Talk:Main Page/Archive index/128

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Best Wishes To Everyone!

Just wanted to send out a belated Merry X-mas and Happy Holidays to everyone :) Sorry I've been busy with family this holiday season. But no matter what anyone believes, I wish them the best :). And oh yes almost forgot, Merry Christmas Mr. Schlafly and Conservative :) the latter of whom I wish the best of luck on his QE Blog :) --DavidS 12:26, 26 December 2013 (EST)

Firstly, can I have night editing privileges? As I edit from Australia (hopefully my IP shows this) it's getting increasingly difficult to edit due to some time constraints.

Secondly, I was trawling through the "A Storehouse of Knowledge" website and I found this. I'm wondeing whether Ruylopez (who I presume is User:Conservative) will answer the question?

Finally, this page could really do with a good archive.

Thanks, Jacob Anderson 08:28, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

I/we don't generally discuss any off CP internet activity I/we may or may not have engaged in or currently be involved in as far as a confirmation or a denial. That's my/our long standing policy. I/we always like to keep the opposition guessing and frantically scouring the internet for signs of my/our presence. :) Second, I don't see what you were referring to via that link anyways. Perhaps, you linked to the wrong item. Conservative 18:03, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
I agree with the point about this page being due for an archive though ... WilcoxD 19:43, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, you say in this section that on August 5, 2013 you would be able to be contacted about the Nils Heribert Nilsson. Furthermore, you state that you will never read the r a t i o n a l w i k i again. For those who have looked at this wiki and have seen the things Mr Mason says about you and how you have reacted, it is clear that you have. Jacob Anderson 19:49, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
Many skeptics/atheists/agnostics are inconsistent. They say they need absolute proof or close to it about the authorship of various documents in history, yet they insist anonymous posters on the internet must be the person or persons editing with the User: Conservative account at CP. Of course, I/we find this inconsistent behavior humorous.  :)
Second, feel free to post on the talk page of the Nils Heribert-Nilsson article.
Lastly, at this juncture, until Fergus Mason carries though with the debate he agreed to do with VivaYehshua, I/we do not place any importance on what he has to say. The words of a coward who lacks integrity doesn't have any interest to me/us. Conservative 20:22, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
Here in Switzerland night editing is also difficult. The whole site was totally down for the last two weeks or so. By the way, what's this "I/we"? Pluralis maiestatis? :P --RonaldV 10:26, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
No true skeptic would insist that User: Conservative account editing was merely the work of one person. Conservative 16:47, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
Hmm, don't get drunk all together, one must remain sober to drive home the others. --RonaldV 13:23, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
I will be sure to e-mail Mr. Schlafly about the concern that more than one person uses the User:Conservative account so that he may reassess whether or not such a shared account can be trusted with administrative privileges. GregG 13:33, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Leaves Are Changing Color

The linked article speaks of the leaves changing color prematurely due to unusually hot, dry weather. But the comment here calls it disproof of global warming. It could use more explanation of how. It's good to be back! It seemed like this site has been down for weeks. MelH 10:31, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

But this summer has not been "unusually hot." Quite the contrary: the summer has been cold.--Andy Schlafly 10:52, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

One hundred and twenty six

Do you need to be an administrator to perform a trim/archive on a page like this or can I take the initiative and do it myself? WilcoxD 21:58, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

You should be able to trim and archive this page as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 00:28, 12 August 2013 (EDT)
It's now archived, so all that an administrator needs to do is add Talk:Main Page/Archive index/127 to Talk:Main Page/Archive index. GregG 03:34, 12 August 2013 (EDT)

Gay couple seeks spousal privilege protection

Could someone please explain this news item to me? Why does it say, "Maybe gay marriage isn't a great idea after all"? The point of the item eludes me. Are we saying that spousal privilege protection is a bad idea? Or just that it's a bad idea if the couple is gay? If so, why? --ChesterAA 18:31, 14 August 2013 (EDT)

Interesting link?

An interesting link, though maybe a bit controversial: [2]. HarryQ 09:37, 15 August 2013 (EDT)

Did you actually read the article? All the studies really show is the level of indoctrination that occurs in tertiary education institutions. BBRodriguez 10:45, 16 August 2013 (EDT)
It is true that indoctrination happens in schools, but there is also two other things that are true. First, poorer people are more likely to be religious [3] and poorer people are less likely to be healthy (lead poisoning, etc.) which does affect brain health. Second, it could also be argued that IQ tests have a socioeconomic/racial bias and that atheists are disproportionally caucasion (see: Western atheism and race). Third, there are a lot more religious people than atheists/agnostics, hence there are a lot more intelligent religious people than non-religious people. Fourth, intelligence does not lead to atheism (see: Atheism and intelligence). For other matters, see: Atheism and intelligence. Conservative 15:52, 16 August 2013 (EDT)
Also, if atheists/agnostics are so smart, then why don't they have a plan to halt their global decline in adherents which will accelerate in coming years?[4]  :) Conservative 17:20, 16 August 2013 (EDT)
A weak comment, but your third point takes the cake. Cf.: There are a lot more religious people than atheists/agnostics, hence there are a lot more stupid religious people than non-religious people. Or: There are a lot more religious people than atheists/agnostics, hence there are a lot more homosexual religious people than non-religious people. HarryQ 11:23, 17 August 2013 (EDT)
HarryQ, based on his examination of the available data, Vox Day estimates that there are 10 times more intelligent religious people than intelligent atheists due to the lower amount of atheists in the world, the higher amount of religious people in the world and the percentage of intelligent people in the two populations.
And the gulf is going to widen over time (See: Decline of atheism and Global atheism). You might as well face it. Theists have more intellectual firepower and the degree to which we have more intellectual firepower is going to grow over time.
In addition, Christians have proof and evidence for their worldview and there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true (See: Atheism is a clown). Conservative 20:20, 17 August 2013 (EDT)


What do Andy Schlafly and Fidel Castro have in common? They both find it hard to believe Castro is alive: BBC News --DHouser 12:33, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

The communist press story that Fidel Castro has survived and thrived after he "was diagnosed with a fatal illness in 2006" ranks along with the North Korean commies insisting that their dictator had scored multiple holes-in-one in a single round of golf. If liberals really thought Fidel were still alive, then why aren't they calling for Obama to meet him???--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

Attention user:conservative!

You seem to writing/expanding a lot of articles which are entitled 'atheism' and something or other.

What is the purpose of these articles? Do you think that atheists will be swayed by your arguments and information? You're kidding yourself if you think stuff like this will have any kind of traction. But you know that, don't you?

I think you write these articles for extremist fundamental Christians – I bet they lap it up and it makes you feel like you're really achieving something worthwhile. If it makes you happy – good for you!

I think you might be an intelligent chap – you certainly put a lot of effort into your articles. But the brutal truth is - you are wrong...

EJamesW 17:43, 23 August 2013 (EDT)

If you want to discuss the veracity of any articles it's best to go to those articles' talk pages; the main page talk isn't really the place to do it.--IDuan 12:17, 24 August 2013 (EDT)
EJamesW, I largely agree with Iduan. Why don't you post on the talk page of this article: Atheists have low retention rate compared to other worldviews. If you can provide reliable data that this is not the case, I will certainly look at it. Conservative 13:35, 24 August 2013 (EDT)
You two might want to hold off for a month before actively engaging EJamesW, since he was blocked for one month at 20:11, 23 August 2013, for violating 90/10. I hope this section sticks around and will still be here when he comes back.
EJamesW, if you feel that you really need to respond to what has been said, contact me at the email on my user page. I may forward your comments to this page. But your comments must be on topic, since you were blocked for 90/10. And this is part of the 90.
SamHB 15:56, 24 August 2013 (EDT)

That is ok. EJamesW already proved the maxim of the bitten dog yelps the loudest! :) Conservative 17:32, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

The above remark about dogs yelping is inexcusably rude, especially since the person being insulted is not able to reply. Have you no class? SamHB 21:36, 25 August 2013 (EDT)
SamHB, what is rude is asking someone the motives of their well supported and well cited material they create at Conservapedia on a unrelated talk page rather than dispute the content using facts and well-reasoned arguments on a relevant talk page. Going on a fishing expedition as far as someone's motives (in a showboat manner - on the main page talk page) is illogical and a form of bulverism. Iduan was right in being critical of EJamesW inappropriate behavior. I stand by my characterization of EJamesW's weak whining. Conservative 22:43, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

And EJamesW also proves the maxim that Stalinist banning of opposing thought is as much alive on Conservapedia as it has ever been User:NikRoberts 00:06, 26 August 2013 (GMT)

Was Joseph Stalin an atheist? What does history teach us about atheist leaders? See: Atheism and mass murder.
Second, EJamesW had plenty of opportunity to contribute to main space articles and to the talk page of the most relevant article which is Atheists have low retention rate compared to other worldviews. Instead, he chose to showboat on the main page talk page and do so in a poor quality manner. Conservative 19:21, 25 August 2013 (EDT)
I strongly agree with Conservative in that EJamesW was disruptive and this was not the place to bring up his points - points by the way that he didn't really have (only a closing sentence saying the articles were wrong). I haven't looked at his block but simply based upon those two posts suggests a pattern of disruptive behavior and that the block was probably appropriate; I also generally disagree with using historical events to hyperbolize situations. This is a wiki - I can't imagine any scenario that this wiki or other wiki could possibly warrant being compared to Stalin.--IDuan 16:38, 26 August 2013 (EDT)

Andy, please do something about the inaccessibility of this website

The place from which I normally edit, a college campus, is now inaccessible. It is usually the most reliable entry point. Whatever is going on, please fix it. Really. This is serious. Accessibility from various locations has been going up and down randomly for several weeks, including a few instances of accessibility from one computer but not another, when the two computers are right next to each other on the same network concentrator, and have consecutive IP addresses. Please consider getting the services of a professional web expert. SamHB 21:36, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Obama and Racial Politics

In his speech at the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, President Obama offered a rare admission of liberals actually being in the wrong. The message is basically that there are people fighting for racial equality who are too quick to play the victim and to rely on government to solve all problems.

