Talk:Main Page/Archive index/110

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Clinton didn't start the birth certificate thing, "her supporters" did

Just want to point out that the article says "supporters of Hilary Clinton" started it. A candidate can't be blamed for everything their supporters do. If they could, then Christianity could be blamed for everything the KKK did, as the KKK supported Christianity. Also, claiming to be supporters of Hilary Clinton doesn't mean they actually are! If I started a huge chain email accusing Rick Santorum of corruption, signing it with the words "From a supporter of Mitt Romney", it doesn't mean that Mitt Romney approves of the corruption accusation, nor does it mean that I actually support Mitt Romney. - JamesCA 21:39, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Did the KKK support Christianity? I thought you said that claiming to be a supporter of someone doesn't mean they are. I don't recall Jesus or anything in the New Testament advocating lynching people or lighting crosses on people's front yards. Conservative 23:46, 2 March 2012 (EST)
I think that is part of User:JamesCA's point. Even though the vast majority of the KKK identified as Christian, it doesn't mean they were true Christians. Just as Christianity can't be blamed for the violence and intimidation of the KKK, it may not be correct to blame Hillary Clinton for starting the birth certificate controversy. --AaronT 12:53, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Biased sourcing

I'm disgusted to see fivethirtyeight as a source on the main page without a warning that it is a totally crap source. Not only is it part of the lamestream media, it has a long history of bending facts to meet politically convenient needs. Please place a warning in the news item. --CraigF 21:54, 2 March 2012 (EST)

I'm not aware of fivethirtyeight being "highly biased" requiring a special notice in addition to simply alerting readers that it is a New York Times site.--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)
I agree, indicating its association with the New York Times should be warning enough for anyone who isn't clueless about American Politics. And obviously FiveThirtyEight isn't completely unreasonable, as in its very sensible analysis in the link on the Main Page. --BaileyJ 23:47, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Secular Countries

While it's true that most European countries don't have a state religion, neither does the USA. In fact, the USA is constitutionally prevented from having one (1st amendment). In fact, England, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Scotland Greece and Finland (plus the Vatican City, obviously) are European counties with state religions based around Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc). How, therefore, can you call Europe "secular" when it is your own country that is constitutionally bound to be secular? RobertE 14:35, 3 March 2012 (EST)

You can find some helpful information HERE Conservative 16:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)
And you can find some helpful information HERE RobertE 00:06, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Does America have higher church attendance and a larger percentage of theists than many European nations? In addition, although America does not have a state religion for the entire country many of the founding fathers were comfortable with religion within government and very early after the the Constitution was drafted had a Senate chaplain. Plus, the U.S. Constitution said CONGRESS shall not establish religion. However, if I am not mistaken, some or all of the colonies had official religions as can be seen here: http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69 Conservative 00:59, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Template:Hide attack What happened hundreds of years ago is certainly irrelevant when discussion employment rates today. The fact is that America is a secular country, as stated in its constitution. I believe the only European country with a similar requirement is Turkey. RobertE 13:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Nice try, Robert, but the US is not constitutionally bound to be secular. Rather, it is one of the 3 most religious countries in the free world (the other two are Israel and South Korea). Our First Amendment guarantees religious freedom (i.e., we are free from government interference in our religious beliefs and practices, or our decision not to have a religion at all).

You're thinking of the Soviet Union, which was constitutionally bound to be secular. The Soviets made atheism the official state ideology and drove almost all religion underground.

It is a liberal notion that the Constitution was intended to keep religion out of politics, or any other aspect of public life. Rather, the intention was to keep government out of religion. --Ed Poor Talk 20:48, 5 March 2012 (EST)

This weird idea has become popular on the extreme right in recent years but has no basis in fact or law. Review the constitution, statements from the Founding Fathers, and decisions from the Supreme Court. You will find that religion is excluded from government just as much as government is excluded from religion. That is the law of the USA. Deny this and lose all credibility. RobertE 16:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)


Are we saying that it has a secular populace, or a secular government? They are two different things.
I know there's a lot of debate over the establishment clause that we shouldn't re-hash here, but at the very least the United States does not currently have a state religion.
There are plenty of governments more religious than the United States, including most Muslim countries (Iran for example) and much of Africa. Africa and the Middle East also have more religious populations. If we're talking Christian population (by percentage), the United States still ranks behind dozens of countries in Europe and Latin America. Greece is one of the most Christian countries in the world by population, and has found itself in significant economic turmoil.
This is not to advocate secularism. This is to say (A) Let's not tie the legitimacy of religion to economic success. It's risky, it's illogical, and that's not why we practice our faith. (B) Let's not cheer the downfall in Europe, which has historically been the home of many of the world's greatest Christians and continues to be home to some of the world's most solidly Christian populations.KingHanksley 23:28, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Killing a newborn infant

Could you specify what you mean by actually killing one? I assume you mean abortion--definitely a liberal value--but you use the phrase "newborn", which implies that an infant just came out of their mother's womb and is now exposed to the real world. I think anyone, except total psychopaths, would be disgusted by the latter. JLefkowitz 15:10, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Why not actually read the article before criticizing? Killing of a newborn (aka after-birth abortion) is exactly what is discussed. --QPR 15:16, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Endorsement!!!!

