the desert would bloom again.[16][17] All this was fulfilled.
God promised the Jews the land in question. And Scripture says, "The earth is the Lord's and all it contains". And after the Holocaust, I think it was the right thing to do to have Jews move back to their homeland.
Furthermore, the terrorist organization Hamas uses women and children as human shields.
Also, Six Day War:
Six Day War - [18][19] Watch these videos which document some of the spectacular things that happened during the Six Day War: God's hand in the Six Day War and Against all odds: In search of a miracle.
Lastly, after various Palestinians celebrated 9/11 in the streets, you are not going to find much support for Hamas in America. Conservative 23:11, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
* Bible prophecies do not indicate the geographical borders of the Holy Land. See Exodus 23:31 to observe the imprecise description of the land (Could include Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and more).
* God promised the Jews the "land in question and all it contains". It contains Arab people that has to be treated also like sons of God.
* Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: You shall not murder
* Colossians 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Zionists don't care and don't belive in Our Lord Jesus.
* Israel could fight the terrorist organization Hamas but that is not a granted license to murder children, women and old people that are innocent: that is not Christian.

--Joaquín Martínez 23:46, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

Support for Hamas is not desired; support for those who are suffering and dying is another matter. --Joaquín Martínez 23:46, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

The Islamacists have plenty of oil/money and land. If they truly cared about the Palestinians, they would have done a lot more. And Israel is a small country. I would also say that the Islamacists have a poor track record when it comes to human rights. I wouldn't want to live in any of their countries. Most of their countries are ruled by corrupt despots. The Palestinian leaders are corrupt as well and generally speaking people often get the leaders that they deserve. Conservative 23:52, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

Gazans don´t have oil... also they don't have water to drink, medicines, etc. and their homes are been destroyed and 2000 people are now dead in this 2014 operation. Is that Christian? Israel has the support of the government a great country, the US. Bravo! --Joaquín Martínez 00:03, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

I don't know if it would work, but this is one person's recommendation on how Israel should react to Hamas' fourth generation war/assymetrical war/terrorists tactics: 4GW and Gaza II. The Israeli's are in a tough situation. Countries bordering Islamic regimes often have bad neighbors. Conservative 01:29, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

I do agree! It is a Christian and wise way. It should be followed with all Israel neighbors. --Joaquín Martínez 08:16, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
I am glad we agree on some things. But I don't know how effective the "win the hearts and minds" through de-escalation strategy/tactics would work as far as the Gaza conflict. It doesn't seem to be working in Afghanistan and it doesn't seem to have ultimately worked in Iraq. Sometimes implacable enemies are filled with a lot of animus and they have various allies as well in addition to having some degree of popular support. It is worth a try though.
Judeaphobia is not very Christian [20]--Jpatt 21:53, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
I'll add that every missile Hamas fires is targeted at Jewish men, women and children. A war crime. I am distigusted that this support for Palestinians finds its way into news items. Nobody wants to see innocents killed. To claim Israel is at fault is ridiculous. They voted for Hamas, now they reap the consequences. Also, they sang and danced when planes struck the World Trade Center. Stop the insanity.--Jpatt 22:03, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Re: the 99% of the Gaza population are not terrorist figure and what is the source?

Joaquín, you put on the main page that 99% of Palestinians are not terrorists. That may be true, but it seems like a figure pulled out of thin air. It was not documented. In short, what is your source of the 99% figure and how did they arrive at that figure?

Furthermore, if memory serves, a small fraction of the German population were NAZI activists during WWII, yet Hitler had majority support in terms of the populace in order to get elected.[21] This forum discussion on what percentage of Germans were members of the Nazi Party estimates the figure at 7%: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-79836.html If this figure is correct, the 93% of the German population did not overthrow Hitler. In short, just because a Gazan is not directly a terrorist, does not mean he/she is not sympathetic to the Hamas terrorists. If I am not mistaken, Hamas did receive many votes from the people of Gaza in order to get elected. "Hamas was democratically elected with 80% of the vote of the Palestinian people. They chose to elect a murderous, terrorist government."[22]

Next, there were a lot of tunnels built in order to attack Israel in Gaza. Maybe about 50-100 if memory serves and it may not. And some of the tunnels seem to have been reinforced with concrete. How could all of those tunnels be built without the knowledge of the Gaza populace? Some of the tunnels had entrance ways in homes. Maybe the tunnels could have been done secretively without the Gaza populace not knowing, but it is a fair question to ask. In short, people may not be terrorists directly, but at the same time, they could be sympathetic to the terrorists.

Also, according to the Israelis, there have been about 10,000 rocket attacks from Gaza upon the Israeli population since 2001. How could all these rocket attacks from Gaza have occurred without some measure of support of the people of Gaza?

Lastly, see my comments above at: America's opinion on Gaza hostilities. Conservative 15:15, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Yes, according to a poll by the organization Arab World for Research and Development. It shows that 64% of Palestinians believe their views align more with Hamas than Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has the full support of just 15% of the population [23]. That does not make them terrorist. They suffer an old blockade and the impotence to see cases like the Jenin refugee camp massacre and many other aggression from a powerful army, they feel desperate and ready to die. This is not terrorist but weak and hopeless people. They have seen for years how their children die and their properties are gone. For that, they look for a solution and they have sympathy for Hamas. That does not make 2 million people a terrorist gang.
Militants of Hamas are estimated between 10,000 and 20,000 [24]. Make your calculations.
I don´t see any easy solution... may be there is not... but you don't have the right to murder innocent people just because you don't have one... Zionist genocide is unacceptable. --Joaquín Martínez 18:00, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

"The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group."[25] I realize that the term genocide has a degree of emotional punch to it. However, it should be used carefully. I don't think you came close to proving the contention that Israel/Zionists plan to kill all of the Palestinians. Also, due the Arabization of the Palestinian people over the centuries, genocide would essentially mean killing all Arab people. I don't think you can show me that Israel/Zionists plans to kill all Arab people. Conservative 18:15, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Most Jews and Israelites are not Zionists.
Genocide, 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind". In a Historical view that is the tendency of the Zionist in regard to Palestinians.
Look for maps of the Palestinian territory in 1917, 1947, 1948-1949, and 2014 and see the difference. --Joaquín Martínez 18:46, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Loss of territory is not genocide. I know you should not have used the word genocide as it cannot be supported.

Second, I think the Palestinians lost territory during the Six Day War which is a war where the Arabs were the provocateurs. I also see God's hand giving the Israeli's victory in that war.

Six Day War - [26][27] Watch these videos which document some of the spectacular things that happened during the Six Day War: God's hand in the Six Day War and Against all odds: In search of a miracle.

As far as the 1940's, I am glad the Jews established a homeland in Israel after the Holocaust. Also, Bible prophecies indicated that: the Jews would disobey God, be scattered, their land would go desolate, they would be persecuted yet preserved, they would return to their land and the desert would bloom again.[28][29] All this was fulfilled. The Bible also indicates that the Jewish people will be reconciled to God when Jesus returns (Romans 11:25-26). Conservative 19:04, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

I sincerely hope that the Jewish people will be reconciled to God when Jesus returns. In the meantime the useless murder of innocent people has to be denounced. --Joaquín Martínez 19:14, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

The Palestinians support Hamas - a terrorist group which has vowed to destroy Israel. There is no free lunch as far as that support. It comes with a price. And the historical record shows that Islamacists are often difficult neighbors and very corrupt with despots ruling their country. So I take issue with your use of the word "innocent" if you mean that on the whole, the Palestinian people are blameless. While I recognize that not all Palestians support Hamas, a sizable portion do.

Do you agree with me that Islamic regimes are often corrupt? Do you think that the Palestinians leaders are corrupt? Do you think that people often get the leaders that they deserve - especially in a democracy? Was Hamas elected into power by the Palestinians? Do you maintain Palestinian people innocence in this conflict? If so, why?

If the Israeli's had never established the state of Israel, in light of most Islamic regimes in the Middle East being corrupt and despotic, what kind of region do you think the Palestinian Muslims probably would have had right now? The Israeli's made the desert bloom again through modern technology and via the planting of an enormous amount of trees. They also have a democracy. The historical record shows me that if the Jews had never established the state of Israel, the land would probably still be desolate and would probably be ruled by an Islamic despot.