"And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots. Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support — as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself." [5]

--AaronT 22:25, 28 August 2013 (EDT)

JZ's Debate Points

The following are some points I make when debating, I'm not really sure if they'd be useful in any pages, so I just figured I'd mention them here and see if anyone has any ideas. These are some pretty good points and sources so I'd hate to see them go to waste.


Obstruction was caused by the Democrats originally in 2009. Obama early on broke his promise of bipartisanship from day one and Democrats went power-mad through all 2009-2010, creating the stimulus and healthcare bills on their own without allowing any GOP participation. Democrats locked Republicans out of the stimulus and healthcare bill creation processes breaking Obama's promises of bipartisanship and transparency, and now complain that Republicans no longer want to cooperate.

Democrats had complete control of the House and Senate all 2009-2010 to where they needed only a few Republican votes to pass bills. From July 1st, 2009 to February 3rd, 2010 they even had a Supermajority allowing them to pass any bills they wanted without a single Republican vote.

During this time, Democrats refused to include Republicans at all in the bill authoring processes for major bills like the stimulus and healthcare bills. When Republicans raised the issue, Nancy Pelosi in January 2009 declared in front of Congress repeatedly, "Yes, we won the election. Yes, we wrote the bill."

Republicans from the start accused Democrats of breaking Obama's campaigning on bipartisanship and transparency, with McCain saying "This agreement is not bipartisan" and Mike Pence stating, "Republicans have had no input whatsoever in the development of this so-called stimulus bill."

Democrats were so arrogantly confident that the supermajority allowed them to do whatever they wanted that in October 2009 they even changed the door locks for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to keep Republicans from meeting when Democrats weren't present. The debacle occurred because Republicans were trying to launch an investigation into corruption by Democrat Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd for receiving special VIP loans from Countrywide Financial.

When Obama finally held a summit in late January 2010 with Republicans for appearance's sake because the election of Brown meant Republicans would be able to block bills once Brown was sworn in, Jason Chaffetz called attention to Obama's broken promises of bipartisanship and reform.

January 31, 2010

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R - UTAH: There's some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on because I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists. The Democrats have the House and the Senate and the presidency. And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. I was disappointed. I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it and disappointed when you didn't. You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come. We never heard a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.

And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks, in fact, you didn't want to have any earmarks in any of your bills, I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn't happen.,2933,584410,00.html

Obamacare Lies

The following is a list of ObamaCare's false claims - Obama passed it by lying from start to finish:

-Premiums will drop in most states:

According to the Associated Press, health care premiums will rise in most states.

-$940 billion pricetag:

The price has now increased to $1.76 trillion, nearly double the promised amount.

-Broadcast publicly on C-Span:

The bill was designed in back rooms by a few corrupt Democrats with no Republicans at all and Brian Lamb, founder of C-Span, was ignored when publicly asking Obama to keep his promise in January 2010.


Democrats did not include Republicans at all in the healthcare bill creation, and Obama broke his promise to go line by line through the healthcare bill with Republicans as Jason Chaffetz said:

"You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come. We never heard (SIC) a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.",2933,584410,00.html

-Public option (healthcare for everyone):

Obama was the reason the public option got removed from the healthcare bill, he made a deal with the hospital industry to remove healthcare for everyone in exchange for industry support on Obamacare. As Dennis Kucinich put it, "They took single-payer off the table right at the beginning, because the table was set by insurance companies."

-Not a government takeover:

According to a 2012 CBO report, the number of people who receive healthcare through an employer will decline by 3-5 million, while those who receive it through government-run exchanges will increase.

As observed by Philip Klein:

"It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."

-13 million Americans got rebate checks:

In actuality only 3 million did, employers got the remaining 9.8 million rebates. According to the Associated Press, "employers can use all the rebate money, including the workers’ share, to benefit the company health plan, perhaps restraining premiums a bit or otherwise improving the bottom line... most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn’t go 'in their pockets' and they have no control over what their employers do with it."

-Won't fund abortion:

Pro-Life Democrats, DFLA, only passed the bill through the house in both November 2009 and March 2010 because they were promised the bill wouldn't fund abortion. Surprise, surprise, Obama lied. What's more, Obama had promised Planned Parenthood back in July 2007 that "reproductive care" would be front and center in the upcoming healthcare bill.

Republicans v. Democrats on the Economy

All the Democrats ever point to on the debt is whether a Democrat or Republican was president. If you look at which party ran Congress, it quickly becomes clear that Republicans have been doing much better over the past 2 decades, since the debt does much better when they run Congress and much worse when Democrats do.

-According to the Debt to the Penny calculator at, the public debt grew 4.11 times as fast under the Democrat Congress from 2007 to 2010 as the Republican Congress from 1995 to 2006.

  • 2007-2010 Democrat Congress: Debt grew from $8.677 to $14.000 trillion in 4 years, $1,330.75 billion per year. (1/3/2007 to 1/3/2011)
  • 1995-2006 Republican Congress: Debt grew from $4.798 to $8.677 trillion in 12 years, $323.26 billion per year. (1/3/1995 to 1/3/2007)

-Employment dropped under the Democrat Congress from 2007-2010 by 1.25% per year but grew under the GOP Congress from 1995-2006 by .025% per year.

  • 2007-2010 Democrat Congress: Employment dropped from 63.3% to 58.3% in 4 years, 1.25% per year. (01/2007 to 01/2011)
  • 1995-2006 Republican Congress: Employment rose from 63.0% to 63.3% in 12 years, .025% per year. (01/1995 to 01/2007)

-Median incomes dropped $470 over the 4 years Democrats ran Congress but grew $349 per year over 12 years when Republicans ran Congress.

  • 2007-2010 Democrat Congress: Median incomes dropped $470 per year over 4 years.
  • 1995-2006 Republican Congress: Median incomes rose $349 per year over 12 years. (Table P-7)


  • Data not shown for 2011-2013 because Congress is split with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
  • Democrats did control the Senate from 2001-2003 so there was a 2-year period when Congress was split from 1995-2006 but was otherwise Republican-controlled. Ironically this is the only period when Debt:GDP rose at all under Republicans during that time period, otherwise it dropped or remained stable.
  • Democrats did control the Senate but just barely from 2007-2008 because Independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucused with them.
  • Median incomes were checked using the Census Bureau's spreadsheet column "2011 dollars" which adjusted everything for inflation, otherwise it would be comparing apples and oranges since currency differs in value from year to year. Values without inflation adjustment (column "current dollars") would be -$113 (2007-2010) and $752 (1995-2006), still more favorable for Republicans.
  • If you check data earlier than 1995 you will find Democrats did not do so poorly, but I've examined only data for the past 2 decades to show how current Republicans have done against current Democrats. The trouble with checking earlier, also, is that Democrats had virtually complete control of Congress from 1931-1994, so there wouldn't be much to contrast.


The website I'm working on right now is for Bible apologetics so I'm not going to be using the information on it anyway, if anyone has ideas for how my points could help improve a CP article or articles, let me know and I can put them in.

--Joshua Zambrano 03:13, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

Are the Conservapedia Commandments being followed?

I am growing increasingly concerned that the first guideline mentioned for Conservapedia Commandments is not being followed, namely that "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons."[6] If this commandment is true, I'd love to stay at the site, as I experienced first-hand the degree of ideological bias at Wikipedia and how it relates to blocking. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that users are being blocked right after they make ideologically disagreeable comments, and that this Conservapedia Commandment is being violated. I strongly urge Conservapedia to make sure it is not blocking others because of ideological reasons. --Joshua Zambrano 04:19, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

Anti-Spam Suggestions

I noticed Conservapedia is still getting spam account auto creation. I actually had that occur shortly after I designed my own wiki,, and had to implement a number of changes to stop the spam. I had close to 2 dozen fake accounts all register within a matter of days just so they could create fake user pages with advertising content.[7] I researched for the next week how to implement anti-spam measures in the wiki to stop this, and since then haven't had any automated registrations (or any registrations at all) so I might as well share the wiki changes I made. I'm not sure which ones exactly were most effective of course, I just implemented whatever looked good.