I know I've said it before, but I think the time has come. With Super Tuesday coming right up we need to endorse a candidate now or risk becoming irrelevant. I've suggested Santorum, but if the the site's ownership supports Gingrich I would be fine with that too. --CraigF 01:46, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Gingrich is a sinner, and a liar. I'm fully behind support the only true Christian in the race, Santorum. --KenN 13:46, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Still no word from the admins of this site. I find this disturbing, I can't understand why we haven't made an endorsement. Is this site secretly in the pocket of Romney and the establishment? Hopefully tomorrows results will be in favor of a true conservative, but it wont be because of this site. I've done the best I can editing the Romney and Santorum articles, but it seems like everyone else is sitting on there hands. Where is the leadership??? The featured content on the left side of the main page, which should be guiding the focus of this site, all has to do with this Question Evolution Campaign, which I haven't heard of anywhere outside of this site, not at my church, not at my school, nowhere but here. I just don't get it. I don't believe in evolution for a second and I don't need a bunch of extremely long extremely boring youtube videos with a bunch of nobodies arguing about evolution to help justify my faith. There is a real campaign going on (it is called the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY) that will effect the course of this entire nation. Is this site about taking strange pot shots (which aren't likely to have any effect on anyone) at atheists or is it about actually promoting conservatism and logic. I think this site is failing to live up to its potential and use its power and I don't understand why. --CraigF 23:13, 5 March 2012 (EST)
If it makes you feel any better, I am with you ... Santorum! or Newt.--Jpatt 23:21, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Santorum! (although Newt's a close second) Aren't you an admin here? Why don't you put up the endorsement on the main page? I think, considering the time pressure, we can take the silence from everyone else as an implicit endorsement. The time to act is now! --CraigF 23:25, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Eh. Personally, I think that the infighting between the Republican party is going to doom them.08:22, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Challenge Accepted

User:Conservative, I accept Shocks challenge for a debate. Could you ask him if he would be willing to doing it on his meetcheap chatroom? If I remember correctly, it's pretty much the same as Reddit. I wuld ask him myself, but I got blocked from his YouTube for some reason.RedGoliath 16:26, 4 March 2012 (GMT)

Shock won't debate anywhere he doesn't have a banhammer. I joined his "discussion" yesterday and within five minutes got banned just for asking someone to back up their claim with evidence. It's a waste of time getting involved with him.--RandomDent 18:09, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Shockofgod asked the atheists/evolutionists at Reddit to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists. They refused (wimped out). Shockofgod's new challenge is for Reddit atheists/evolutionists to discuss the 15 questions. It sounds like the Thunderf00t/Ray Comfort discussion this time around in terms of it being a discussion offer and not a debate offer. I will let you work things out with Shockofgod at his chat room located here: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 14:43, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Anyone trying to debate at schlockofgoat's chatroom is wasting their time. If you dare to argue with his standards of "evidence" you will be instantly blocked. Ignore the fool and go somewhere semi-sensible, like Ratwiki. Or even ASOK or AW, if you must. --HatFullOfSky 08:17, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Tiger Woods

I don't think "favored" is the right word because it has two meanings with sports - McIlroy was "favored to win" in Vegas and most media outlets, but Woods is "favored" with a disproportionate amount of coverage especially considering he has never regained his status after his infidelity came to life. KingHanksley 02:51, 5 March 2012 (EST)

How about "preferred"? I'll make the change now - and thanks for your comment.--Andy Schlafly 09:56, 5 March 2012 (EST)
I think "preferred" is accurate. Thanks for making the change. KingHanksley 23:05, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Coca Kidney

So, this latest headline I found a bit dubious. I am of course referring to this: "using aborted baby kidneys for flavor enhancement." I did a little bit of research (only a little bit), and I must say I'm skeptical.

First let's look at the kidney cells in question- HEK 293. These were developed in the 70's from "human embryonic kidney cells," (HEK) admittedly from an aborted fetus. All cultures of HEK today are derived from this original culture- there are no "fresh" HEK cells. So while HEK cells originated from an aborted fetus, the ones used by Senomyx were not harvested from dead children. There would certainly be ethical implications for the pro-life, since they were developed from an aborted fetus, but Senomyx is hardly putting anyone in the grinder for experimental purposes, are they?

Second of all let's look at Senomyx's alleged use of these cells. Accusations come from the study Human receptors for sweet and umami taste. I'll admit that a lot of this study is beyond my limited grasp of science, but I think I was still able to deduce a basic understanding of the experimental design. This study did in fact use HEK cells, but only as a base to clone taste receptors. Nobody was eating baby kidneys. Rather, cultures were developed, exposed to sweet and umami (savoury) tastes, and results were recorded. There is no indication that Senomyx uses human embryonic kidney cells as flavoring. Their only documented use of HEK cells is from the aforementioned paper. So, Senomyx does not sell anybody baby flavored taste enhancers.

Third, let's have a look at Senomyx's relation to Pepsi Co. Was the study mentioned above even commissioned by Pepsi? Were its results used for the sake of Pepsi products? There is no indication of this.

So all of this seems to be a little extreme a reaction. Granted, human kidney cells from an aborted fetus were used to generate the cells used by Senomyx to conduct an experiment. But there are no kidney cells present in your soft drinks. No one is ingesting any kidney cells, and nobody is encouraging people to have abortions in order to harvest more kidney cells. I can understand why someone who is pro-life has an ethical problem indirectly endorsing abortion, but the portrayal of the issue is all wrong.--CamilleT 12:27, 5 March 2012 (EST)

I heard they are developing a new flavour - Soylent Pepsi WilcoxD 17:59, 5 March 2012 (EST)

15 questions for evolutionists

I happened to stumble across this anti-Conservapedia blog, which has had an attempt at answering our 15 Questions for Evolutionists. I'd be interested to see how well we can prove them wrong. JustSomeGuy 15:22, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Drowning men clutch at straws. No doubt the creators of that particular site were the same people thrown out of Conservapedia for lying, among other things, and they still can't take it. Oh well. Karajou 15:27, 5 March 2012 (EST)
CMI has inserted a clever qualifier into their statement. It's not that "evolutionists" can't answer the 15 questions, it's that they can't satisfactorily answer the questions. To whose satisfaction? CMI's, that's who. A quick perusal of the dictionary reveals that one of the many definitions of "satisfy" is "to make happy" or "gratify to the full". Based on that, proponents of the theory of evolution will never provide any answers that please CMI (or their adherents). Legitimate challenges also include the conditions required to satisfy that challenge. To the best of my knowledge, CMI has never defined what would constitute satisfying answers. --JoshuaB 18:09, 5 March 2012 (EST)
I don't think any of those answers are at all concrete, they're just a bunch of "but maybe" answers cobbled together into the categories laid out (somewhat handily for them) by the 15 questions. WilcoxD 18:13, 5 March 2012 (EST)
The best way for evolutionists to prevail is simply to not answer the questions. CMI is obviously biased towards creationists, and because of this bias, they will probably never find answers to the questions satisfactory. JLefkowitz 18:29, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Reddit and YouTube have two of the largest atheist/evolutionist internet populations. Both of these website's populations have so far failed spectacularly to answer the 15 questions for evolutionists as can be seen below:

Now I didn't cherry pick the worst evolutionist responses from YouTube. I picked a creationist response to the most prominent/popular evolutionist videos on the 15 questions. And certainly the Reddit people did poorly as well. Now if YouTube atheists and Reddit atheists want to try to do better or just admit they can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear of the evolutionary paradigm I have no problem with that. However, what I am seeing above is merely whining and evolutionist ineffectiveness.

Plus, I realize that the atheist/evolutionist Thunderf00t really embarrassed himself in his Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort discussion (atheist Matt Dillahunty said it was a "weak sauce" presentation of atheism and/or refutation of Christianty/theism), but as the leading evolutionist at YouTube he either needs to do a reasonable job of tackling the 15 questions or just admit he can't. Of course the same could be said of TheAmazingAtheist who did videos relating to VenomfangX, but he is conspicuously silent about the 15 questions for evolutionists.

Shockofgod has offered to debate Thundef00t and TheAmazingAtheists, but they appear to be afraid to try to tackle the 15 questions in debate. Conservative 22:59, 5 March 2012 (EST)

JLefkowitz, you are merely engaging in what C.S. Lewis called bulverism Conservative 23:21, 5 March 2012 (EST)
So an atheist accepted Shocks debate challenge. Already disproves your idea that they're scared. Secondly, Shock misunderstood basic English on several occasion: 1500-2500 and "thousands" are the same thing, so how is it a contradiction? Also, the evolutionist said that he estimated about 1500-2500 obvious and known transitional forms, based on the idea that a well-documented lineage - the horse lineage - had 20 transitional fossils. Somehow, Shock interpreted that as a contradiction, reasons not explained. If anything, 1500-2500 would be an underestimate if there really were around 20 transitional fossils in the observed Equine lineage. Shock simply sounded like a child in the video, not understanding basic logic and English. RedGoliath 00:03, 7 March 2012 (GMT)
RedGoliath, resistance to biblical creationism and creation science is futile.[1][2][3][4] Conservative 04:32, 7 March 2012 (EST)
So you posted two links to articles on Conservapedia (both written by you) and two links to QE! campaign blogs (both written by you.) This makes it look like there aren't many biblical creationists left to resist. After all, when 95% of the QE! campaign consists of you, we're pretty much just waiting for the fat lady to sing. --ToyahWilcox 18:40, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Yes. So far the evolutionists have been stunned by the effectiveness of the QE! campaign. We are cowering in our boots at the sheer power of ShockofGod and (the rather portly, hence atheistic) Ian Juby. Therefore, you obviously don't need to respond to the points that evolutionists bring up, like the above post, or on the 15 Questions debate page, which remains suspiciously empty underneath the "creationist response" headings. You don't actually have to refute our ideas, just claim victory and link to some obscure websites with pretty much no web traffic. You sure know how to win a discussion, don't you!
We have responded to everything you dribble out onto this and other sites, and yet you just ignore the responses as if they weren't there, and claim we're scared to accept a challenge. (Though shalt not bear false witness!) I think it is YOU who is scared, User:Conservative. RedGoliath 14:37, 7 March 2012 (GMT)
If it's atheists who're scared to debate schlockofgoat, why does schlock's chatroom ban every atheist who starts asking him to back up his claims rather than just repeating them ad nauseum?--ToyahWilcox 18:38, 8 March 2012 (EST)

transgendered nanny

I don't believe that was ever hidden.--CamilleT 17:24, 5 March 2012 (EST)

This doesn't seem very newsworthy, even if it is being given as a possible explanatory link to Obama's (weak) support of the LGBT agenda. I sure hope Conservapedia isn't implying that transgendered people aren't allowed to make a living as a functional member of society. --BaileyJ 18:55, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Most of Obama's life has been locked down. Exposing (vetting) Obama's details will always be newsworthy here. I could see many people reading it and saying --his goofball upbringing explains alot. That's right Bailey, we conservatives wouldn't want to be thought of as disparaging the left's new minority group - transgenderers. --Jpatt 22:20, 5 March 2012 (EST)
I have to disagree that information on Obama's life has been kept on lockdown. We know all the places he went to school, we know where he went to church, we know who his family is on both sides, we know his neighbors, we know where he's lived, we know his mother married Lolo Soetoro, we know about his half-siblings, we know what his job was, what organizations he worked with, we know a number of anecdotes about his upbringing- really, I don't know what we don't know about the guy. He's the president, you can't be president without an irrational amount of scrutiny. Unless you're Donald Trump and you want to know what kind of grades he had before he went to Harvard, I'd say we have enough information on Obama. I mean, we have pictures of him at all stages of his life, books written by him, accounts from family members, and, I just found out, his very own portal at Wikipedia (which is a little odd, since it doesn't seem any other presidents do- apparently, portals on a single person are reserved for Shakespeare, Dickens, and some Indian with a rather difficult looking name). So I think we know most of what we want to know about the man, unless you're interested in his blood type.--CamilleT 22:44, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Well put Camille, however I disagree. Anyway, I won't bore you with the reasons why. I do feel sorry for him, or as USA Today put it "her". It's a shame, millionaire Barack Obama could lead Michelle O to form a task force to help. But I guess with running the free world, calling Susan Fluke, and fundraising-- it's just not the right time. Besides, they didn't help George Obama. Auntie Zeituni Onyango got lucky, first in line. Uncle Omar, sadly I think his luck is running out. Half-sister who passed away. Nanny low on the list.
I guess we do know alot about the man, Camille. But much remains hidden and no I don't need to know his elementary school grades. How about high school classmates? College records? Health records? Passports? Social Security Number, Etc --Jpatt 23:02, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia Super Tuesday predictions?