I do agree with you that loss of life should be minimized after all is said and done. Conservative 19:37, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Agree, thank you for this interesting exercise. --Joaquín Martínez 19:56, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
Thanks for the discussion. I like a lot of the art that you post to Conservapedia, but we don't always agree on politics. :) Conservative 20:06, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Just jumping in here, but i think an interesting study would be how the land of Israel has changed hands thru successive conquerors. It seems to me that after Israel lost the land it had conquered (from peoples which are no longer distinctive) to the Assyrians and the Babylonians respectively, that this was followed by Persian rule and then the Seleucid Kingdom, followed by the Romans, then Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader rule.

Finally, the UK took control from the Ottomans, and which in turn gave Israel a homeland, as well as the Palestinians. But the latter refused it and Israel's declaration of Statehood and immediately sought to liquidate Israel. And lost, resulting in a series of wars initiated by Muslim nations still trying to nuke Israel, which is only blamed by the Left for defending itself. Daniel1212 18:55, 16 August 2014 (EDT)

First, the Jews have lived there for 5000 years. What changed...who made up the majority of the population. Second, the Brits did not give Israel a homeland. It fought for independence from Britain. --Jpatt 19:12, 16 August 2014 (EDT)
You have heard of the Balfour Declaration, right? It was a British policy statement issued in 1917 that opened Palestine up to Jewish immigration. Even so, Arabs were still the overwhelming majority at the time of independence in 1948. In the 1950s, the Sephardic Jews were expelled from North Africa. This what gave Israel a majority Jewish population. PeterKa 03:02, 21 August 2014 (EDT)

Rory McIlroy

MPR says, "Rory McIlroy just won his fourth major (the PGA) by the age of only 25, so why isn't the lamestream media promoting him like Tiger Woods?" Huh? He's ranked as the world's third most marketable athlete, after Neymar and Lionel Messi. StaceyT 17:17, 11 August 2014 (EDT)

Rory McIlroy is a cad just like Tiger Woods. Apparently, he dumped his fiancee after the wedding invitations were already sent out. Conservative 15:15, 16 August 2014 (EDT)
Cad or not, Cons, would you be particularly pleased by your beloved's use of Twitter to give to the world a full and vivid picture of you in mid snore? Under the circumstance, would you not think that, perchance, your lovely lady is not quite the lady you thought her to be and you did not sign up for a lifetime of checking for listening devices every time you have a problem with flatulence? (Come to think of it, it lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "tummy bug".) AlanE 22:32, 16 August 2014 (EDT)
Ksren Callahan, comment section of an article: "Something about McIlroy I don't like. Can't quite put my finger on it, but he seems to be stuck on himself, a spoiled brat and not a gentleman, because a gentleman would keep his mouth shut about his former fiancée. I much prefer Rickie Fowler."[30] Conservative 02:11, 17 August 2014 (EDT)
And I like Adam Scott, but then I am Australian and watch the games and listen to the interviews and don't rely on what I read. And I don't believe an athlete's faith necessarily predisposes them to greatness. (Please notice the word "necessarily".) AlanE 03:26, 17 August 2014 (EDT)

Conservatism articles

Could some people please create these articles and please make the articles robust and of high quality. No stub articles. Like flagship articles.

I may work with some editors to create a list other political articles that should be created. Conservative 01:03, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

The Common Core article needs beefing up also. Conservative 01:44, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
I agree. We probably should also beef up Libertarianism and Objectivism and add a section that compares and contrasts each to conservatism. Wschact 11:40, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

Cato Institute

Yesterday, the Cato Institute sponsored a noontime panel discussion at the Rayburn House Office Building to encourage Hill staffers to edit Wikipedia. [31] [32] From the session, it is clear that Cato is paying Michelle Newby to edit Wikipedia articles as her full time job. It is also clear that Newby and others receive harassment when they edit Wikipedia. Recently, a Wikipedia administrator blocked all IP editing from Capitol Hill for 48 hours. Given the political perspective of Cato, does this makes sense? Cato sees the need for a wiki forum for "a great public debate" on the work of Congress. Perhaps Andy and others could reach out to Cato and offer them Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia. This work should not be subject to the shifting whims of Jimbo Wales and his "bright line" policy against paid editing. If Cato could arrange an hour long session broadcast by C-Span and covered by the Washington Post it would give CP a large boost in visibility. Thanks, Wschact 12:28, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

That is fascinating information, Wschact. Thanks for posting it.
The trouble is, Cato is not welcoming to socially conservative positions, and would even oppose many of the observations made on Conservapedia. So I doubt Cato will be any help on this. Nevertheless, your points are a good starting point for further thought and discussion.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
Thank you for your response. I don't follow Cato closely. Perhaps there is another think tank in Washington that has the access to book a meeting room in the Rayburn Building and attract some media coverage. It would take just one Congressman to sponsor the event. Wschact 12:45, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

Another sign of more frequent earthquakes, which proves a young earth

Here in california. http://www.google.org/publicalerts/alert?aid=a53ac2b9b14ec5fc&hl=en&gl=NZ&source=web

The main page right items says, "Atheistic science is remarkably inept at explaining earthquakes, many of which are not near active faults." The phrasing assumes that earthquake science is "atheistic." However, many scientists studying this matter are in fact Christians. Not all Christians subscribe to the Young Earth theory. Nor is there a sharp dividing line between "active fault lines" and places where earthquakes cannot possibly occur. Perhaps we need to revisit the logic that is being applied here. By definition, if there is a 6.0 earthquake in Napa, then it is on an active fault line. Thanks, Wschact 11:32, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

"Atheistic science" is descriptive term for science that clings to materialistic explanations at the complete exclusion of biblical insights and phenomena not explainable by materialism. There may be Christians who pursue atheistic science as a way of getting a degree or putting food on the table.
The circular statement that "if there is a 6.0 earthquake in Napa, then it is on an active fault line" is not illuminating. A good theory, which goes beyond atheistic science, is needed to predict and explain earthquakes better.--Andy Schlafly 13:36, 26 August 2014 (EDT)
And do tell me what, exactly, the Bible says about earthquakes occurring in South Napa. Or about the age of the earth at all, for that matter; I know of no statement in the Bible saying the earth is 6000 years old, and the Catholic Church explicitly stated its support for actual science over creationist rantings on the earth's age. RedG 01:18, 27 August 2014 (EDT)
I am not trying to be flip and respect all viewpoints here. However, fault lines are like volcanoes. There are active ones and dormant ones. When a volcano erupts after a dormant period it is classified as "active." Same for faults. The people who believe in plate tectonics would expect earthquakes all along California. Sometime a section sticks for a long time and then moves after enough pressure builds up. That local movement creates pressure somewhere else in California that will eventually be released by another earthquake. We have had earthquakes centered in the Southern suburbs of San Francisco, and Napa is sufficiently close by to the North of San Franciso that there is nothing surprising about the earthquake being centered there. This is not as if the earthquake was in the middle of Kansas. Science predicts continued earthquakes in California. However, the exact dates and locations cannot be forecast with accuracy. The Bible does not offer any guidance one way or the other as to whether earthquakes will continue in California. Thanks, Wschact 01:24, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

Gaza: Some Secrets Few Will Say Aloud

Joaquin, you know that Huffington Post is not a neutral, but a Liberal source...--JoeyJ 12:31, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Not always. John Hawkins of Right Wing News posts his articles to Huffington Post. Regardless, I quote truthful information from liberal sources to document points (The Guardian, etc.). Second, I have yet to find a "neutral" source anywhere on the earth because people/organizations are not blank slates. Third, and most importantly, disqualifying the legitimacy of information based on the source of the information is committing the genetic fallacy. Next, citing hostile witnesses is a tried and true methodology of law (and history as well). For example, as far as history, the Talmud refers to Jesus as a "magician" which helps corroborate that Jesus was known for doing miracles.
Generally speaking, I think it is a better practice to fact check challenge an article cited on the main page rather than complain about the source.
Lastly, I am still pro-Israel. And as a whole, I am not impressed with the cultural achievements of Islam {and as a religion, I think it is false). If Israel did not exist, I still believe that the Gaza area would probably be another backyard Islamic area ruled by a despot and the area where the state of Israel is would be backward as well. Conservative 14:18, 27 August 2014 (EDT)
Well, then can you please mention the 1929 Hebron massacre on the Main Page? Then this entry would be balanced.--JoeyJ 08:37, 28 August 2014 (EDT)
I will do that for you.
Second, thanks for beginning the process of deleting old user pages and user talk pages of editors who have not edited for at least 4 years. Conservative 10:28, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