Bad Behavior and Confirm Edit

I installed the Bad Behavior and Confirm Edit mediawiki extensions mentioned here[8] and here.[9] Confirm Edit implements a CAPTCHA system[10][11] whereas Bad Behavior stops spam bots by analyzing header information, sending them error codes.[12][13] I also made the ConfirmEdit changes mentioned here.[14] I have the following lines in my main directory's LocalSettings.php file (well, with a few more captcha questions, but you get the idea):

require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/QuestyCaptcha.php");
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
$arr = array (
        "How many pieces of wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck 42 pieces of wood?" => "42",
        "What is the first book of the Bible?" => "Genesis",
        "What is the last book of the Bible?" => "Revelation",
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
        $wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );


I implemented SpamRegex mentioned here.[15] Basically that just meant putting the following lines in the LocalSettings.php file in my Extensions folder as I recall, or maybe it was in the LocalSettings.php file in the main directory. I actually have two LocalSettings.php files, one in each location, and have the change in both, I don't recall where it's supposed to be, but I think it just needs to be in the main directory's file.

$wgSpamRegex = "/\<.*style.*?(display|position|overflow|visibility|height)\s*:.*?>/i";
$wgSpamRegexLines[] = 'display\s*:\s*none';
$wgSpamRegexLines[] = 'overflow\s*:\s*auto';
$wgSpamRegex = '/(' . implode( '|', $wgSpamRegexLines ) . ')/i';


I enabled the DNSBL fix to my wiki also as mentioned here.[16] That meant putting the following lines in my LocalSettings.php file:

$wgEnableDnsBlacklist = true;
$wgDnsBlacklistUrls = array( '', '' );


I installed the Anti-Spoof extension mentioned here[17] and put the following lines in the LocalSettings.php file:

require_once( "$IP/extensions/AntiSpoof/AntiSpoof.php" );
$wgSharedTables[] = 'spoofuser';

Summary of Extension Installation

Extension installation just meant adding a line authorizing the extension into LocalSettings.php and putting the related extension folder (after unzipping it from Mediawiki) in the Extensions directory. I have the following lines in my main directory's LocalSettings.php file:

# End of automatically generated settings.
# Add more configuration options below.
# The following extensions were automatically enabled:
require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/Nuke/Nuke.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/ParserFunctions/ParserFunctions.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/Renameuser/Renameuser.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/Vector/Vector.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/WikiEditor/WikiEditor.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/Cite/Cite.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/bad-behavior/bad-behavior-mediawiki.php" );
require_once( "$IP/extensions/MetaDescriptionTag/MetaDescriptionTag.php" );

For the record, I have the following Mediawiki extension folders in my wiki's Extension folder: Bad Behavior, Cite, Confirm Edit, Gadgets, MetaDescriptionTag, Nuke, ParserFunctions, RenameUser, Simple Security, UMEduWiki, Vector, and WikiEditor. Actually, I don't think I even have Gadgets installed since I don't see a require once line initializing it. Oh well.

I installed the Simple Security mediawiki extension which allows viewability to be restricted.[18] Or at least the folder is in my extensions directory. However, looking at my LocalSettings.php file I don't see any lines relating to it like the require once line needed to initialize it, so actually I don't think it's running on the site at the moment either.

Anyway, that's a summary of the anti-spam measures I had to implement to stop the automated spam registrations to my wiki as best I recall them (it's been a few months). Since this wiki seems to still be experiencing those automated registrations (basically some spammers just create scripts that from what I can tell search the web for wikis and automatically generate spam accounts) you might want to look into implementing some of these.

--Joshua Zambrano 13:52, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

Powerful pictures

These pictures are so powerful, you guys can consider show them at somewhere. --Conservativedreams 11:33, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

If a workplace where lots of men are presumably well-armed could experience a mass shooting....

...then why do people believe that arming teachers will prevent mass shootings in schools? EddyJ 21:14, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

One of Bill Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.
The shooting at D.C.'s Navy Yard took place in a mostly disarmed facility. Why do people feel that they can prevent mass shootings with gun-free zones? --Jpatt 23:05, 16 September 2013 (EDT)
"Why do people feel that they can prevent mass shootings with gun-free zones?" Because most other industrialized Western democracies have stricter gun control than the USA, and, more often than not, can go a year without having a mass shooting, never mind multiple mass shootings. Until someone can explain to me why Canadians, Frenchmen, Germans, the British, the Irish, Swedes, Spaniards, the Portuguese, Finns, Luxembergers, the Belgians, the Italians and the Japanese don't experience mass shootings on a regular basis while Americans do, I have to believe either has something to do with guns, or we have to admit that Americans are more likely to be inherently evil than are other people. Which is it? EddyJ 09:38, 17 September 2013 (EDT)
Liberals blame the gun, I blame the criminals. Maybe it isn't gun control that prevents mass murders in other countries. Maybe it's a culture that doesn't glorify guns on TV, in the movies, in video games that is the difference. Maybe the countries you mentioned have more two parent households thus a proper environment for children to grow up responsibly. Murder by gun accounts for a small fraction of U.S. deaths. [19] It's shock and the media sensationalism that drives the guns are bad argument. How do you stop a one tenth of 1% of crazies out of 320 million people from committing the next mass murder? Gun control won't stop it. Nothing can prevent it. More good people with weapons will prevent mass killings of a dozen people.--Jpatt 15:41, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge - Post-Diluvian Lifespan Limit

Is there a better source for the death of 112 year old Salustiano-Blazquez? Apparently the Fox News / AP article linked to on the main page can't be trusted because it claims the oldest authenticated person lived to be 122. --Randall7 00:11, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

I don't get it, anyway. Lots of people in the Bible, after the flood, lived over 120 years: Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Jacob, and many, many more.--DHouser 13:45, 17 September 2013 (EDT)
The lifetimes rapidly declined after the Flood to the 120 year limit. They reached that point at about the time of Moses, who lived exactly 120 years. (Deut. 34:7) The Mosaic Law appears to be the point where they reached the 120 years, with the commandment against incest, because now human lifetimes had shortened enough for it to be an issue. In other words, God had said He would reduce lifetimes to 120 years, and it took a few centuries for that to occur, but they quickly began going down until reaching that point. Jeanne Calment is the only person believed to have lived longer, at 122 years.[20] --Joshua Zambrano 13:13, 4 January 2014 (EST)


In saying Wikimedia Foundation has "thrown in the towel" and that Wikipedia is "now a pornographic site", your main page writer apparently misunderstood the facts. As WMF's spokesperson Jay Walsh told Fox News in the article cited:

On our major media repository, hundreds of images are added and removed every single minute. Images that are deemed inappropriate, possible copyright violations, or potentially illegal are removed by volunteers very quickly if not immediately. This is part of the normal, daily process on our project.

And this has been the case for many years.

A filter was proposed in a 2010 report. This would have affected, not site content, but its visibility to those who chose to opt in to one of several different classes of filtering based on tagging by volunteers. This proposal failed to gain traction in a huge wiki-wide referendum. But again, it would not have affected content. For those who believed Wikipedia to be pornographic, it would have remained a pornographic website in their eyes.

Pornographic or not, Wikipedia hasn't become any more or less so. --TonySidaway 21:08, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Thanks, Tony. I didn't trust that "thrown in the towel" thing. As one of the main page writers (and a Wikipedian myself), I feel the item needs tweaking. --Ed Poor Talk 22:35, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Evolution survey

There's an interesting survey from "yougov", an organization that runs opinion surveys on a wide variety of topics. One of their recent surveys, here, addresses the issue of evolution. Unfortunately, it partially conflates belief in evolution with religious beliefs, as so many people seem to do. Nevertheless, the survey seems to be straightforward and clear.

The 2013 survey asked for a preference among these particular choices:

  • Human beings evolved and God did not directly guide this process -- 21%
  • Human beings evolved but God guided this process -- 25%
  • God created human beings in their present form -- 37%

When looking at the underlying data, the first response (deist or non-theist evolution), breaks down as 26% for males, 17% for females. And the numbers tilt significantly toward the youngest respondents (31% in the 18-29 range, 21% for 30-44, 17% for 45-64, and 20% for 65+).

Then, taking only the first response (deist or non-theist evolution), the results are tabulated over time:

  • 2004 -- 13%
  • 2008 -- 15%
  • 2012 -- 21%

Unfortunately, the survey results don't seem to track overall evolution (theist and non-theist together) vs. creationism over time.

SamHB 12:04, 21 September 2013 (EDT)

The moon is 100 million years younger than "scientists" thought.