With 7 primaries and 3 caucuses being held across 10 states tomorrow, Super Tuesday is often billed as the "make or brake" moment for campaigns. Never shying away from making bold predictions, does Conservadpedia have any insight into the outcome of any of the upcoming contests? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaB (talk)

Will be up shortly--Jpatt 22:22, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Good man. Thanks! --JoshuaB 23:25, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Ohio

I am thinking Santorum will upset here. It will be a close call due to Romney's 12-1 advertising advantage.--Jpatt 23:37, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Unfortunately the RINOs are pulling out all the stops for Romney to push him to win in Ohio, with "surprise" endorsements for Romney increasing.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 5 March 2012 (EST)
wait romney is a rino??? My parents were talking last night and they said that they were going to postal vote for him if he beats the other guy and takes on obama.... wat should they do if he wins? should they not vote at all or vote for a third party or vote for obama? is obama worse than romney??? sounds like it to me!! 00:06, 6 March 2012 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexis (talk)
Part of the reason that Conservapedia hasn't endorsed a candidate for President is that we will support whomever challenges B. Hussein Obama, such as Romney. With that said, Third party is the same as voting for Obama. --Jpatt 00:22, 6 March 2012 (EST)
yer sounds good!! and really?? ok I'll keep that in mind and tell my parents they are out atm. Also thank you for fixing my last post i have no idea wat i did wrong but ty. Alexis 01:47, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Correct?

It's early in the Alaska count, but it looks like the predictions were spot on - including the fact that Ohio was too close to predict. WilcoxD 01:08, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Agreed. Jpatt did just as well as any of the professional chattering class with his picks. Bragging rights are all his. --JoshuaB 02:03, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Thanks, I did not call N. Dakota correctly.--Jpatt 11:38, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Protection of the article on Richard Dawkins at wikipedia

This complaint seems to be very hypocritical, as the article on Richard Dawkins here at Conservapedia has a history of being protected itself: non-sysops weren't allowed to edit it at least between Feb 2009 and Aug 2011! And articles like Women's views of Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach are still locked.

AugustO 02:06, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia touts its as conservative encylopedia plus it has received multiple attacks from atheists. It is regrettable that some of the articles are locked at Conservapedia due to atheists and their deceitfulness and belligerence (see: Atheism and deception and militant atheism). Plus, atheists are very thin skinned about some satires on atheism and evolution at Conservapedia. The behavior of atheists is so notorious on the internet that Wired magazine said that atheists tend to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged males" (see: Atheism and women). On the other hand, Wikipedia falsely bills itself as a neutral encyclopedia than anyone can edit which is clearly not the case. For example, Richard Dawkins has been criticized in major press outlets plus he is a highly controversial figure. So where is the "criticism and controversy" section which Wikipedia loves to put in articles for conservatives? In short, Wikipedia is being hypocritical and this is undeniable. Conservative 02:30, 6 March 2012 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude, but you seem to use the word "plus" a bit too often, when a plain "and" or "also" would do. You could certainly teach me much more about style than I could teach you, but that issue has been bugging me for a while. Sorry again for bringing that up. --FrederickT3 03:01, 6 March 2012 (EST)
You're letting me down "Conservative". Surely you can provide a better rebuttal than trotting out your well-worn Wired Magazine quote. There's no denying that more than a few articles are locked here at Conservapedia (with a sizable percentage of those being locked by you personally). Though Wikipedia is hypocritical and biased at times, I've never seen a user-created, non-essay, mainspace article locked within seconds after being created. Do you think Conservapedia would pass the same test? Matthew 7:3 --JoshuaB 02:58, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Joshua, Wikipedia is hypocritical and biased "at times"? You win the Conservapedia understatement of the year award. Conservative 09:12, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Thanks for the award... So anyway, what's the story on you locking just about every article you touch? --JoshuaB 14:27, 6 March 2012 (EST)
JoshuaB, if you want to edit articles I contributed to feel free to edit the cheetah, B-17 Flying Fortress and Generalized linear model articles. Second, I get the distinct impression that you are a liberal that wants me to behave in predictable ways and that you also want me to continually explain my actions. I would much rather act in unpredictable ways and remain an enigma. :) "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” - Jesus Conservative 19:47, 8 March 2012 (EST)
But you don't act in unpredictable ways. You answer every question with links to your own articles, your own blogs and CMI's page, even if they have no relevance at all to the question. Every time you have a new idea you cut and paste it into a dozen of your more or less identical articles. And when someone asks you something really difficult you stop even trying to answer and just insert strangely captioned pictures into talk pages, where they don't belong. You're about as unpredictable as the days of the week.--ToyahWilcox 19:53, 8 March 2012 (EST)
User:Conservative, first off, I promised Karajou that I would give you a "wide berth" and steer clear of tangling with you, but since you addressed me directly by name, I hope I will be granted some leeway. With that out of the way, did I say I had an interest in editing an article that you contributed to? No. I simply asked you what's the story on you locking just about every article you touch? I will also point out that you still haven't answered the question... satisfactorily. Am I liberal? Are you speculating on the personal beliefs of another editor? Got a little case of "JoshuaB OCD"? Furthermore, I have made no requests for you to behave in a predictable manner, nor do I care. Should the topic of conversation drift outside of your wheelhouse of pet projects, it is quite conceivable that you could surprise me. Until then, I doubt it. You are not an enigma to me. Your actions, choice of verbiage, quotes and citations used, and their manner of delivery are all too painfully predictable. If you really want to do something erratic that will throw off your critics... accept a debate challenge. No? Maybe next time. I leave the last word to you. --JoshuaB 20:29, 8 March 2012 (EST)
ToyahWilcox, thank you for declaring that I have new ideas. So many of my detractors claim I have no original ideas. Of course, liberals offering contradictory claims is nothing new. Conservative 22:05, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Biden and Succession?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how Obama's birth certificate or lack thereof in any way invalidates Joe Biden's vice presidency. And frankly, I think he'd be worse than Obama, which is the only reason I don't want the controversy to go further. Gregkochuconn 16:23, 6 March 2012 (EST)

How do i add a picture ??