I think it's stupid that Conservapedia posts mainpage items that paint Israel in a bad light. I've tried to intervene but it doesn't stop. The only advanced civilized democracy in the Middle East. A country that wants to live in peace but is surrounded by people that wants them exterminated. A people who freely allow the practice of any religion in their country. A country that supplies humanitarian aid to its' neighbors. They are bad. They are wrong. They to be called out. Islam in all its forms is anti-women, anti-freedom, anti-Semetic. This might be the last straw.--Jpatt 12:52, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

Here is an article about the conflict from the perspective of a Catholic parish in Gaza, explaining how complex and difficult the situation is: "Israel sent text to warn people to evacuate, but Gaza parish staff had nowhere to go"
A ceasefire has been announced, so evidently both sides reached the conclusion that the conflict should cease there.--Andy Schlafly 14:22, 28 August 2014 (EDT)
When you mention both sides, let's be careful not to attach moral equivelancy to the conflict. I am aware that there is nowhere for Catholics of Gaza to go. At least they get a warning unlike terror missile attacks. When Gaza is called the largest open air prison, Conservapedia becomes a propaganda tool for Muslims. How many prisons do you know have a mall [33], a waterpark [34], a movie theatre [35], a horse track [36]? A cease fire is a time for terrorists to rebuild their arsenal. The next round of fighting is not far off. I will not befriend Israel supporters and lead them to Conservapedia only for them to find we don't support Israel. --Jpatt 10:01, 29 August 2014 (EDT)
Your frustration is understandable. I don't claim to have all the answers. Opinions about this differ within the current Israeli Administration itself.
As this website is primarily about the United States, complicated issues in foreign countries will probably not be resolved here.--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

American conservatives embrace Judeo-Christianity ideals and not Islamic ones (For example, they often want the 10 commandments posted at courthouse properties). God said in Genesis 22:2 "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain...". Isaac was a son in relation to his promises to Abraham in God's eyes and Ismael was not such a son. Therefore, American conservatives do not embrace Islam and favor God's chosen people. The Bible says of the Jews, "I will bless those that bless thee and curse those who curse thee."

Furthermore, God promised the land to the Jews and the sons of Ismael are not God's chosen people. Also, Scripture foretold that the Jews would be scattered and persecuted, the land would go desolate, and the Jews would return to their land and the desert would bloom again. This is exactly what happened. In addition, at the second coming, the Jews will accept their Messiah. The Islamacists have no corresponding prophecy in relation to them. At the same time, there are Muslims who are seeing visions of Jesus, etc. and becoming Christians. Often, they are killed by Islamacists some of whom are their own family members.

JPatt stands on firmer theological/ideological/political ground in this dispute. Conservative 15:36, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

article suggestion

Since it is increasingly becoming a more discussed political issue, perhaps a Illegal immigration and the United States article could be written. Conservative 11:03, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

May I suggest Immigration to the United States since thie issue is what should be legal and not legal. For example, should foreign students earning PhDs at US schools be given automatic green cards? Should citizen children born in the US of Immigrant parents be separated from them? What are the impacts of the immigration and how will the proposed legislation change it? These are tough questions that go beyond the legal/illegal lines. Thanks, Wschact 01:40, 31 August 2014 (EDT)
That is a good suggestion. Both articles are needed.18:07, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

Russia increasingly Christian?

Hi.

One of the news edits mentions Russia is becoming increasingly Christian. Can we really be sure about this? Ion Mihai Pacepa implied in his book "Disinformation" that the Russian Orthodox Church is still a Communist front, or at least a Glastnost Front, instead of actually Christian in outlook, deceiving outsiders, so I really don't know whether they should qualify. Pokeria1 13:30, 4 September 2014 (EDT)

Protestantism is significantly increasing in Russia.[37][38][39] Because religion affects culture and culture affects politics and since Protestantism is often more democratic in terms of church authority structures than Orthodox Christianity, this may make Russia less autocratic over time. Putin belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church.
By the way, I don't adhere to the notion that the Orthodox Church is a Communist front. Conservative 16:57, 4 September 2014 (EDT)
Just addressing that bit there since Ion Mihai Pacepa did strongly imply that the Orthodox Church was that, or at least a Glastnost front (which predated Communism) in his book Disinformation, even mentioning a lot of former, unrepentant KGB high members were members of the clergy of the Orthodox Church, even as high up as the current Patriarch. And considering he defected to the States and was the highest ranking Soviet intelligence officer to ever defect, I definitely trust him regarding this.
And as long as the Protestantism is the type that won't sacrifice what Jesus and the Bible made very clear (ie, they won't support abortion, gay marriage, and the like), I have no problem with it even though I myself am Catholic. Pokeria1 17:57, 5 September 2014 (EDT)
And, I assume, the kind of Protestantism that supports providing a safe harbor for child molesters in the name of spreading God's word? RedG 13:25, 6 September 2014 (EDT)
First of all, that was completely uncalled for. Second of all, despite what the lying mass media would suggest, only a very small minority of priests actually did molest children. You're actually more likely to be molested in the atheistic public school system or the Hollywood industry, than you are by priests, thus making it an irrelevant point. Pokeria1 13:34, 6 September 2014 (EDT)
As per below, what any other organizations are doing doesn't change what the Catholic church did. Look up the "not as bad as" fallacy. RedG
Maybe, but it also doesn't change what those groups I mentioned did. And besides, I find hiding the crimes to be extremely sick as well, which is exactly what the MSM did with some of the abuses in schools and Hollywood, heck what the intelligentsia frequently does as well if not promoting them. Pokeria1 21:17, 7 September 2014 (EDT)

RedG, see: Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA and Atheism and child pornography and Atheism and sadism and Atheism and rape and Atheist leaders and immoral relationships and Internet atheism and polyamory and Atheism and bestiality and Abortion and atheism and Atheism and morality.

In 2014, atheistic Japan was the world's largest producer and consumer of child pornography (see: Atheism and child pornography).

The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality[40] Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

I hope you are not saying that the cesspool of atheism is mankind's beacon for standards of sexual morality! As for me, I am sticking with the standards that Jesus and the Apostle Paul gave. Conservative 13:53, 6 September 2014 (EDT)

Anything to do with atheism is entirely irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Jewish Community, incidentally) engaged in a massive cover-up of child molesters that persisted over 30 years and resulted in thousands of children being sexually abused. Do you dispute this? RedG 14:11, 6 September 2014 (EDT)
RedG, two questions: 1) Are you an atheist? 2) Which of the the planet's major religious/philosophical worldviews do you suggest that people adopt that has a proven track record of adherents treating people/children better than other worldviews? By the way, I hope you don't dodge question #1 due to the shamefulness of the atheism worldview. Conservative 03:01, 7 September 2014 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, if you're going to give numbers to make us Christians look bad to push an anti-Christian agenda, you should also give percentages as well as the amount times the time. And since you brought up that anti-Catholic/anti-Christian screed, yes, you just made atheism relevant. Pokeria1 21:17, 7 September 2014 (EDT)
I can unambiguously state I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist; my outlook doesn't fit into any one category, but likely falls closest to the views that Yang Zhu and Zhuangzi laid out. I'm not the one writing screeds, unless one sentence is now considered a screed. The worldview that seems to do the best these days is that of William James and Richard Rorty, which is basically to live your life as you see fit without actively interfering with anyone else's life; I know of no one who's ever been murdered in their name, whereas millions have greatly benefited from being raised in an environment where they're given freedom to do as they choose. Now that I've answered yours, you're still not answering my question; do you deny that the Catholic church made it official policy to cover up for child rapists and child molesters, and went so far as to elect a pope with a long track record for doing so? RedG 01:24, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
That "freedom" you listed is exactly the same as what was used in the French Revolution and the various Communist revolutions, heck, the hippie movement in the 1960s. That's not going to result in a beneficial environment, and in fact the results of those "freedoms" are made apparent each and every day, where we have unlimited abortions, a high rise in the murder and riot rate, and all of that, all because people are allowed to do whatever they please. And when you made a post specifically denouncing Christianity on a topic that was only asking whether Christianity was truly on the rise in Russia, not even adding to the topic laid out other than to insult it, yes, it is indeed a "screed." Pokeria1 06:26, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