More evidence for a young earth. EddyJ 22:30, 23 September 2013 (EDT)

It's my understanding that 'Young Earth' means something on the order of 10,000 years. How is a 4.4 billion year estimate for the age of the moon even compatible with this? --TonySidaway 10:32, 26 September 2013 (EDT)


Please link to the article Hassan Rouhani.--JoeyJ 11:09, 25 September 2013 (EDT)

US federal government shutdown

The new main page right item "VICTORY: the federal government has shut down." is inappropriate and should be reworded. All true conservatives do not view the shut-down of the federal government as a goal in itself. It is highly wasteful and a drag on the economy. Most main-stream conservatives in the Senate opposed tying the Affordable Care Act to the continuing resolution. Most conservatives believes that preventing the House from considering a "clean" continuing resolution was a mistake. Conservatives see the inherent value of work. Having a House-Senate impasse prevent federally-funded workers from being allowed to do their work is not consistent with conservative values. Depriving taxpayers the benefit of their tax dollars is not a "VICTORY". Thanks, Wschact 07:04, 1 October 2013 (EDT)

Then why did the stock market rise due to the government shutdown? And conservatives do not see inherent value in government "work". Much of what the Obama Administration does is inherently harmful.--Andy Schlafly 12:03, 1 October 2013 (EDT)
I'd like to address your second point "And conservatives do not see inherent value in government "work"." Really? So our military, law enforcement, and firefighters have no inherent value. Just mooches on the gubment dole, eh? The people who keep your food and water safe are just riding the taxpayer funded gravy train, I presume. I won't even bring up teachers because I know you have a fairly dim view of them. And from your own personal actions, I can see that you think any old person off the street is qualified to teach children. As I understand it, you earn your bread as lawyer. What court would you be practicing law in without a government? --DonnyC 14:02, 1 October 2013 (EDT)
There are some good people in government, despite how liberals try to ruin it. But to the extent any government work is good, is not inherently good just because it is part of government.--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 1 October 2013 (EDT)
It's not about "good people" in Govt - it's about the institutions. No matter how much you may dislike Government, there are so many functions of state that simply can't be done without Government. Air traffic control is a clear example. So too is military. How about drug testing? Center for Disease Control? DEA? FDA? This very website wouldn't have existed if good citizens and taxpayers hadn't funded DARPA back in the day. The list of Government institutions that we utterly depend upon for absolutely everything is vast, and shutting down their activities is something that will definitely damage the running of the country, and the economy. A pox on the houses of the grandstanding politicians who caused this to happen, I say. CescF 22:23, 1 October 2013 (EDT)
The reality is that life is better with the government shut down, than with it soaking up trillions of dollars and spending much of it in harmful ways.--Andy Schlafly 01:01, 2 October 2013 (EDT)
I politely disagree. I thought I would be unaffected by the shutdown myself, but immediately, one day in, I found myself affected - in two very small ways. One, for months now I have been bombarded at home by telemarketers. I have been scrupulously reporting the callers to the Do Not Call list website, and to the FTC. Yesterday, when yet another call came through, I discovered I couldn't report them - the DNC website is down. Later in the day I surfed to the NASA website for some recreational reading - I'm a regular follower of all things Mars Probes. Shut down. In these small ways, my quality of life is worsened. How about you? CescF 10:21, 2 October 2013 (EDT)
My life, as well as anyone else's life within the United States, as well as everyone's lives on the planet, does not depend on the performance of a website devoted to watching the antics of a mechanical device on another planet. I think you better cry a bigger river than that. Karajou 11:27, 2 October 2013 (EDT)
But that's not really the point, is it. Does your work impact everyone's life on the planet? Probably not. But that the people in charge of the website - that the people who do work at these institutions - are now not receiving a salary is an issue. The last numbers I read were 800,000 are furloughed and 1 million are being asked to work without pay. Furthermore I'd note that the Founders never resorted to such tactics as House Republicans - and let's be honest this is a segment of House Republicans - most Republican senators do not support this and many House Republicans are already backtracking and backing clean funding bills - despite arguing such contentious issues as whether there should be a national bank. FBI cases are being closed; the FDA is basically out of commission except for emergencies - anyone who thinks all of this is a good thing is delusional. Senator Lamar Alexander made a great point when he asked what would Republicans do if they controlled the Executive and Senate, and a Democratic House insisted government shut down unless bills restricting unions were repealed.
It's my great concern that this site has for so long opposed liberal ideas, that its radicalized itself. I recently removed an entire section of "RINOs" from the RINO page that listed almost every Republican in the Senate and most in the House. We are open to parody because we do not dare criticize the furthest of right ideas, because the stigma of "liberal" is used so menacingly. This isn't a site of Reagan Republicans anymore; it's a site of partisans. Andy your opinion right now is that the government should close if there's wasteful spending? Let's put that into real terms. There are people who are legitimately starving in this country. Now, Is the food stamp program taken advantage of and overused? Almost definitely. Should we let people starve until the people who aren't starving are prevented from getting food stamps? NO BECAUSE THAT'S INSANE. And yet, it's what you're saying.--IDuan 16:34, 2 October 2013 (EDT)
As for the National Do Not Call Registry, I have respect for what the FTC and FCC does with it, but there's always state do not call lists. I just now put all of my numbers (home phone, cell phone, and a relative's cell phone) on the Florida Do Not Call List through the Florida Department of Agriculture's Division of Consumer Services. DMorris 20:12, 6 October 2013 (EDT)

Here's a great link of Grover Norquist criticizing the approach that Ted Cruz is using - it can also apply to this site. "I’m cheerful because every Republicans is for repeal of Obamacare...The only confusion that comes out is that Cruz stood on the side and confused people about the fact that every Republican agrees. He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad."--IDuan 16:38, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

    • I just wrote to my representative this morning and urged him not to cave to the Democrats. You speak of starving people ID? You speak of the importance of certain government programs? Imagine what would happen if our currency lost all of its value and our government literally went broke because they're tinklingaway all of their money on this silly Obamacare. Obviously the liberals think Obamacare is more important than consumer protection (FTC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, USDA, etc), worker's protection (DOL, OSHA, etc), veterans and active duty servicemen (DeCA, VA, etc) or science (NASA, EPA, NIH, NPS, etc), because somehow they've managed to push through the healthcare exchanges while all of those other things are closed. Yet somehow it's the Republicans that are the big bad wolf. DMorris 18:51, 2 October 2013 (EDT)
That's because the healthcare law qualifies under mandatory spending - it's not pick and choose it's what the law is; Norquist is right we should be adjusting Obamacare and waiting for a Republican president to potentially repeal it. This law passed in 2009. It is the law. That's the problem with this House Republican approach, and you never responded to Lamar Alexander's question. If the Democrats controlled the House but didn't control the Senate or executive, and they shut down the government over laws they don't like - say, restrictions on unions - every Republican would rightfully blame the Democrats. Because it'd be their fault. Which is why I don't buy this House Republican argument that "it's the Democrat's fault for wanting a law to still be a law" - it's already a law; there are legitimate ways of repealing it, but we don't have the numbers to do that. Also quite a few House Republicans and Senate Republican's reject this faction's arguments as well. So the best chance that we have at actually going broke, DMorris, is defaulting and not raising the debt ceiling.--IDuan 09:37, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
Lamar Alexander voted against Obamacare when it came out; supported legislation to alter or repeal it since then, but last March he voted in favor of the FY2013 continuing resolution, which includes Obamacare funding. Either he is for it, or he's against it; he can't be both. Which is why TN state rep Joe Carr is running against him in the next election.
The problem we have with Obamacare is 1), the bill was passed without a single individual in the country being allowed to read it FIRST. It was rammed down our throats, and made law. 2), If this health care law is so good, as a lot of liberals and RINOs say, then why is Congress exempt from it? Why are these lawmakers exempt from following a law that they have forced the American people to obey? Could it be that they read the bill and found out what it really was all about? Or is it really more on the level of power and control?
As far as this debt ceiling is concerned, let's put it this way: you have a house that is being filled up with sewage because your toilet pipe broke. Do you A) shovel away the crap and get rid of it, then fix the pipe; or B), raise your ceiling? We have several hundred individuals in both house of Congress as well as a president who have every intention of raising that ceiling, with all of the crap still in place and increasing; they have no intention of doing the one thing that would begin to get us out of debt, and that is control and/or stop the excessive spending. Karajou 10:22, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
That's not actually an apt metaphor - because if we hit the debt ceiling and default then country is in chaos. You understand we default if that happens. So really a tornado is coming and frankly it's not going to matter if you have some sewage stained carpets if your entire house is gone. Funding the government is the House's job - I, and most Republicans - in the House and Senate - agree that you don't stop funding the government because there's a law you don't like. No one's arguing that Obamacare is a good law - but as I said, when the framers had an issue of a national bank that was a divisive issue, but the people who were against it never shut down the government to make the other side reconsider. If the law is to be repealed then we'll need a Republican president and probably a Republican Senate (although not necessarily - some Democrat senators will vote to repeal the law). This is how the country works. Shutting the whole government now and costing the taxpayers billions of dollars is tantamount to a child throwing a temper tantrum because he has to eat his vegetables before dessert. We have to eat vegetables while we are not the party in power; we can enjoy dessert and the privileges of winning an election when we actually win one and don't nominate a clown like Mitt Romney. --IDuan 11:33, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
Also you never addressed Alexander's question - you just talked about his positions. If Democrats pulled this tactic over union-restricting laws we'd be saying it's treasonous. By the way - if the debt ceiling isn't raised - we risk empowering the executive even more. Most experts - despite his claims that he won't - believe Obama would use the 14th amendment to instruct the country to keep borrowing. Given the crisis I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court rejected that approach.--IDuan 11:37, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