I want to add a picture, how do I do that?? Alexis 16:54, 6 March 2012 (EST)

You can't; uploading rights are restricted to most users. If you become a good enough editor, then you can be able to upload. JLefkowitz 16:55, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Ahh okay that sux i guess. guess i'll just have to do more articles Alexis 17:29, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Texas DINO

"The conservative side of ideas rather than control, of free speech rather than political correctness, continues to grow.". Sorry, but this is absolutely dreadful English. Try "Conservative ideals, rather than control of free speech and political correctness, continue to grow." JanW 17:45, 6 March 2012 (EST)

I don't think the 'improvement' is any better - "The conservative side of ideas and free speech, rather than liberal control and political correctness, continues to grow." What is the purpose of the word 'side' in this sentence? If we're presenting ourselves as a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" for the younger generation, then we ought to at the very least write properly, especially on the front page. I maintain my above rewrite is better. JanW 22:01, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Gingrich's "southern strategy"

The headline is not well worded. Conservapedia itself describes Southern strategy as

courting votes from "negrophobes".

--BradleyS 20:13, 6 March 2012 (EST)

wat is a negrophobe?? Alexis 20:37, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Liberal newspapers just can't accept that the South rejects their values, so they resort to political cards. There's always an excuse for liberal unpopularity.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Why then did the RNC chielf apologize for the Southern strategy and "looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization" (source)? --BradleyS 21:05, 6 March 2012 (EST)
Probably because the RNC is run by RINOs, or because they spend too much time watching the lamestream media. Just because a political functionary says something, that does not make it so.--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 6 March 2012 (EST)

I propose a solution to this dilemma. The "Southern Strategy" that historians discuss refers to the actual appeal to racists that liberal Republicans like Richard Nixon made in the 1970s (yes, Nixon was a liberal; he created wasteful agencies like the EPA). The current southern strategy that Gingrich is using mainly appeals to the religious/family values of people in the South (Santorum is doing a similar think in the mid-west). Because of this, I think we should split the articles into Southern Strategy (Nixon) and Southern Strategy (modern). NickP 23:59, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Santorum is winning based on shenanigans

It would seem that Santorum is ahead (barely) in Ohio in part due to Dem votes. Could it be that the Dems think they can beat Santorum rather than Romney? Also, aren't you all against calling states early early? JamesArtois 22:49, 6 March 2012 (EST)

We never "called" Ohio. Santorum won several other states tonight. Also, many Dems are pro-life and they support Santorum for that and other reasons.
Devotion to Obama by some Dems is not so strong that many would take the trouble to vote in a Republican primary for that reason. Obama is struggling even to meet his fundraising goals.--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 6 March 2012 (EST)

who will win?

Hey Conservapedea i don't want obama to win but i have to confess i think he will, so whats the prediction over here come election time?? will it be obama or a republican in office??? i know which one i want to win was jus curious........ plz help very stressed about all of this and would love a prediction either way just so i know Alexis 23:18, 6 March 2012 (EST)

  • I'd like to see Obama removed from office, but based on the polling numbers, the only GOP candidate beating Obama head to head is Ron Paul who has absolutely no chance of getting the nomination. Of course, it's still early and that could change. Gregkochuconn 08:53, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Alexis, here is a recent clip from Dick Morris. He has called elections correctly in the past. [5] Conservapedia's prediction has been the same, no president wins with unemployment over 8%. Now Democrats are confident publicly but privately, they know they are in trouble. It's remarkable that this disaster of a president actually has a shot to win. I say it is a long shot. --Jpatt 11:28, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Shocking news

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/Primary/OK

Obama barely got a majority in the Oklahoma Dem primary. Pro life Democrat Randall Terry got 18% of the Democrat vote. This shows that even Democrats are disgusted with Obama and will happily vote for a Republican in November. JoeyG 00:04, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Not shocking in the least. Primaries for incumbent parties are typically very poorly attended. Also Oklahoma is a deeply red state that Obama has zero chance of winning come November. --JoshuaB 00:17, 7 March 2012 (EST)
But low turnout in elections usually favors the candidate preferred by the most loyal members of a party. Also, Democrats in Oklahoma are a far cry from Republicans.--Andy Schlafly 00:24, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Let's not forget that Hillary trounced Obama by over 20 points during the '08 primary, and he lost every single county to McCain in the general election by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. It's clear that OK has no love for the prez, whether they're democrats or not. On top of all that, OK dems have sort of a history with throwing support behind non-incumbent candidates. They did nearly the same thing to Clinton in '96. --JoshuaB 00:55, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Oklahoma voters did "nearly the same thing" in 1996 with respect to Clinton's primary? Well, Clinton then failed to obtain 50% of the vote in the general election, so that does mean Obama will attain "nearly" only 49% of the vote in November?--Andy Schlafly 09:10, 7 March 2012 (EST)
I have no idea what Obama will get in the general election (I'm not in the prediction business), but there's not much room in comparing the '96 general election to 2012. Don't forget that '96 had Ross Perot in the mix. If you want to see this as a major story, fine, have at it. I just see it as a deeply conservative state venting it's frustration with an unpopular incumbent by voting for a pro-life fake democrat rival. I have no more to say on this topic. --JoshuaB 13:02, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Everyone has free will to ignore evidence and signs. But weakness like that shown yesterday for Obama in Oklahoma is similar to how Democrats have crossed over to vote for Santorum in many states.--Andy Schlafly 17:04, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Again, or it could be that Dems think they can beat Santorum, rather than Romney. People in both Santorum and Gingrich's camps have privately stated that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, this isn't a cut and dry case of anyone can beat Obama. JamesArtois 17:13, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Also, mentioning that Romney is still 700 delegates away from the nomination is a bit misleading when only 745 of a possible 2286 have been awarded and Romney has won 85 more delegates than the rest of the field combined. As for Jeb Bush for Palin jumping in the race, good luck with either of them winning considering they would have to win 75 percent of the remaining delegates while being 3 months behind in campaigning. JamesArtois 17:20, 7 March 2012 (EST)