The writing is on the wall. World interest in atheism in the anglosphere is near a 7 year low.[41] And compared to interest in Jesus/God, it is merely a squeak.[42] And it will become a half a squeak in the 21st century (See: Global atheism). Conservative 22:31, 7 September 2014 (EDT)

RedG, I am a staunch Protestant. Conservative 01:34, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
And I'm a Catholic as made clear in my second post. And BTW, only 1% of the entire priesthood actually committed those sex abuse scandals, certainly not 38% or 50% as reported in the media. I also went to at least two Catholic churches here in Georgia, maybe three or four, and I can definitely say with confidence that there wasn't any sex abuse in those parishes. Nor was there any in the church I go to when visiting Minnesota, so I'm very confident that percentage is indeed correct. Pokeria1 06:26, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
I don't dispute the numbers, some media outlets have definitely gone a bit overboard. In any event, if you're not affected why is it your problem if someone wants to engage in something you personally don't like? And quickly back to the original topic, it's hard to say just what's happening in Russia; Putin has such a stranglehold on the media there that it's hard to be certain of much. RedG 16:45, 9 September 2014 (EDT)
The reason I get angered is because far too many times they actually push these events in such a way that they are deliberately trying to attack Catholics, especially when the media is all too willing to ignore much worse instances that are going on in our schools and in Hollywood, even to some extent certain Democrat politicians (I know Bill Clinton got a pass from the MSM and even shamelessly admitted they did so because they liked him). And it's not just the mainstream media as well, even various schools, both public school and both variants of the university system really love to bash Catholicism and promote hedonism and left-wing values. And BTW, a lot of these guys will actually assume its true just because someone with supposed smarts said it. I'd know because I was once one of those kids. So yes, even if it personally doesn't affect me, I have to stop any bashing of the Catholic church precisely because even if it doesn't affect me at all, it definitely will affect other people. That's the main problem with individualism, it's too short-sighted to actually see problems beyond how it directly impacts themselves. Pokeria1 22:48, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Another article suggestion

I have another article suggestion: Conservative quotes. Conservative 01:27, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

I started a stub. I will expand it later.--JoeyJ 06:41, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 23:04, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Obama: He-man galaxy defender

A week ago, it was "No strategy Obama." Now he's gone neocon on us, or at least delivered a speech a neocon could have made. Turning over a new leaf, or pre-September 11th posturing? If any of you have noticed, I have been writing about Jefferson, who once bashed Adams the way Obama bashed Bush. By the end of his life, Jefferson was blowing away Barbary pirates and Brits, and otherwise outflanking Adams on the right. PeterKa 01:23, 11 September 2014 (EDT)

Do you mean "by the end of his term"? Jefferson did not die in office. Also, I believe the term "Jeffersonian Republicans" is not historically correct. Finally, this sort of material does better belong in substantive CP articles rather than being squeezed into short main page items because the comparison cannot be explained in one or two sentences. Thanks, Wschact 03:29, 15 September 2014 (EDT)
Jefferson was busy writing letters to various figures and was politically influential for some time after he left office. I am attributing the War of 1812 to him, at least for purposes of the analogy above. After all, the war was the logical next step after Jefferson's embargo of Britain failed. In the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson later on, Jefferson basically concedes that Adams had a point. It would certainly have been easier to fight the British if Jefferson had kept the navy and marines Adams had created. Like Jefferson, Obama makes a big show of his pacifism before going to war. It's foreign policy as a way of displaying the president's virtue rather than protecting the country. Obama ordered a huge military drawdown just a few months back, and now he wants to restart the Iraq war.
Jefferson called his party the "Republicans." But that term would be confusing to use as an article title. I wrote a note on this subject here. PeterKa 02:16, 17 September 2014 (EDT)

Adrian Peterson

The Main Page Right item on Adrian Peterson is so offensive I don't even know where to begin. Peterson did not just spank his son, he mercilessly beat his child with a tree branch after stuffing leaves in the child's mouth, beat him so hard the boy's wounds needed to be treated by a doctor. To dismiss all that to make a ludicrous claim about how the Liberal Media Boogeyman is trying to "destroy his career" is beyond appalling. Is this the hill you want to die on, Conservapedia? Eg 10:02, 18 September 2014 (CDT)

Counterexamples to liberalism

How about a Counterexamples to liberalism article.

For example, FDRs economic policies prolonging the Great Depression, etc. etc. Conservative 15:37, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

Detention for Food Sharing

My son almost died at age 7 because a friend gave him a cookie at lunch that my son didn't realize had peanut butter. He was blue when we got him to emergency and they gave him an epinephrine shot. Kids don't know about such things and rules against food sharing help keep the number of food allergy deaths down to only 200 a year. Making this about a liberal lack of moral compass is absurd and dangerous. MelH 18:21, 22 September 2014 (EDT)

Item removed. Thanks. Conservative 22:55, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Thanks so much. MelH 01:17, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

Holder is resigning

This should almost certainly be a headline: Attorney General Holder is resigning. PhillipArcher 12:10, 25 September 2014 (EDT)

End of U.S. fiscal year 2014

The United States Government ends its financial year tomorrow, having burdened the United States with another trillion dollars [43] in national debt or, divided equally among U.S. residents, close to $13,000 in new debt (over and above all taxes paid) owed by each family of four. VargasMilan 23:56, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

so many other atheists, love authoratarian governments and hate liberty so much?

The top ten. Sweden, Denmark, China, Estonia, Norway, The UK, France, Czech Republic, Japan, and Finland, 90% of which the population are lovers of, and have fair, free democratic governments and the vast majority of the population of China would love to live in any of the other countries (possibly not Japan.) Rather goes against you statement wouldn't you agree? It does confirm your point about Europe being more and more atheist though?--Tomqua 19:15, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

Why do you merely take a slice out of history? See: Fallacy of exclusion. Second, there is more liberty in the USA and Switzerland than the countries you cited. Switzerland relative to many other European countries, has more biblical creationism and is an economic powerhouse. And let's not forget North Korea and communist China - hardly bastions of freedom! Feel free to engage in last wordism at this juncture. Conservative 20:31, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
Yeah, and it's a bit ironic that Atheists allegedly hate liberty, since they were all so willing to support the French Revolution, which was liberty-related enough that they actually planned to have a monument erected once they wiped out Lyons stating that Lyons was exterminated because they were "an enemy of freedom," and that's not even getting into the liberation fronts that the Soviets supported. To be honest, I'm a Catholic, a believer in God, and I hate freedom and liberty precisely because of the likes of the French Revolution and the 1960s hippie movements, to say less of the liberation movements. From reading Liberty: The God that Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara, apparently even the American Revolution was cut from the same cloth (in fact, it's arguable that the only reason it didn't result in a blood bath unlike the French Revolution is simply due to sheer dumb luck). Pokeria1 22:07, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

typo on left side

"Breaches" is spelled with an "a". VargasMilan 15:29, 2 October 2014 (EDT)

Thanks. Getting more sleep so should be less error prone in the future. Conservative 19:57, 2 October 2014 (EDT)

Sorry I can't correct these myself, but on the right side, "Matthews" is missing a "t" and "quarantine" has an extra "r". VargasMilan 22:06, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Great corrections. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 22:26, 3 October 2014 (EDT)
And on the right side of the page there is a mention of Alan Coombs. Perhaps this is supposed to be the bloodthirsty liberal Alan Colmes?--JonY 22:55, 3 October 2014 (EDT)
Whoever wrote it must have been thinking of conservative commentator Neal Boortz and got them mixed together somehow. VargasMilan 03:18, 4 October 2014 (EDT)

North Korea

I generally get my Korean news from Chosun Ilbo, Korea's top newspaper. Their take on recent events is a bit less sensational than the one our main page. Kim Jong-un obviously has health problems and missed an important meeting, but that's not necessarily anything to get excited about. PeterKa 18:56, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

OK. I will pull it. Given how he takes care of his health, that certainly is a plausible explanation. Conservative 19:00, 6 October 2014 (EDT)
We'll know more on October 10.[44] Whoever is really in charge will be on the reviewing stand watching the parade. PeterKa 21:20, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
No Kim Jung-un at the parade.[45] Hwang Pyong-so was head of the delegation. I guess he's the man to watch now. PeterKa 03:00, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
Sadly, the fat bastard is back.[46] PeterKa 23:35, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

SCOTUS

The non ruling on gay issues is considered a major victory by the liberals and it appears to be. 30 states are set to fall despite the voters enshrining one man and one women marriages in their state constitutions. SCOTUS, like the rest of DC, is in their own little bubble, oblivious to the impact on society.