Two responses to the above: 1) Conservatives see the inherent value in any work (whether or not that work serves the government). The day-to-day furlough prevents government workers from doing anything useful, even a multiday home improvement project or taking another part-time job. 2) Reading the above comments show that the word "VICTORY" cannot describe what happened, so it should be removed. Wschact 08:56, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

On one hand, hard work put towards a laudable goal or accomplishing something useful is good. On the other hand, what you say actually sounds more like the progressive movement than conservatism, like you're saying if someone puts forth the effort, their efforts are valuable regardless if they're working towards something good or something bad, just as long as something is changing. Government "work" can go either way, it can go the way of working hard to protect our country as the military does, or it can go the way of working hard to destroy our country, as Obama and the Democrats seem to be doing. What you say also kind of reminds me of how little league gives trophies to the losing team because they "tried." DMorris 19:00, 5 October 2013 (EDT)
Most conservatives in the welfare reform debate of the 1990s made the argument that work had inherent value. All of the above arguments address how much value to attribute to work. In a free market, work is assigned value based on market forces. If a factory cannot produce a product at a total cost less than the price the market gives that product, the plant will shut down and the workers will be laid off. In government, the Congress (through the appropriations process) decides priorities and assigns value to the jobs in the federal work force. In many cases, federal workers could hold jobs in the private sector which pay more than their federal salaries, but they accept lower play because: 1) a sense of patriotism or public service, 2) they value the non-cash fringe benefits such as health insurance, 3) they want to qualify for their federal pension or 4) their work skills are so specialized that there is no equivalent job in the private sector (e.g., NASA rocket scientist or CIA covert agent). Congress should realign the federal government with available resources. That is hard and would antagonize special interests. So, instead Congress does continuing resolutions, sequestration and government shutdowns which avoid the difficult decisions and distract the public. Wschact 06:15, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

There is now a second main page right item which reads, ""Capitol a ghost town as reality of government shutdown sets in." [4] Outside the Beltway, millions are enjoying the shutdown." This item creates a mixed metaphor because "ghost town" tends to refer to an entire town rather than one building complex. The referenced article comments on how the Capitol building and the Congressional offices are empty. The item then creates confusion by using the phrase "outside the beltway" which suggests that everything inside the Beltway is a ghost town. In fact, about a million people continue to live inside the Beltway. The public opinion polling data shows that the shutdown is unpopular throughout the country particularly in areas that have above-average concentrations of federal workers. I can accept data that shows that "millions are enjoying the shutdown" but any such data would also show that tens of millions take the opposite view. I suggest that we delete the item until it an be rewritten to accurate reflect the polling data. Thanks, Wschact 08:56, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, at this point, I'm not even sure why they even bother linking to external articles. It seems quite apparent that the bulk of the headlines posted on the main page (excluding links to vanity projects of course) are either posted by someone who hasn't read the entire article, or posted by someone who assumes the reader won't read the entire article. Or both. --DonnyC 01:24, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

Tom Clancy death

Tom Clancy died yesterday, and as fiction authors go, was quite the Conservative supporter. Perhaps a main page remembrance might be appropriate, though I'm not sure with all the bigger-issue news about the shutdown.--DTSavage 13:11, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Handing out the Constitution

I watched the video about the college student's encounter with campus security. I didn't hear the cop say he couldn't hand out the U.S. Constitution. Rather, I heard him say that if he wants to start a new student organization he has to go to the office first. --Ed Poor Talk 11:39, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

"Only 37%"

Hey, he's doing better than Congress or the GOP. Way better. EddyJ 14:25, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

I know, just think if he didn't have a friendly media. Oh and did you know the George W. Bush polled higher than Obama at this same point? --Jpatt 20:53, 12 October 2013 (EDT)
Barack Hussein Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter 2.0. In 2014, ObamaCare will be his Waterloo! The ObamaCare related insurance rate increases and people being kicked off their present policies is going to get a lot of people hopping mad. And a spoonful of lamestream media sugar will not let this bitter political medicine go down for Obama and the rest of the Democrats.
The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself. Waterloo! Conservative 02:43, 13 October 2013 (EDT)


I just don't get it. All politicians and pundits talk about debt ceiling is nonsense. How could the USA possibly default? We bring in $250B in tax revenue per month. It is way more then the minimum payment toward debt obligations. --Jpatt 20:53, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

There should be a default. The federal government is nearly insolvent, and it should not be favoring Wall Street and creditors. Some of the burden should be shared by those who are lending to an irresponsible borrower.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
You're detached from reality if you really think in those Machiavellian terms. Maybe living in a cozy home in New Jersey has made you forget that there are actually people struggling in the United States, and everyone would struggle infinitely more after a default. It must be nice living in a world where you can ignore that.--IDuan 12:09, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

Jpatt here's a Business Insider article that I think explains the situation well. You're talking about prioritization.--IDuan 12:24, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

Iduan, the costs of sovereign debt default is not as high as many people think: Costs of sovereign debt default. I have my doubts that the US federal debt is going to be paid fully back in real economic terms. The Feds will likely either continue to print a lot of money and payback their creditors in weaker dollars that are worth less or they will partially or completely default. The generation that has produced this large amount of U.S. sovereign debt shows no signs of making big sacrifices and appears to prefer saddling the next generation with debt. The baby boomer generation needs to retire later and government entitlement retirement programs need to make plans to shrink (increase the age of eligibility, etc.), but so far the baby boomer generation has largely resisted that notion. Historically, people worked much longer in the Western World.[21]
Second, a major reason why many people are doing poorly is that they are not prepared for a knowledge economy due to poor public schooling. And with robots getting more and more sophisticated, manufacturing jobs are going to decrease over time.[22] Educated people (who don't pick useless areas to study) have far lower unemployment rates. The Obama Administration and liberals in general are against the type of privatization of education that is occurring in Louisiana. The Obama Administration is challenging in court Louisiana's educational privatization plans.[23] The Federal government needs to significantly decrease in size and local/individual economic control needs to increase. For example, the U.S. Department of Education has not significantly improved education in the United States from a return on investment perspective and could be eliminated.
Most of the benefits of many federal government programs goes to the government workers and not the people it is supposedly designed the help. The so-called "war on poverty" by the US federal government which has gone on since the 1960s has been a complete failure. Iduan, by your own admission there are people economically struggling in the United States. And under Obama, who grew the size of the federal debt (he is on track to double the size of Federal debt[24]) poverty has increased.[25] Once again, big government failed. Conservative 13:36, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
Iduan, a default would hurt Wall Street most. Of course investment bankers are going to claim that disaster would occur. The reality is that they wouldn't get paid back on money they should not have been lending the federal government in the first place.
There is only one way to rein in irresponsible federal government spending: don't pay back the fat cats who are feeding the terrible habit. When the lenders start to bear their share of the burden, then responsible fiscal policies will begin.--Andy Schlafly 14:14, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
I think I take issue with the notion that Wall St. is somehow its own entity. The economy is interconnected - if Wall Street crashes, or the value of the dollar plummets (as Conservative suggests may happen above), everyone feels it. Just like the housing crash affected everyone.--IDuan 16:41, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
Nearly everyone is affected, but some are actually helped by shutting off harmful government spending. The less federal coercion of public schools through federal spending, for example, the better.--Andy Schlafly 17:07, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

Iduan, I know someone whose business goes up in bad times. He sells a do it yourself product/service that saves people money from hiring others to do it. Not everyone suffers in an economic downturn. There are winners and losers. Bottom line: God and gumption is the solution and to rely on government is foolish.

When the Soviet Union financially collapsed, people who needed insulin did not get it from the government. Look what happened during Katrina and then there was Mayor Bloomberg's inadequate response to Hurricane Sandy. While it is true that European socialism has had high living standards for the short term, now it has begun to unravel and there is a Eurozone crisis. And it rate of unraveling will increase in Europe due to the low birth rates in socialistic/atheistic cultures causing their societies to be unsustainable in their present form.