No, all that Bush or Palin needs is for Romney to fail to win on the first or second ballot at the convention. And, by the way, the media claims about Romney's delegate total are subject to Gingrich's valid challenge to the Florida award.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 7 March 2012 (EST)
So he might be 115 ahead of Santorum, rather than 138. That doesn't change the fact that Romney is clearly the front-runner and either Jeb Bush or Palin jumping in at the Convention level would be an incredible circumvention of the political process and would undermine any legitimacy Palin or Bush might have otherwise had. This isn't to say that it would garner votes for Obama, but quite a few voters might sit it out after their campaign was rendered meaningless at the last second. It might also bring up questions as to why Bush and Palin felt the need to wait until the convention instead of putting themselves out there on the campaign trail. Perhaps they didn't think they could win in any major demographic except the upper echelons of the GOP? JamesArtois 18:59, 7 March 2012 (EST)
The convention nominates the candidate for president. Virtually everyone accepts and welcomes that key part of the process. It's every bit as legitimate a part of the process as caucuses in early January in Iowa.--Andy Schlafly 19:50, 7 March 2012 (EST)
I would think that the vast majority of people are not aware of that part of the process. Because the Convention is so long after the first primaries, most people are likely unaware of it as in most cases, it is merely a formality. Just like most people are unaware that the new President isn't officially chosen until early January, when the Senate counts of votes of the Electoral College. Hence, the convention is as legitimate a part of the process as the caucuses in January in Iowa, however it won't appear that way to most people. - JamesCA 03:00, 8 March 2012 (EST)

A few things, firstly, the article linked doesn't say that Obama lost 15 districts!! Someone, PLEASE fix this. I don't doubt that the claim is accurate, however it should be supported by the article. Secondly, Just want to point out that Randall Terry is from Oklahoma, and hence his pro-life opinion is more likely to be by the general public. Receiving enough votes to be granted a delegate is likely from it being his home state, it being a typically conservative state, and his conservative view on what the majority probably view as the most important political issue. - JamesCA 03:00, 8 March 2012 (EST)

GROSS

There is a page called "desicration by urine", it is a list of people getting urinated on, get rid of it i thought everything had to be family friendly!!! Alexis 07:57, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Link to the article in question, for convenience. The article does seem a touch infra dig, and some of the examples used seem to criticise the US military as well.--CPalmer 11:35, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Mr. Poor who created the article was a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'm sure he knows what he is doing, he probably has plans to expand it in the future and illustrate some conservative insight. Right now I don't get it though, maybe Mr. Poor can explain what he is thinking about. --CraigF 20:11, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Alinsky Poster

Did Obama spell his first name "Baraka" at one point, or did the poster get it wrong? Strange that they wouldn't even spell a Senator's name right. Gregkochuconn 08:51, 7 March 2012 (EST)

He wasn't a Senator at the time the play opened.--Jpatt 11:30, 7 March 2012 (EST)
He was a senator at the time of the play: Illinois State Senate, 13th District, January 8, 1997 to November 4, 2004. Karajou 20:50, 7 March 2012 (EST)
The poster says "Sen. Baraka Obama". So why Baraka? I still don't get it. Gregkochuconn 12:05, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Government funding for anti-Christian values

Hey everyone! I just created the page Government funding for anti-Christian values and would appreciate any help in continuing to expand it. Thanks!--MorrisF 16:33, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Windy City Times

The site has the header: "CELEBRATING 25+ YEARS OF Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender NEWS". Right below that is "Search Gay News Articles". I'm wondering why is a gay newspaper is being sourced at a conservative encyclopedia? --BradleyS 17:38, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Excellent question! Now the reference is a link to National Review instead.--Andy Schlafly 17:56, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Why are evil evolutionists pushing infantcide?

Nice to see the implicit acknowledgement in the headline that not all evolutionists are evil. (FYI, the word is infanticide.) --QPR 09:26, 8 March 2012 (EST)

"Featured on Conservapedia"

Is it time to change the heading on the left-hand half of the main page? It currently says "Featured on Conservapedia", but you have to scroll down to the seventh item in the column to reach an item about an article on this site rather than an external site. I suggest "Articles of interest around the Web".--CPalmer 09:38, 8 March 2012 (EST)

"Articles of interest around the Web" is OK, but still doesn't capture the essence of the content. Perhaps "The latest from Creation Ministries International"? Or maybe somethings shorter and to the point like "Conservative's Corner"? Looking back at revisions of the main page from years ago, the site used to feature a "Today in History" section which I thought was pretty good. I personally would like to see more diverse content on the main page. Maybe a daily/weekly featured article, a daily bible quote (an actual quote, not just an off site link), maybe an upcoming events calendar to highlight upcoming shows, rallies, events and other activities that would be of interest to conservative audiences. Perhaps even an "Icons of Conservatism" section where each month, an important conservative leader is profiled. As it stands now, the main page is CMI/QE! on the left and the Drudge Report on the right. --JoshuaB 17:53, 8 March 2012 (EST)
I totally agree - nothing there is actually WITHIN Conseravapedia - what't the point of that? With the right side dedicated to news from other sites, there's actually nothing of substance to walk people down our garden path and into what I thought we were trying to do here. And, as I've recently tried to argue with zero response (which really surprised me, as the owner of the site and originator of the article even was a lll over the media about it), I'd love to see the Conservative Bible Project properly reinstated at the top of that side of the page too. That's a worthwhile project that's entirely original work that has just been buried underneath the ramblings of the village idiot, it seems. JanW 01:15, 11 March 2012 (EST)