Do you see today's non ruling differently?--Jpatt 22:44, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

The Supreme Court usually delays and avoid social issues as much as it can, so I was not surprised by the denial of cert. on Monday. The 5th and 6th Circuits have not yet ruled, and I don't think the 8th Circuit has either. Those Circuits have more of a leadership role on social issues.
For the past two decades, the Supreme Court has been following on key issues more than leading on them.--Andy Schlafly 14:55, 8 October 2014 (EDT)

North Carolina fell today. [47] --Jpatt 18:40, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

North Carolina is in the Fourth Circuit, which is one of the most liberal Circuits. The issue remains whether the 5th, 6th and 8th Circuits will stand up for the Constitution.--Andy Schlafly 00:40, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
Hopefully they will, and give people the freedom to do what they choose with their own lives. RedG 13:52, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
Well, The Constitution is there to protect the rights and liberties of the people. No? Or is it only for some people? (as has been a common theme in American History) Xephos 17:08, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Alaska fell today. Hey RedG, I bet you find the 60-yr-old perv wanting a 10-yr-old bride is the freedom to choose as well.--Jpatt 22:12, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

You'll have to explain exactly how it's your business what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. The part about 10 year olds is entirely irrelevant. RedG 16:10, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
You'll have to explain how the freedom to choose is relevent to what consenting adults do in their bedroom.--Jpatt 00:48, 15 October 2014 (EDT)
While you're at it, explain how homosexuality benefits mankind.--Jpatt 00:55, 15 October 2014 (EDT)
The freedom to choose is simple; you, as an adult, have the right to select any other consenting adult who you wish to be with. The government can't tell you that you can only be with a member of the opposite sex if that's not your inclination, because it's not the government's business who you're with. Homosexuality doesn't actually need to justify itself to anyone, but since you ask; it gives people who might not otherwise be involved in a loving, satisfying relationship a chance to be in exactly that. That leads to a greater satisfaction with their lives, which translates to a greater willingness to participate in society. RedG 18:07, 15 October 2014 (EDT)
Wrong. Homosexuality examples you gave...self, self-worth, selfishness... do not contribute to mankind. Plus you equate the freedom to choose with sex partners is irrelevant to the question of the sanctity of marriage warped into gay marriage. I know you wish all to be equal and demand equal right but nobody wants homosexual blood transfusions, unequal.--Jpatt 11:35, 16 October 2014 (EDT)
What on Earth is a "homosexual blood transfusion"? And besides, you can absolutely live for yourself and contribute to mankind; by your logic, all the non-married people in the workforce do nothing for society. Sometime you should read the Robber Zhi chapter of Zhuangzi, you'll see how it relates to this. As to the sanctity of marriage, not everyone believes in that and those people aren't obligated to live according to other people's beliefs. Our government isn't a theocracy, and with some hope it will stay that way. RedG 15:54, 16 October 2014 (EDT)

"What is a homosexual blood transfusion?" Finally, you got something right. There aren't any.--Jpatt 23:45, 16 October 2014 (EDT)

And that has any bearing on gay marriage how, exactly? RedG 15:55, 17 October 2014 (EDT)
Homosexual blood transfusion? Xephos 17:08, 17 October 2014 (EDT)
I also have no idea what a homosexual blood transfusion is. I don't think I'm the only one. Perhaps an article on the subject would illuminate people like me. CaryG 11:26, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
Men who have ever had sex with men are "deferred" (banned) from donating blood by the Red Cross, following FDA policy. It's no great mystery what was meant, even if "homosexual blood transfusion" isn't the clearest way to say it. MelH 12:01, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
I'm not advocating men having sex with men, or homosexuality, or risky behavior, but you need to get your facts right. The statement "Men who have ever had sex with men" adds an important word, that misquotes and misrepresents the cited source in a material way. The Cited source says "men who have sex with other men". The addition of the word "ever" is critical. Please cite your sources accurately. SamHB 19:40, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
Sorry, but I don't understand your point. The title of the section refers to "Men Who Have Had Sex With Men." I don't believe that "ever" changes the meaning of "have had." In any case, an honest admission of a single homosexual act disallows blood donation for life per current policy. If you're arguing that ex-homosexuals can donate, you're incorrect. If you're arguing something else that I don't understand, I apologize. Please clarify. BTW, if your use of the word "critical" means you think I'm criticizing either would-be donors or the policy, I'm not. I was simply explaining a policy, the reference to which seems to have created some confusion. BTW, it's also inherent in the concept of "lifetime deferral" (as mentioned in the linked page) that a change of lifestyle does not revisit the decision. That's why it's called "lifetime." With all due respect, I am perplexed at your comment about my needing to get my facts right. MelH 20:47, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
You were right and I was wrong. I'm sorry. I saw the word "ever" in your text but not in the Red Cross item, and jumped the gun without looking carefully at the context. SamHB 22:13, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
No problem. I am no longer perplexed. MelH 23:41, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

The Blood Moon

The blood moon is not something atheists can explain? Really? PhillipArcher 12:04, 8 October 2014 (EDT)

Thanks for posting the link to NASA's "explanation", but it does not explain the beauty.--Andy Schlafly 12:25, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
Which is not what you claimed atheists could not explain. It took me about a minute of using Google (which I'm sure is "liberal" to you) to find the above explanation. You just jumped to "atheists can't explain" because you probably think the blood moon is prophetically significant, and, when pointed out how very wrong you were, you resorted to that laughable dodge. You're a pathetic little man. PhillipArcher 16:13, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
The "explanation" offered by NASA's atheistic science is little more than "it is blood red because the light is colored red from from the Earth's atmosphere" or, more succinctly, "it is blood red because red-colored light is shining on it." That's not a satisfactory explanation, and adding name-calling does not make it any more persuasive.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
First, you claim it couldn't be explained. Then, when pointed it's trivial to find an explanation, you switch to "it doesn't explain the beauty". When pointed out you're avoiding the point, you again switch gears and declare the explanation unsatisfactory. Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! Sproing! PhillipArcher 16:56, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
No, I pointed out that the "explanation" by atheistic science was little more than "the moon is a spectacular blood red because the light shining on it is colored red." That's not a satisfying explanation. It's like saying "the moon appears as the same size as the sun from Earth because, when adjusted for size and distance, they appear to be the same size."--Andy Schlafly 18:27, 8 October 2014 (EDT)

The existence of the blood moon is the result of a series of causes. And we know that atheists cannot explain the first cause, but theism can.[48][49] So ultimately, atheists cannot explain the existence of the red moon, but theists can. Conservative 19:18, 8 October 2014 (EDT)