Lastly, when you neglect your economy and build up big debt, there are going to be consequences. One way or another, there are going to be significant consequence to America's large federal debt. Conservative 17:21, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

The U.S. hit the debt ceiling in May 2013, but Treasury has been using "extraordinary measures" to avoid default, such as not making the required employer contributions to the federal retirement plan. Roughly once a week, the Treasury conducts auctions to issue new bonds to replace those that are maturing. The "default" means the failure to honor the trust indentures of those bonds. Tbe bonds are subject to a list of conditions that generally promise that the U.S. government will be a good borrower and stay out of trouble. If the financial community believes that the U.S. government will not pay its bills or will delay its interest payments, then several things can happen: 1) the interest rates set in the auctions (starting with the Oct. 17 auction) will go up to levels that really break the federal budget, 2) bankers stop accepting Treasury bonds as a "risk-free" collateral in loans, and 3) the exchange rate between the dollar and other currencies shifts to make the dollar weaker, and 4) foreigners shift to other (more reliable currencies) for their future transactions. If conservatives found that the budget cuts to defense and other essential programs were too painful over the past few years, they dread the budgetary consequences of the federal cost of borrowing doubling or tripling. Everyone can agree that the U.S. must move to a balanced budget, but people disagree over how quickly that can be done without killing off the U.S. economy. The Republican budget comes into balance over the next 10 years, assuming continued low Treasury bond interest rates. So, a "default" would be bad for all sectors of the economy as well as harmful to any effort to balance the federal budget. Wschact 02:03, 15 October 2013 (EDT)
Wschact, you wrote: "Everyone can agree that the U.S. must move to a balanced budget". I don't think everyone is agreeing. The U.S Senate hasn't proposed a budget for 5 years and it doesn't seem like Obama, Reid, Pelosi are agreeing to this when one looks at their actions and not merely their words. Some people like to keep running up bills and don't like attend to them. That why the world has repo men and debt collectors. Conservative 07:05, 15 October 2013 (EDT)
I see your point. I meant that "everyone agrees that a balanced budget is a good long term goal." Some people, including George W. Bush pay lip service to that goal, but take short-term steps in the opposite direction. Wschact 11:09, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

The problem is, in fact, our system of democracy. As it currently stands, the political system can only punt long term economic issues, and there is simply no mechanism in place for making policy that is the 'Right Thing To Do' for times further in the future than 4 years, The electoral cycle of alternating two year elections, while designed to weaken any single element as part of the famed 'checks and balances' in fact further complicates this. No politician can vote for the hard measures that are needed today to prevent economic meltdown in a future 25 years hence, with the result that democratic societies will all in time automatically collapse in upon themselves, utterly bankrupted. This has been true of every political system and leadership in the US, as not once has the US maintained a truly balanced budget for a period of longer than 25 years in its history. There are no truly long lasting democratic economies in the world - the best we have is maybe France, and even that is only 300-ish years old, and has suffered an entire reset to its economy during WWII that essentially means it started again. Democracy is a dead political model around the world, and we must move to a model where we can have strong leadership which can make the right decisions for the long term stability of our economy. CescF 22:45, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

New Jersey Senate Race

Another corrupt, lying Democrat is poised to win a seat in NJ. I've noticed that RINO Chris Christie and the establishment D.C. Republicans are missing in action when it comes to Republican Steve Lonegan's Senate campaign. Many Jersey natives here, I thought you may have some unique insight to share. --Jpatt 18:16, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

The New Jersey Republican Party is the only state party in the nation that has not adopted the conservative national Republican Party platform. Enough said?--Andy Schlafly 18:25, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

Latest House Offer

For the record the latest house offer that we mention in MPR - that offer actually as of now doesn't exist. It didn't even garner enough support amongst Republicans.--IDuan 13:00, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

Interesting observation, but it doesn't change the point made by the headline.--Andy Schlafly 14:18, 15 October 2013 (EDT)


The item on a recent large earthquake says 'Liberal denial refuses to admit that big earthquakes are increasing'. Well, we say they aren't increasing because they're not. Large earthquakes are the easiest to identify, and USGS figures (not some politically motivated "denial") show no increase. --TonySidaway 13:42, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

I'm more interested in the bit about "...and it's not caused by global warming." Is anyone claiming that earthquakes are specifically caused by global warming? RobinM 14:06, 15 October 2013 (EDT)
"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America. [26]
I wouldn't be surprised if some liberals tried to claim that man-made global warming causes an increase in earthquakes.--Andy Schlafly 14:16, 15 October 2013 (EDT)
The article you linked to, in the very first paragraph, reads: "The number of earthquakes in the central United States rose "spectacularly" near where oil and gas drillers disposed of wastewater underground, a process that may have caused geologic faults to slip, U.S. government geologists report." It says nothing about the Philippines, or indeed the world beyond a half-dozen Midwest US states. It then goes on to speculate about the possible links between increased earthquakes in this very small, very specific geographic area, and the practice of fracking. How do you make the link between an article titled "Human-made earthquakes reported in central U.S" and an event on the other side of the globe? Moreover, how can you use "human-made" earthquakes as evidence in your bigger argument, stated elsewhere on the wiki, that there is a co-relation between an alleged increase in earthquakes and the age of the planet? Here's an assignment for you. You will find geological surveys dating back as far as they go and you will prepare a statistical breakdown that reveals, in clear numbers, the frequency of earthquakes as can be confirmed by the best available scientific data. RobinM 15:35, 15 October 2013 (EDT)
The article contains speculation but article citations on this site are to the facts in articles, not to the speculation. Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that earthquakes will increase, for the same reason that perpetual motion machines are impossible.--Andy Schlafly 15:49, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

I suppose there's a certain amount of vagueness there that provides room for argument. I myself assumed that the writer was referring to magnitude 6 (conceivably 5) and above. If you go as low as 3 then of course we expect to see many quakes which would not have been detected before because of the lack of local seismometers.

On the question of global warming, the only mechanism I can think of that could possibly cause massive quakes is post-glacial rebound, but for the foreseeable future (up to 2100 or so) no deglaciation sufficient to cause large earthquakes is predicted. --TonySidaway 17:48, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

There is speculation in the scientific community as well in the popular news media. TonySidaway is correct about post-glacial rebound. Nevertheless, it is also true that earthquake frequency vary over time for understandable reasons. If one earthquake releases pressure along one portion of a fault line, the shift will build pressure at other portions of the fault. Those can result in subsequent earthquakes. So, we have a topic with speculation, confusion between just a few data point and long-term trends, and conflicting theories about "man made" causes. This type of item undercuts CP's credibility and only confuses our student readers. It is an interesting topic, and we should work on expanding the earthquake article rather than devoting the time to deconstructing a MPR item that conflates too many separate ideas into one bullet point. Thanks, Wschact 05:11, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I'd be very interested to learn how the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that earthquakes will increase. Please use real thermodynamic concepts in your response. --Randall7 21:49, 17 October 2013 (EDT)

Political advocacy on an encyclopedia?

Surely today's events illustrate the problems with an encyclopedia engaging in political advocacy, as Conservapedia has often done on the right hand side of the main page. There have been several predictions concerning the resoluteness of conservative politicians in the House, and yet here we are with the Republicans conceding that they must accept humiliating terms,reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling.

An encyclopedia needs to be credible. One cannot promote trust in one's content while the most visible part of that content is so confidently partisan and, as is bound to happen from time to time, quite risibly wrong.

Perhaps it's time to review the policy of cheerleading day-to-day political pugilism. How does it serve the purpose of providing a conservative alternative to encyclopedias that, for all their faults, eschew partisanship? --TonySidaway 16:24, 16 October 2013 (EDT)

If I wanted an encyclopedia that didn't promote the conservative point of view, then I would just use Wikipedia. Our conservative take on the news and encyclopedic topics is a major attraction to this site. I would suggest though that our standards for credibility of sources be heightened. For example, citing anonymous blog posts and articles based on unsubstantiated allegations made in Facebook posts by laymen should be avoided. GregG 21:09, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
I would not wish Wikipedia on even your worst enemy. :) I think that there is a middle ground between blatant partisan politics and NPOV. Credible MPR items can be presented without snide rejoinders. Perhaps it is time to reconsider setting up a three-person Committee to maintain the main page. The three people could collaborate and debate to achieve credible main page items. I also proposed at Committee members serve staggered 9-month terms with one person being replaced at the end of each calendar quarter. Maintaining the main page is a lot of work and after a while, a volunteer can burn out or get stuck in a repetitive rut. Thanks, Wschact 23:55, 16 October 2013 (EDT)

I don't think Conservapedia should do as other encyclopedias just for the sake of it. Best practice, though, is to avoid compromising the reputation of the project. Reckless speculation and sometimes juvenile taunting have become the norm.

How can you attract more honest conservative editors if the first thing anyone sees on the front page is, as often as not, a blatant falsehood? The fact is, the Republicans did not hold firm, and for days only the Speaker's reluctance to bring a full CR to the vote prevented the majority of the House from passing it. In the end, an overwhelming majority in the House passed a combined amendment to restart the government and raise the debt ceiling. At 285-144, it wasn't even close. --TonySidaway 03:19, 17 October 2013 (EDT)