"Can Romney Be the Next Reagan"

Fascinating article that has definitely swayed me over. What do other people think of this? Is it News column worthy? http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/06/romney-can-be-the-next-reagan --IScott 11:11, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Obama and Romney are both in banksters back pockets when it comes to bank bailouts. Romney was for bank bailouts, but against the GM bailout. If Washington does not reform its budgets in a big way, there will probably be an economic crises between 2012 and 2016 and both these politicians will ask for bank bailouts. If Ron Reagan ran deficits, I doubt the creator of RomneyCare is going to have a balanced budget. Conservative 17:10, 8 March 2012 (EST)

15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

Excuse me, I'm a high school student, and I recently came across this website, the 15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer and the "Grade Your Teacher" project. I asked my biology teacher the 15 questions and he answered them just fine. You should probably stop promoting this stuff, since I'm sure that my biology teacher isn't the only one who can answer these questions. MichaelBenson 11:13, 8 March 2012 (EST)

I think you'll find your mistaken, Michael. Remember, these aren't merely 15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer, they are 15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer Satisfactorily. Your teacher may have provided answers, but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts the answers weren't satisfactory.--QPR 13:19, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Excellent, I love doughnuts. Martin2930 14:35, 8 March 2012 (EST)
MichaelBenson, when scientists have a viable and working model, there is no need to stress "scientific consensus". It is only when a paradigm is weak or counter to the existence evidence when people stress the consensus.[6] You really don't see many physicists mention the scientific consensus when it comes to the principle of Force = Mass times acceleration. However, evolutionary "scientists" commonly invoke the scientific consensus as far as the macroevolutionary paradigm. Can you guess why? :) Conservative 16:58, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Because people dispute the theory based on perceived incompatibilities with their religious faith? Martin2930 17:09, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Atheism is a religion and naturalism is an ideology/philosophy. Evolutionism is one of their dogmas. But nice excuse on why evolutionists regularly invoke the scientific consensus. :) Conservative 17:14, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. If the best argument you have is one of your own articles (brought to you by Windows clipboard) you've already lost.--ToyahWilcox 18:43, 8 March 2012 (EST)
"It is only when a paradigm is weak or counter to the existence evidence when people stress the consensus." This coming from the guy whos response to pretty much everything is that atheism is on the decline and there are more and more Christians? RedGoliath 22:17, 8 March 2012 (GMT)
Can I just clarify what your saying here, Conservative? You're moving away from the idea that the 15 questions cannot be answered, and saying that they can be answered, but that those answers represent only a consensus of opinion, not a universality of opinion?--QPR 17:28, 8 March 2012 (EST)
I would assume so. After all the internet now contains even more answers than it does cut and pasted blogs promoting the campaign, so he can't really claim that they cannot be answered any more.--ToyahWilcox 18:35, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Redgoliath, I regularly provide the resources so atheists can examine the proof and evidence for Christianity. Yet, atheists have yet to provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. At the same time, I do remind atheists that atheism is shrinking in the world and it is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate as a reminder to them that their atheism evangelism is impotent and futile - especially at this website which provides an abundant amount of information concerning the folly of atheism. Now you can certainly decide to resist God, but if you persist the only thing thing that will be gained is an eternity in hell so I suggest repenting of your sins and becoming a Christian. Conservative 19:17, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Many people lack belief in gods. Therefore atheism is true. As for it shrinking, you base that claim on one article in a conservative magazine talking about one study carried out by a missionary group. Try verifying it before you make such a big deal of it, or it might just come back to bite you.--ToyahWilcox 19:47, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Anyway, how is any of that relevant to the 15 questions? You do know that an answer is supposed to be connected to the question, don't you? I only ask because your answers are rarely very relevant.--ToyahWilcox 19:48, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Is atheism merely a lack of belief in gods? Please provide encyclopedia of philosophy references demonstrating this claim. Conservative 19:56, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Certainly: "One who does not believe in (what the speaker holds to be) the true religion; an ‘unbeliever’. A disbeliever in religion or divine revelation generally; especially one in a Christian land who professedly rejects or denies the divine origin and authority of Christianity; a professed unbeliever."(Source: Oxford English Dictionary.) And yes, I know you have ONE encyclopedia which defines it as "denial of God." So what? Atheism means without belief in gods. The etymology alone tells you that. "A-" means "without." It doesn't mean "Denies." --ToyahWilcox 20:02, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Anyway, back to the point: what does this have to do with the QE! campaign and its 15 easily answered questions? Why can't you just answer the question you were actually asked?--ToyahWilcox 20:07, 8 March 2012 (EST)

A thought occurs - the scientific consensus on evolution is actually much, much stronger than the religious consensus on creation. In fact, no such religious consensus even exists as there are too many competing interpretations. Olaf 20:22, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Conservative, I would never wish for you to die from a strain of bacteria that has evolved antibody resistance, but if God has a sense of humor that is what's going to happen. Martin2930 20:27, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Martin:

As Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.[53]


In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:

“Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.