To Andy: Thank you for putting in that much-needed heading or Sweden or whatever. I would probably have been much less polite.
To Philip Archer: Shame on you! You really should not come here with rude, ad-hominem attacks. You should learn a thing or two or three or twenty about how this site operates before being rude. Newcomers who don't know how CP operates occasionaly come here and say dumb things. I have recently been in a fight with someone who, after being here only a little over one year, started overturning long-standing decisions and conventions. You really should get at least a few months of experience. If you want to make snarky attacks, there's another web site for that.
To the topic at hand:
  • There is no such thing as "atheistic science", though there are atheistic scientists. Some scientists are atheists, others embrace religion. I know of no true scientist who allows religious sensibilities to interfere with his analysis of scientific observations.
  • The claim that "educated" atheists don't know about the book of Joel is completely irrelevant to the topic. (And an unsupported assertion in any case.) Joel 2:31 describes two phenomena that clearly are references to solar eclipses and lunar eclipses, respectively. These phenomena have been known for thousands of years. The Joel 2:31 verse doesn't add any scientific insight or explanation; it is simply about God using these phenomena as signs of His judgement.
  • The cited WND article seems to suggest that there is some huge coincidence going on; so huge that it must be a sign of End Times. The enormous coincidence include a "tetrad" of eclipses (4 of them) in 2014 and 2015, the eclipses happening on Jewish High Holy Days, and the last one occurring on the "Feast of Tabernacles at the conclusion of 7th year of the Shemitah cycle".
A "tetrad" is a set of 4 lunar eclipses in a 2-year period. For well-known astronomical reasons, eclipses can only happen during ascending or descending nodes of the moon's orbit, which collectively occur every 6 months, so there are 4 opportunities in 2 years. Whether those 4 nodes actually result in eclipses is another matter. When all 4 of them are eclipses, that's a tetrad. Like syzygies, conjunctions, and occultations, these events can be calculated mathematically, using known astronomical laws.
It is not hard to put together, out of various rare phenomena, a coincidence of extreme rarity. So rare that it has happened only once in human history. Here's a contrived and silly example: July 4, 1776, has only happened once in human history. The author of the WND article was simply putting together a set of phenomena contrived to be so rare that it can be shown mathematically to have happened only once in history, and then claiming that it portends "culminating signals that God is closing this chapter of human history." This is a cheap trick; people with a reasonable understanding of mathematics and statistics know how cheap it is. I wish we could say that cheap tricks like this have happened only once in human history, but in fact they happen frequently.
  • The claim, on the main page, that atheists can't "explain the blood moon" is preposterous. The red color is due to the effects of the Earth's atmosphere, the same thing that makes sunsets red. This explanation is known to atheists and people of faith alike.
  • The the explanation does not stop at "the moon is a spectacular blood red because the light shining on it is colored red." That much is completely obvious. But why is the light red? That (and the color of sunsets) can be scientifically explained in great detail through optics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. etc. All the way down to a complete "Theory of everything"? Of course not. Whether you find the fact the science doesn't understand everything unsettling, so unsettling that you have to complain about it, is up to you.
SamHB 02:01, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

SamHB, you wrote: "I know of no true scientist who allows religious sensibilities to interfere with his analysis of scientific observations."(emphasis added). SamHB, have you ever heard of the No true Scotsman logical fallacy?

I sure have. My use of the phrase no true scientist was intentional. I expected you to pick up on that, and I'm glad you did. "No true Scotsman" is a humorous example (look up its origin) of the fallacy also humorously described as "moving the goalposts". I didn't move any goalposts, and I stand by my statement. I know of no person who follows the scientific method of dispassionately and objectively analyzing observations and drawing conclusions, who allows religious sensibilities to interfere with that process.
One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to [Sam] that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable.... Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, [Sam] misses much that is of importance in [moons]. VargasMilan 00:07, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
Just a sec, lemme get my dictionary. This has been fun. SamHB 00:54, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

Interposed digression

While I have your attention, Cons, I notice that you recently momentarily restored BethanyS's user page, saying that it was a "fun profile". I'm intrigued, and I wonder if you could restore it again so that we could all enjoy it. SamHB 00:34, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

End of digression

Second, reported in the NY Times: "In July, Kathryn B. H. Clancy and her co-authors Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford and Katie Hinde published a survey of 666 field-based scientists in the journal PLoS One and reported that 26 percent of the female scientists surveyed had been sexually assaulted during fieldwork."[50] So much for counting on the integrity of the current scientific community!

Lastly, I repeat: The existence of the blood moon is the result of a series of causes. And we know that atheists cannot explain the first cause, but theism can.[51][52] So ultimately, atheists cannot explain the existence of the red moon, but theists can. Conservative 04:26, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

I'm baffled that you think there is some phenomenon that atheists can't explain but theists can. Why don't the theists just write the explanation down, so that atheists can read it? And, assuming that by "blood moon" you mean the reddish color during eclipses (though that's not really what the folklore term means), are you saying that theists can, and atheists can't, explain the reddish hue, or do you mean that atheists can't explain the existence of the moon at all, while theists can? SamHB 00:34, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
You are baffled because you didn't click my footnotes. Click: HERE and HERE By the way, in light of the many women scientists being raped in the field, your sidestep about the integrity of the current scientific community and their ability to remain dispassionate was very telling. It seems as if you have no rebuttal! Conservative 05:30, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
Actually, I did look at your footnotes. SamHB 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
The problem is that we seem to have a shifting standard between "can't explain" and "can't predict." When there was an earthquake in Napa, California, CP criticized atheists for being unable to predict that it would occur. Clearly, scientific understanding of plate tectonics would predict and explain continuing earthquakes near San Francisco, California but could not predict the exact day and location of each earthquake. There is not enough data to do that. In astronomy, there was enough data and scientific understanding to predict the exact times and viewing locations for the lunar eclipse ("blood moon"). The Bible did not specifically explain or predict either event.
Now, because weather data is rapidly changing, it was difficult to predict far in advance where the blood moon would be seen in a clear sky and where it would be hidden by clouds. That inability to predict a clearly visable blood moon does not detract from the scientific explanation any more than the inability to predict far in advance the exact location and time of the Napa earthquake. Further, anyone can listen to the scientific explanation of either the Napa earthquake or the blood moon and say that they subjectively do not like it. The bottom line is that neither the Napa earthquake item nor the blood moon item should be on the MPR. They both detract from the credibility of CP. Many tnanks, Wschact 05:07, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
Atheistic science predicts that earthquakes will be correlated with fault lines. That is simply not true, as many recent earthquakes (Napa Valley, Japan, etc.) have demonstrated. It would be fine if atheistic science admitted it doesn't know, but instead it claims it does know, but it is wrong.
Atheistic science also fails to explain the many examples of beauty in nature, including the blood moon.
Biblical scientific foreknowledge, meanwhile, is spectacular in its success.--Andy Schlafly 00:35, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
Thank you for your response. Geological fault lines can occur deep below the earth's surface as well as on the surface. The data suggests that the Napa, Japan and other earthquakes are associated with movement along fault lines although those lines do not extend to the surface. There are many beautiful things in nature. Whether people appreciate the beauty is a matter of culture, not science or religion per se. However, there are scientific explanations for why a lunar eclipse happens and how the Grand Canyon was formed. People who appreciate such sights can properly thank God for the joy that the beauty provides, without needing to accept or deny the scientific explanation surrounding it. Wschact 09:46, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

The jewel in the crown of the secular left is collapsing!

"Sweden is in a serious situation -- unemployment has become entrenched at high levels, school results have collapsed and the welfare system has major shortcomings." [53] The cultural legacy of the Protestant work ethic is collapsing in atheistic, socialistic and feminism loving Sweden! Conservative 18:26, 8 October 2014 (EDT)

No problem Conservative, what you say has some merit but what does it have to do with a blood moon?--Tomqua 18:51, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
Ah you beat me to it.--Tomqua 18:51, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
Just to be hard to get on with, Cons.... You don't have a "crown jewel" Not in this context. It's "the jewel in the crown." AlanE 02:23, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
AlanE, I deserved to be corrected. No need to gloat at the godless/socialist Swedes stumbling. Also, I think Martin van Creveld's book The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) is correct (see: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD). A lot of welfare oriented nation states are going to be in crisis given the long term unsustainability of their economic systems (for example, too many older retirees depending on too few younger workers). The effects could easily be global given the economic interconnectedness of many economies. A lot of people in developing countries will be hurt if this happens.Conservative 03:56, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

ISIS takes Kobani

Another day, another city put to jihadist fire and sword.[54] The JV Team got lucky again, I guess. Obama has already made the ultimate sacrifice. So don't blame him. It's America that's falling short of his standards. Obama is on his best behavior now, but it will be business as usual after the mid-term. So remember: When ISIS fighters get refugee status, don't call them "Islamic extremists."[55] PeterKa 09:53, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

Abortionist "logic"

The poster of this article compares atheists/liberal Christians etc to molesters and worse so how does your logic differ?--Tomqua 21:40, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Increase the chance of Republicans winning the Senate

Re: The 57.8% chance of the Republicans winning the Senate: At stake in this election is Obama issuing an executive order to legalize millions of illegal immigrants. He has said he will do something along these lines after the election, and produce millions of new Democratic voters. But he won't dare do it with a Senate majority who would join in impeachment efforts.