TonySidaway, true Republicans held firm!
Second, an aging baby boomer that is moving beyond their peak earning years (and being replaced by a smaller cohort of workers produced by an increasingly failing educational system - thanks to abortion policy, increase in homosexuality, etc.) and a skyrocketing and bloated federal deficit of about 17 trillion dollars all but insures that it is liberal Democrats are the ones that will ultimately be humiliated. Economic history shows that austerity and/or financial collapse is coming to America. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and other countries clearly help point this out.
America's political pendulum has swung to the left particularly since the 1960s, but economic necessity will cause it to swing rightward again. Barack Hussein Obama is ideologically rigid like Jimmy Carter and would not alter his course despite the economic impact of his policies. Who was Carter replaced by? Ronald Reagan. The current bull market in the stock market is long in the tooth and I suspect it will end before the end of Obama's term. Republicans shot themselves in the foot by nominating Romney. Maybe they will not repeat the same mistake of picking a poor nominee again.
Lastly, Ted Cruz's political stock has been going up and Cruz (an evangelical Hispanic Christian) has a fast growing evangelical Hispanic demographic tailwind behind him. Ted Cruz has not yet begun to fight! Given the economics involved in a growing federal deficit and the demographics of religious Hispanic evangelicals and religious conservatives having more children compared to those with secular ideologies (and immigration by a growing world religious population, see: Global atheism), there is no reason to believe that the pendulum will not swing back to conservatism whether forced on liberals by economic necessity and/or by demographics. Conservative 13:07, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
Cruz made too many political mistakes to be a serious candidate in 2016. He simply made mistakes. Instead of focusing on parts of the law, he tried to get the whole law repealed - which was never going to happen. That was a huge blunder which is how we ended up with a bill that so strongly favors Democrats. Cruz was putting on a circus act while Obamacare websites were failing left and right - news stories on those were pushed off the headlines because of the shutdown; a huge opportunity for criticism lost. In 2016 he will have to overcome that he will have very little support from the private sector - job creators were not in favor of this shutdown or near hit of the debt-ceiling - they just weren't. Perhaps he can overcome that with a grassroots movement, but given his political buffoonery I doubt he is intelligent enough to be president. This was a lost opportunity that rests on his shoulders.--IDuan 17:50, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
Iduan, change agents who helped bring systemic change have often had the characteristic of being uncompromising and unrelenting. Moses did not compromise with Pharaoh. Churchill did not compromise with Hitler. Wilberforce did not compromise with slave traders. MLK did not compromise with Bull Conner or the KKK. And Ted Cruz will not compromise about the repeal of ObamaCare - especially since the law did not pass with wide bipartisan support and is very unpopular. Social programs with wide support generally have some degree of longevity. ObamaCare has consistent and growing unpopularity.[27]
The 3,000+ page law of ObamaCare will not have longevity. The coming austerity measures due to an oversized federal deficit will cause it to be repealed or hack away at it so substantially that it will be a shadow of its former self. European countries with declining productivity and growing debt have had economic problems and austerity measures have been forced upon them. And this article indicates that weak productivity is exactly what is happening in the US economy right now as far as workers. Furthermore, this article clearly shows that America as a whole is less productive now. And this is coupled with a projected growth of federal debt. This does not bode well for the future of big social programs like ObamaCare. The budget axe of austerity will make some fundamental changes that Obama and his fellow liberals will definitely not like. Conservative 19:55, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
That's great that he won't compromise - but if he tries more of the pea-brained tactics he tried these last few weeks he'll never get the job done. I really doubt he's smart enough. This isn't an issue of him taking the wrong position - it's an issue of him showing no knowledge of how to get things done - and he's put the whole party in worse shape because he dumbly thought he could tie Obamacare repeal to the debt ceiling - by the way he could've at least delayed a vote on Wednesday but he chose not to, so it really does show you that even he knows he messed up. This was embarrassing for all the reasons I stated above - huge tactical errors. Hopefully the exchange websites still malfunction - because that's the kind of negative attention that will lead towards an eventual repeal - and that's the kind of negative attention that Cruz distracted from for his circus.--IDuan 00:05, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
Just a minor correction: Cruz pushed the House Republicans to tie the ACA repeal to the continuing resolution. John Boehner argued that the debt ceiling bill was a better place to extract concessions. The House Republicans went along with Cruz' plan because he told them that he had enough Republican votes in the Senate (40) to block a continuing resolution unless it contained the ACA repeal. He did not have anywhere near that number of Senate votes, but the House Republicans did not learn that until after they voted on September 20. So, to save face, Cruz did his "fake filibuster" knowing that he would not delay passage of the clean continuing resolution by a single minute. Cruz burned a lot of House Republicans who trusted him. The resulting mess created the bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate to both reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. Wschact 06:05, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
"In a recent Pew poll, Cruz’s favorability rating among tea partiers soared to 74 percent, up from 47 percent in July."[28] Cruz can more readily obtain national money for a Senate race now. And if the economy tanks before Obama leaves office, ObamaCare with its individual mandate, will become even more unpopular. And now Democrats very much own ObamaCare. And a tanking of the economy could cause a grassroots candidate to win rather than a big money backed moderate establishment Republican like Romney. Reagan, who was more conservative than Romney, probably had a lot of grassroots support given his rapport he had with the public and he ran during very bad economic times in which the inflexible ideologue Carter presided. Furthermore, by the time the next election comes about, the public with its short memory, will have moved on from the shutdown. Conservative 04:17, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
You're right, Wschact, my mistake. Also Conservative a recent Pew poll that shows his opinion ratings in July isn't really indicative of his opinion ratings now after he tripped over his shoe laces. He really simply made mistakes - again, had there not been a shut down, there'd be a lot of headline press on the exchange websites failing.--IDuan 10:04, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

Friends, this is an interesting political discussion but it's orthogonal to my point. Excessive partisanship has led to a situation where statements on the most prominent part of Conservapedia are blatantly false. It is certainly arguable that Republican politicians could have won concessions by holding firm, but despite the claims on this wiki's front page they clearly did not. This is just the latest and most distressing example of Conservapedia as a project failing to think through the effect of putting their wishes and hopes before their commitment to honestly presenting the facts.

It's also, I should say, a betrayal of a basic conservative principle: don't write checks you cannot honor. The front page of Conservapedia should demonstrate integrity, not wishes disguised as fact.--TonySidaway 10:20, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

I agree with TonySidaway completely on this. Of course, MPR is not effective political messaging. Obama will never run for elective office again. So, if CP or the Republicans want to tie the 2014 elections to the success of health care reform, they would stop using the phrase "Obamacare". Perhaps they would use "Democare"? Can someone please trim down the blatantly false stuff from MPR? Wschact 12:10, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
Wschat "Obamacare" will stay the name because low approval ratings for Obama will assist in repealing the law 2016 time. Just like the Democrats still call them "the Bush tax cuts" in their effort (that failed) to eventually repeal those. ... Also ... "Democare"? So PR is not the business for you.--IDuan 12:23, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

A television talking head quoted statistics that the Republicans quickly bounced back in opinion polls after the first shut down. Republicans being collaborators and softies with Democrats gave the USA about a $17 trillion debt. Gingrich played hardball and got deficit reduction when he was speaker of the House. Admittedly, Obama is further to the left and is not as compromising as Clinton.

Republicans should play the long game like Ted Cruz and not the short game. When the economy tanks it is going to be worse than the 2008 crisis as America is deeper in debt. Might as well politically paint things in bold colors now rather than use pastels and be a Democrat lite party that is too willing to allow the debt to climb. The next crisis is going to be tied to debt. Might as well clearly define in the public's mind who wanted the debt to climb.

Some of the problems could be solved though tax simplification and more intelligent regulations. When Reagan somewhat simplified the tax code it helped cause growth. Obama has shown little interest in doing either though. Obama loves bureaucracy and more central government control. His 3,000 page ObamaCare monstrosity is indicative of his modus operandi.

Also, more Republican governors should be like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Until the public school system is shrunk faster, young people will still be indoctrinated into liberalism.

A lot of America's various problems are merely symptoms of a more deeper problem. Christians need to do more evangelism and discipleship. Yet, perhaps if the next economic crisis is deeper there will be more repentance and Christian revival in America. Conservative 16:55, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

Again, I just disagree that Cruz played the long game - in fact I think his strategy epitomized short game and he came up with nothing. Again, while hindsight is 20/20, there were a lot of legitimate ways he could've gone after Obamacare, tying it to the CR bill was not a way - that's something I immediately posted concern about when I linked to the Washington Post's Grover Norquist interview with his skepticism. Cruz ran a circus - maybe for entirely selfish reasons - perhaps he just wanted to raise his profile - while the ACA had real failures that would've topped the headlines had it not been for his show. The long game would've been to make moderate adjustments to the act - perhaps tying it to the sequester, win in 2016 and then repeal the act. Cruz played short - tying it to the government being open - and came up with squat. It was a blunder. Bobby Jindal on the other hand - who you mention - came out looking pretty good - insofar as being someone not involved in the circus of the last two weeks - a Washington outsider. If anything showed that we need a Washington outsider in 2016, it was Cruz's performance. Again, the key thing to remember is he lost this battle - and because his charade stole headline's from Obamacare's exchange failures, he made it harder to win the next battle. That's 100% short game.--IDuan 17:49, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

Friends, again I must bring your noses back to the grindstone. The issue is not what will happen next in American politics, but what will appear on the main page of this encyclopedia. Conservapedia should not be putting nonsense on the main page. Other encyclopedias manage this quite handily, so why does Conservapedia repeatedly fail? --TonySidaway 18:06, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

I'll be honest Tony no one is paying attention to you because it's a discussion we've had a thousand times - you can go through all the talk page archives and see it sprout up quite frequently. Furthermore you've contradicted yourself - on the one hand you say it's nonsense, on the other you say "It is certainly arguable that Republican politicians could have won concessions by holding firm". Well, the latter is the argument of the MPR editors are making - that all Republicans should've held firm and allowed the country to hit the debt ceiling. This is something we debated prior to the deal - JPatt believed that hitting the debt ceiling would not lead to a default; Andy believed that defaulting would be a lesson to the fat cats and would be the best thing; Conservative similarly believed the consequences of default were being exaggerated; I believed we should do all we could to avoid default.--IDuan 18:16, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

The liberals are clearly more dependent/attached to big government in relation to their ideology. If the Republicans held firm, the Democrats would have caved. It is better to tackle this debt/spending issue now instead of allowing it to grow bigger. If you have an irresponsible son, you can keep lending him money and feed his irresponsibility or you can stop giving him money and force him to mature. The Federal government "leadership" needs to grow up and tougher measures are needed. The time to firmly say no is now.