...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.[54] Conservative 22:23, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Olaf, is it truly a "scientific" consensus or merely a supposed consensus of scientists in an environment which frantically punishes dissent? I have noticed that real science tends to be more open and does not have "trade secrets" as far as its communications with the public. Conservative 20:33, 8 March 2012 (EST)
It is merely an observation. You referred to "scientific consensus" which made me realize there is no constant religious explanation either. Who do you think agrees less on this matter, atheistic scientists or Christians? (serious question) Olaf 21:03, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Olaf, I think you missed the point of my above comments. It is the evidence that matters when it comes to the veracity of a claim.Conservative 21:39, 8 March 2012 (EST)

That was 1988. This is 2012. Even though you did shamelessly quote-mine that statement, I will say that the scientific community now knows a lot more about the molecular mechanisms underlying evolution than it did back in the 1980s. "Evo-Devo" is a good place to start. Beyond that, if I may be so bold, there's a wonderful book which you should read explaining the connections between evo-devo and population genetics.
Especially if you don't "believe in evolution" (I'm not trying to change your mind), it would certainly be an interesting case to dispute!
The book is called Evolution, Development, and the Predictable Genome by David Stern. I would be very interested to hear your take on it. --JHunter 01:47, 9 March 2012 (EST)


Evolutionists, why your complaints are futile

Evolutionists, as long as Creation Ministries International (CMI) supporters report back to CMI that evolutionists are being stumped and that they like the campaign and as long as no evolutionists give satisfactory answers to CMI scientists, the campaign will go on. Given that the internet is hurting the printing business, I am very happy that the printer of the Question evolution! campaign tracts will have a bountiful harvest this year do to the countless orders and reorders of the tracts which will no doubt occur due to the evolutionists continuing to be stumped and providing unsatisfactory answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists. Plus, creationists love stumping evolutionists. I don't understand why you just can't be happy for the printer and his family and all the joyous creationists who continue to stump evolutionists with the 15 questions.Conservative 21:39, 8 March 2012 (EST)

User conservative, another more realistic view might be that the whole creationist approach has a bigger obstacle to overcome than all the argumentative and complaining evolutionists. Reality. History shows that people who have subscribed to or been indoctrinated by religious doctrine have problems coming to terms with scientific advancements that contradict their beliefs. Of course some religions, particularly Christianity, have evolved to embrace them. So, it doesn't really matter how many arguments or debates you win, reality is never going to be on your side. EJamesW 12:35, 9 March 2012 (EST)
Does history show that belief in creation science and biblical creationism impedes scientific advancement? If so, why didn't you offer proof and evidence to this effect? Is the United States a leader in scientific and technology innovation? Is the United States a leader when it comes to belief in creation science? Did the Scientific Revolution occur in a land with a history of high belief in the Bible relative to other parts of the world? Did Dr. John Sanford, a Cornell professor, endorse the Question evolution campaign? Was Dr. Sanford a major contributor to the invention of the gene gun? What significant breakthroughs in biological science does Richard Dawkins have to his credit? Who leads in contributions to scientific advancement Dr. Sanford or Richard Dawkins? Was the scientific consensus wrong about how lions kill their prey and was the Bible correct on how lions kill their prey?[7] Was the Northern European naturalists/scientists consensus about ant behavior incorrect and did the Bible make a correct statement about ants? [8] Conservative 14:37, 10 March 2012 (EST)


Hello user:conservative. Interesting stuff! I had no idea such a device existed. Does history show that belief in biblical creationism impedes scientific advancement? Certainly not – some of the greatest discoveries have been made by people who hold deeply religious beliefs. I am sure you could give many examples. However, this is nothing to do with the point I was making. I presume you believe that the Earth orbits the sun. This interpretation of reality would at one time put your very life in jeopardy. Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established” and Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” – these passages were accepted as truths at the time. It took many years before the idea that the Earth orbited the sun was embraced by devout believers. So I’m sure you’ll agree history shows that people who have subscribed to or been indoctrinated by religious doctrine have problems coming to terms with scientific advancements that contradict their beliefs.
The ‘Question evolution! campaign’ that you champion on this website is destined to fail. You may embarrass many scientists, win many debates, convert atheists to Christianity, maybe have your own TV show, but you will never be able to change reality. Best wishes EJamesW 15:44, 10 March 2012 (EST)

I think the point is that any preconceived notion about reality, one that the proponent refuses to put to any tests, is liable to be an obstacle to scientific understanding. The classic case is the way Viennese doctors treated Ignaz Semmelweis, whose "invisible substance" idea was ridiculed and dismissed because it ran contrary to 19th century medical dogma. It was only when prominent, wealthy men like Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur championed the germ theory of disease that anyone would listen. --Ed Poor Talk 19:53, 10 March 2012 (EST)

EJamesW, it is regrettable that some people have poor Bible exegetical skills as the Bible does not teach geocentrism. [9][10] Also, read the entire PDF HERE including the rebuttal. It is also regrettable that you were unable to come to terms with the fact that there are cases where the Bible trumped the scientific consensus and there are many cases where the Bible was way ahead of its time. Please read the article HERE. Lastly, you can end the Question evolution! campaign. All you need to do is satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. So far the atheist community has failed to do so and there are notable cases where the atheist community has failed to do so as can be seen HERE. Conservative 20:10, 10 March 2012 (EST)
EJamesS, by the way, have you read this article? Could this be another case of Saul of Tarsus part II? I have noticed that he has been conspicuously silent on this matter which I find very telling. Do you know what happened to the atheists C.S Lewis and Lee Strobel? Sometimes history has a way of repeating itself. He has already become an agnostic and is an ex-militant atheist. Conservative 22:44, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Family makes pro-Santorum music video

Probably the first good internet thing to happen to Rick Santorum [11]--CamilleT 23:51, 8 March 2012 (EST)

After the Santorum Neologism, this is just what the doctor ordered :)JonM 08:40, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Presidential Odds Update - Super Tuesday Special

So, the election odds didn't really change much at all after Super Tuesday. Santorum lost a bit of ground, and Obama and Romney went further ahead in first and second place respectively. -- Ferret Nice old chat 07:05, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/110"
Personal tools