Also if we get a Republican president, he (or she) will need a majority in both houses to repeal Obamacare, and conditions for Senate turnover will be less favorable in 2016.

With that in mind please consider contributing to these Senate candidates. If you contribute less than $200 each to as many of them as you like, your name will not be publicly recorded, and you won't get any junk mail from anyone going through the public records at OpenSecrets.com or whomever.

Catching up but behind:

Falling behind:

Barely ahead:

Pulling ahead:

The Republicans need seven of the above Republican candidates to win for them to capture the Senate (51 seats). You could wait to see if more than the three listed here "pull ahead", but by then it may be too late and their opponent may have achieved the momentum to win. VargasMilan 03:06, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

Restoring User Pages

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.

SamHB 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.
I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)
You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? SamHB 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, here, Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, here, Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers knowing full well that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? SamHB 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

Cost/Benefit analysis of user conserative's recent activity

Hello user conservative. You've spent a great deal of time on your atheism articles. First of all, you must take a break from your frenzied activity. I don't expect any immediate answers to my questions. Get some sleep, take a walk, talk to friends and relax for a while.

When you feel refreshed, could you try and answer a few questions about your motives?

Who are all these Atheism articles aimed at?

Why have you ceased to champion the 'Question! Evolution campaign'? Has it failed to have any impact? At one time you continually promoted a 'book' - in fact you gave updates when individual chapters had been completed. What happened to it and why have you relinquished any interest in a site you were once fixated by?

Why do you engage in some dubious over-site techniques? Removing previous versions/edits/histories. You must admit this type of behavior is prevalent in totalitarian societies.

Can you name any notable Christian conservatives that endorse this website?

EJamesW 15:55, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

EJamesW, why do you use the word "you"? What proof and evidence do you (or the people who edit using your account) have that merely one person edits using the User: Conservative account? Also, do you have any evidence that more than one person edits using the User: Conservative account? For example, do you think the person(s) who largely created the homosexuality article also created Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article (both articles were created using the User: Conservative account)? If so, why is the footnoting style of the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article noticeably different than the homosexuality and evolution articles?
Second, on more than one occasion, you have asked for the motive(s) behind the person(s) using the User: Conservative account, yet at the same time, have you ever revealed your motive or motives for editing Conservapedia? If not, why not? Are you reduced to asking about motives because the wiki content produced using the User: Conservative account upsets you and you cannot find factual errors in it? Are you familiar with the term bulverism?
Third, as far as how the wikis are run in atheistic and totalitarian North Korea (or other totalitarian countries) in terms of oversighting, I/we cannot say. Nor do I/we know if atheist/agnostic wiki nerds obsess over this matter. In addition, you did not support your claim about "dubious oversighting".
Fourth, as far as the impact of biblical creationism and various campaigns associated with it, speaking as an ex-evolutionist and former non-Christian, I do believe that God, the Bible and biblical creationists have a significant impact upon the world. On the other hand, the global market share of atheism adherents has been significantly shrinking for about 40 years in terms of its percentage of adherents and the prominent sociologist Peter Berger and others have documented this matter. Meanwhile, theological conservatism continues to grow in the world and through immigration and higher birth rates of religious conservatives this is expected to have a large effect on the Western World in the 21st century. See: Desecularization
Fifth, as far as the past or future activities of anyone who has edited using the User: Conservative, much to the dismay of various evolutionists, atheists, agnostics and liberals, those are often shrouded in a cloud of mystery. 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 Z


Hello there 'User':conservative - Hope you are well but I still think you need to rest. You sound vexed and tetchy! Why doesn't somebody else in your 'group' try and answer my questions?

Who are all these Atheism articles aimed at?

What happened to the Question! Evolution Campaign?

Name any prominent Christian Conservatives that endorse this site.

I know that these questions are incredibly embarrassing for you (or your group) but try your best to give intelligent answers.

EJamesW 17:11, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

EJamesW, the purpose of encyclopedia articles is to inform.
The Question Evolution! Campaign continues and you can obtain tracts HERE.
Unlike liberals who often engage in groupthink, User: Conservative(s) doesn't crave the endorsements of others. But I/we do know, for example, that Concerned Women of America, the largest public policy women's organization in the United States, recommended the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles on their website and they currently cite CP's Planned Parenthood article as can be seen HERE (The User: Conservative account helped create the Planned Parenthood article at CP). The Elevatorgate scandal helped show that white, atheist men often have lady problems. However, the ladies continue to admire the content produced by the User: Conservative account!!!! :)
What articles have you produced that ladies admire? :) And do you have any proof and evidence as far as their admiration? :) Conservative 17:38, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

Yikes! Is that the best you/your group can do?

You've still not answered any of my questions! I'll narrow it down to one.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible...

Have any of your atheism articles made any kind of impact in the secular world? - (apart from ridicule)

EJamesW 17:57, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

Are you aware that appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy? Can you point out a single factual error with any of my/our atheism articles at Conservapedia? If you cannot do this, feel free to engage in last wordism as a cheap substitute for productive dialogue.
By the way, the material in the Planned Parenthood article that Concerned Women of America cited was added by the User: Conservative account. :) Specifically, this material :) Conservative 18:45, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

A small point, but in English the word 'you' is both singular and plural. Why does Conservative jump to the conclusion that EJamesW means it in the singular? --DHouser 10:59, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

Sorry - that should be 'Why does/do Conservative jump to the conclusion...' --DHouser 13:45, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
A few points: 1) Secular Europe and global atheism is going to demographically implode due to sub replacement fertility rates while conservative/fundamentalist religion will continue to surge in the world. Professor Eric Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us. 2) Hispanics are on the rise in North America and historically Hispanics do not like atheism See: Western atheism and race 3) Big government/Big education is on the decline and unsustainable and historically atheists have politically leaned to the left and used big government/education to promote their ideology/religion/tenets (such as Darwinism). 4) Atheists are very often unreasonable, quarrelsome and deceitful See: Atheism and irrationality and Atheism and interpersonal intelligence and Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and anger and Atheism and deception 5) The real issue is the EJamesW doesn't like the accurate information the User: Conservative account put in the CP atheism article. 6) Evolutionists never gave satisfactory answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists For example, according to leading evolutionists such as PZ Myers, Nick Matzke and Richard Dawkins the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model and we know evolutionism has utterly failed on the origin of life issue. In the movie Expelled Richard Dawkins posited the crank hypothesis that life may have been planted here by aliens. 7) EJamesW and DHouser have been unreasonable in the past.
The 7 points listed above make it extremely unlikely that the User: Conservative account will continue this discussion. Conservative 17:28, 14 October 2014 (EDT)


City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.

The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational. -http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons/ Daniel1212 23:49, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

What will happen if Republicans win the mid-term

The article on the front page reads "Patrick Egan, associate professor of politics and public policy at New York University, said a GOP majority in the Senate will not change the existing gridlock in Washington because the White House would still be controlled by Obama, who could veto bills. 'It’s much ado about nothing in terms of who controls the Senate,' Egan said."

But Ann Coulter pointed out that if Obama persistently vetoes bills, Congressional leaders can call Obama a "do-nothing President". VargasMilan 00:44, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Setback for the homosexual agenda

[56]--Tomqua 15:15, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

Are Republicans allowed to edit Democratic Wikipedia articles?

The Heritage Foundation's blog has the following very interesting item: Should a Republican Be Allowed to Edit a Democrat’s Wikipedia Page? Appaently, an employee of America Rising was editing the biographies of Michelle Nunn and Bruce Braley. He was then blocked by a Wikipedia administrator who has extensive donations to the Democratic National Committee. This is worth a MPR item. Thanks, Wschact 06:01, 22 October 2014 (EDT)

Green paper

Speaking as a naturalized citizen, who once had a green card of their own, I can say that green cards are

  1. Barely even green- white, at first glance
  2. Plastic, or whatever it is credit cards are made of

--CamilleT 11:03, 25 October 2014 (EDT)

typo on left side (main page)

James O'Keefe is an undercover investigative journalist not an "uncover" investigative journalist. VargasMilan 00:46, 26 October 2014 (EDT)

Thanks. Fixed it. Conservative 09:10, 26 October 2014 (EDT)

Election analysis

I found Nate Silver's election analysis interesting. He predicts a big shift in the Senate because the senators who are up this year were elected six years ago in 2008. (This was the year the Republican Party committed harikari by enacting the hugely unpopular banking bailout.) In terms of the popular vote, Silver says 2010 was a more Republican year. I think he's missing too things: The current election is a clear rejection of Obamacare. The Democrats will eventually find other issues to run on, but that will be a difficult adjustment to make. If Scott Walker wins in Wisconsin, Republicans will have a unifying leader to rally behind. Then we can put the Establishment vs. Tea Party split behind us. PeterKa 01:02, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Just to make a clarification, I would like to mention Obama and the Democrats were responsible for the banking bailout too. VargasMilan 10:43, 4 November 2014 (EST)
I for one am sick and tired of the new Senate's conservative overreach. They've gone too far! According to Yahoo!, good news for Hillary, whose liberal personal political momentum can be set into play to counteract their extremism. I realize these new conservatives haven't passed much legislation—or to be exact, haven't submitted any at all. In fact, they haven't sworn in the Majority Leader, or any of the new members. They haven't assembled in Washington yet, nor, come to think of it, have they finished counting the ballots of some of their candidates in some states. Oh well, I guess it just goes to show it's never too early for Yahoo! and its readers to join in participating in some good election analysis recrimination! VargasMilan 14:53, 5 November 2014 (EST)
The voters clearly want a more conservative government. But whether the Senate provides a more conservative government remains to be seen.--Andy Schlafly 21:14, 5 November 2014 (EST)
Recrimination redux
Not if you get your "news" from Yahoo!, Andy. Here is their latest nugget of electorial analysis:


"[Picture of John Boehner and Harry Reid]
Victorious Republicans face familiar dilemma.
Voters spoke out. They want compromise. GOP lawmakers, however appear to be headed in the other direction."


I would like to offer a minor improvement in the language of the caption:
"[Voters gave Republicans and Democrats the perfect opportunity to compromise in 2010 when they elected a Republican House to work with a Democratic Senate and President. After Harry Reid tabled each and every Republican House bill to shield Obama from political responsibility and ignored each and every amendment to Senate bills by Republican senators for four years...] Voters spoke out. They want to withdraw from Harry Reid, serving as Obama’s agent, the continuation of his thus-far-squandered opportunity to compromise with the House Republicans. GOP lawmakers thankfully appear to be headed in the uncompromising direction of giving conservatism a try that the voters demanded." VargasMilan 09:45, 6 November 2014 (EST)

Gayer than thou: Kenya and Pakistan

These two countries have the most Google searches for gay porn.[57]

Islam

The main page right item "Losses in Midterms for Candidates Who Supported Islamists" is very troubling and can be viewed as religious prejudice. First, the only Muslim member of Congress was re-elected. Second, the Tea Party website cited by the item makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists". Finally, there is a big difference between the set of people who claim Islam as their religion and the set of people who would be described as anti-American Islamic extremists. Failing to follow such a distinction makes the item misleading and unworthy of Conservapedia. Thanks, Wschact 16:07, 13 November 2014 (EST)

You wrote: "makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists"". Why are the claims questionable? Conservative 18:56, 13 November 2014 (EST)
The one thing (if not others) that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, former Senator Scott Brown and former Florida Governor Charlie Crist have in common is that they all love the United States and oppose anti-American Islamic extremists. There is ample evidence to show this and the cited item does not do a convincing job of demonstrating the contrary. There are reasons why people did not vote for them (e.g., raised my taxes, carpetbagger from MA, or flipped flopped between the Republican and Democratic party), but being pro-Islamic extremist/pro-terrorist was not a factor. Thanks, Wschact 20:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
Your response wasn't helpful in terms of indicating why the material in the article was questionable. For example, why isn't the material on Crist in the article accurate?Conservative 21:36, 13 November 2014 (EST)
In addition, in terms of analyzing voting decisions it can be done at a corporate/segment/individual level. And in some geographic areas, the Islam issue is more of a hot potato due to larger than average Muslim/Jewish populations within the larger population in question (In Dearborn, Michigan where there is a large Muslim population for example, some Muslims stoned some Christians), the mix of liberal/conservative/nationalistic/religious composition of the populace, etc. Another example: Florida has a lot of pro-Israel/Jewish voters so the Islam issue could be more of a hot potato issue within a segment of the Florida population. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS makes the Islam issue be more of a political hot potato issue. Conservative 00:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

The main page right item, "America's National Cathedral to Host First Muslim Prayer." is another objectionable note on the same theme. The Tea Party webpage referenced by the item seems to approve of the move noting that it is an important step in Protestant-Muslim relations. My concerns are that the National Cathedral in Washington DC, should not be called "America's National Cathedral" because it is really a house of worship for just one denomination. (For example, there is a beautiful cathedral for the Roman Catholics, and very nice large churches in DC for the Methodists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, and Greek Orthodox faiths.) I think that it is nice that different religions get together and encourage each other to learn more about their religions. This whole thing is part of a trend in Main Page Right to make it sound as though there is something alarming going on with Islam in America. Perhaps our time would be better spent uploading photos of these churches and adding to the substantive articles of CP instead of the drum beat of Islam-related MPR items. Thanks, Wschact 21:07, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Franklin Graham didn't think it was nice. He said it was “sad to see a church open its doors to worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible.”
And Ann Coulter noted that in this last election, "Republicans swept everything from U.S. senator to substitute-part-time-dog catcher." So maybe it would be best if you started dancing to the beat of the conservative drum, because conservativism is obviously what American people have demanded of their leaders. VargasMilan 11:03, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Evidently Franklin Graham doesn't realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, so that seems like more of an argument for improving his and others' reading comprehension. RedG 13:55, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Maybe he's read about some contradictions you haven't. You aren't even aware that Christians don't worship a "god", but rather the supreme God, maker of all things.VargasMilan 14:09, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, and Muslims worship the same deity. The meaning of "god" is "something that is worshiped", and the word a corruption of the pagan word "gaut", which was some deity or another (it's not entirely clear what) of the Germanic tribes. It is therefore entirely correct to refer to the Abrahamic god is just that, a god. RedG 19:04, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Perhaps in your fantasies you are being responsive and recounting correct and well-reasoned information. The reality is very different. VargasMilan 09:46, 17 November 2014 (EST)
Are you disputing the etymology of the word "god", or its use in the English language? RedG 16:26, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@RedG: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I'm particularly bothered at the "internet psychiatry" of characterizing your writing as "your fantasies", and that "reality" is different. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Dear VargasMilan, if you can accept the notion that Methodists and Baptists worship the same "supreme God" then you can accept the notion that Muslims and Catholics can also worship that same "supreme God." (You know, the one described in the Old Testament.) Similarly, the big house of worship built by the Catholics in Washington DC deserves just as much respect as the one built by the Methodists or the one built by the Mormons or any other denomination. There is no establishment of religion in the United States, and the government treats all religions equally. So just because one denomination's church (which is a very impressive building in an impressive location) is called the "National Cathedral" does not make it any more "official" than any of the other large houses of worship in Washington DC. (By the way, its official name is "Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington", and not "National Cathedral".) Wschact 15:46, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Your user name looks like Andy's, but you behave far differently. You talk like somebody who's not aware of his surroundings. Some religions lead to disaster. Some to persistent agitation incompatable with the peace that is the prerequisite for prosperous living. VargasMilan 20:10, 20 November 2014 (EST)
@VargasMilan: Is this a joke? Are you trying to imply that Wschact is a sockpuppet of Andy? Are you implying that Andy practices sockpuppetry on his own wiki? The similarities between the names are an "a" and an "sch". Their editing content is worlds apart. And I can assure you that I have had email discussions with both of them, and they are most definitely not the same person. I don't know what to make of the "not aware of his surreoundings" business. SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

God delusion

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say --Maria O'Connor 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of The Irrational Atheist.
Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?
In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic defenses of the existence of God? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: Evidence for Christianity Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments.
Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? Conservative 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias - Christianity Today, November 15, 2014 Conservative 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Personal tools