But everyone knows that John "cry at the drop of a hat" Boehner was going to cave before Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Schumer. Given time, the conservatives could grow in the Republican Party - especially if a bankrupt government is no longer able to offer a great multitude of handouts. Conservative Republicans have to work harder at getting their message out, fundraising and growing their ranks. Conservative 18:40, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

By 2016, the ACA will be back to being called "Hillarycare".  :-) Seriously, a good conservative knows when to reassess in light of additional information. In that spirit, can someone please trim MPR because Tony is correct that some items did not withstand the test of time. Thanks, Wschact 00:30, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
By paying attention to fact checking and avoiding the temptation to engage in political point scoring, Conservapedia could avoid most of these issues. --TonySidaway 09:45, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Clarification please

Thanks to this website and others like it, I feel I have a grasp of your debt ceiling issue. However, one thing confuses me. A few days ago, MPR presented the stock market as a proper and reliable indicator of public feeling towards the shutdown. Today, MPR presents the stock market as a gravy train bleeding the public.

Which is true and can someone please clean up the main page to make it clear and consistent? Rafael 18:03, 17 October 2013 (EDT)

A quick thank you to whoever edited the MPR. It makes much more sense now. Rafael 15:53, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

Free healthcare?

This is still on the main page:

Democrat-supporter who voted for Obama thought he was getting free health care, until he got to look at his own bill. "Of course, I want people to have health care...I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

One minor point is that Cindy Vinson, whose words are quoted above, is a woman.

A more important point is that the wording above misinterprets Ms Vinson's actual position. She did not expect free healthcare, as the following article demonstrates:

Note that the author clearly reports that Ms Vinson had expected her insurance premium to go up.

The problem here appears to be that whoever wrote the piece for the main page didn't fact check their source, with the result that a misinterpretation was incorporated into Conservapedia. --TonySidaway 12:25, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

A third error, which I didn't spot immediately, is that the wording above incorrectly identifies Ms Vinson, an Independent, as a Democrat. --TonySidaway 12:37, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

I have read the webpage that forms the basis of the MPR item, and Tony is correct. We should take down the item. In general, I think that the Main Page needs reform. I have made my suggestion (a 3-person committee serving staggered 9-month terms), but I am open to suggestions. There are costs and benefits to everything. In the case of the current state of the main page, it may bring in a few readers due to its tone and its up-to-date nature, but probably at a cost of undercutting CP's credibility and driving away readers and editors from the rest of the CP website. It would be better if the energy devoted to the main page were redirected to updating articles, and then placing bullets about those updates on the main page. For example, someone could write a well-researched article on the "2013 federal government shutdown" (most of the materials are already on this talk page.) Then one bullet with a link to that article could be "featured" on the main page to draw readers into the pages of CP. Instead, MPR seems to draw readers into various blogs and occassional current-news stories. This defeats our goal of increasing CP readership.
Some people would respond that MPL draws readers to CP pages. I would respond that a long list of CP articles does not attract readers to those pages. It would be more effective to list just five articles with a 1-2 sentence long quote or summary of each. These could then be maually rotated every few days or automatically using template programming. I know that a lot of people (including me) have put many hours into creating reliable content on CP. The curators of the main page owe the volunteers a good faith effort to use the main page to promote effectively the rest of the project. Thanks, Wschact 15:14, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
"Democrat-supporter" unambiguously describes an Independent who later declares their candidate preference, so that's no big deal; "free healthcare" is problematic cause of the refundable tax credit. "Subsidized healthcare", or perhaps more descriptively, "another Democrat vote buying scheme" may help clarify things. OscarO 16:04, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
It's probably better to improve the quality of Conservapedia's content than to make excuses for demonstrable errors. --TonySidaway 16:30, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Will Sheehan

The story, linked to the Infowars website, says:

And who says personal medical information won't be shared with law enforcement? With Obamacare, it's very possible

The story, based on a Facebook posting by one Will Sheehan, has been extensively investigated by Politifact, who rated it "Pants on fire."

It probably doesn't enhance Conservapedia's reputation for trustworthiness to make extravagant claims based on such poor quality evidence. --TonySidaway 15:24, 19 October 2013 (EDT)


An older story reads:

Conservatives crush leftists by a landslide in the German national election.

Actually the "crushed" party were the Free Democrats, Chancellor Merkel's coalition allies who lost all Federal representation. She is currently negotiating with other parties, including the Social Democrats and the Greens, in order to form a new viable coalition. The new government is likely to be slightly to the left of the previous one. --TonySidaway 16:00, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Non sequiturs

(Image added by Karajou)

Here's a different problem. I think it's worth considering.

Thank you, atheists who destroyed public schools
U.S. adults rank 21st out of 23 developed nations in math skills.
Another big earthquake
"6.8 earthquake hits Gulf of California." Can't liberals link this to global warming somehow??

In the first case, the suggestion that America's tiny minority of atheists has something to do with poor educational achievement seems implausible, not least because some of the higher scoring nations have a much higher proportion of atheists, and indeed some have had atheists in the highest levels of government. Moreover the source material cited says nothing about atheism.

In the second case, again the source material says nothing about global warming. The remark appears to have come straight from the Conservapedia writer's head without any relationship to external fact. The Pacific Rim has earthquakes because of the movement of tectonic plates, which is not influenced in any significant way by climate.

To the casual viewer, at least, these pieces give Conservapedia a rather unprofessional appearance. They're just two recent examples of how non sequiturs litter Conservapedia's "shop window". --TonySidaway 09:41, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

In the first case, it is the public school system that is run by the liberal establishment, and the liberal establishment has gone so far as to force the removal of God, Christianity, and the Bible in schools. These facts are in the news on a daily basis, which is something you cannot ignore, but are attempting to do so right now. In a few weeks, there's going to be the traditional attack against having Christmas displays. Will you ignore that as well?
In the second case, liberals did link earthquakes to global warming. These links [29][30][31][32] were based on reports made by the scientists you love. Now look at the first link there; isn't that a picture of the Pacific Rim area, illustrating the Japanese earthquake that sent the tsunami? Or there's this link [33]. That's leading liberal/leftist actor Danny Glover making a link to global warming via the earthquake in Haiti.
You said that all of this is coming from the tops of our heads. Maybe it is you, TonySidaway, and not us, who needs to do some basic fact checking. Like it or not, this website is going to show exactly what is wrong with your side of the fence. Karajou 09:59, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
On the first item, it appears that the defence is simply to repeat a non sequitur connecting absence of religious observance in schools to poor performance in other subjects. Again, it's implausible and fails to account for the relatively good performance of some much more irreligious nations.
On the second topic, I think I now see that the problem is poor reading comprehension. Of the four links given above, only two are to articles about a possible mechanism by which seismic activity could influence climate, but only over geologically long scales (millions of years) not the short scales (hundreds of years) associated with global warming.
The other two articles are about the release of large amounts of previously naturally sequestered greenhouse gases by large earthquakes, which is a very uncontroversial factor in climate but may play a larger role than previously realised.
It may be that there are people editing Conservapedia who could do a decent job of covering science and education. If so, it should be left up to them. The current coverage, with its non sequiturs and its barely comprehensible anti-science taunting, is an embarrassment. Worse than that, it seems to be born of considerable animus against science, which cannot be a good thing in any country competing in the modern scientific world. --TonySidaway 11:10, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Tony, you are providing excuses for topics already covered. We do not have an anti-science bent; we never had one. Instead, what we have is a demand that main stream science get their own facts strait. We have proven that man-made global warming is nothing more than an excuse to get taxpayer dollars; the science claimed by AGW pundits does not match up with established facts, and liberal attempts to link them with earthquakes are ridiculous. To sit there and make claims that we are providing "non-sequiters" is just another label to cover the failings of liberalism that we highlight here. You need to get over it. Karajou 11:35, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
No excuses, just the observation that the project's main page is littered with easily recognised falsehoods and non sequiturs apparently derived from imperfect understanding of the source material. Bad scholarship seriously degrades the quality and reliability of any reference work. --TonySidaway 15:17, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
The only "non sequiturs" on this site are in liberal logic. The harm caused by the atheistic exclusion of Christianity from public schools can hardly be doubted. Nearly all great scientists in history were motivated by their faith. Take that away, and achievement disappears too.--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
That doesn't bear scrutiny. Hawking, Higgs, and Feynman are/were atheists, Einstein had a religious concept perhaps quite close to Spinoza's. They all, within living memory, won us greater understanding of the world. --TonySidaway 18:19, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
That assumes what it is trying to prove. Much of what passes as modern academic physics today is unverified speculation, without any proven value. Liberal politics dominates many university programs today.--Andy Schlafly 20:13, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
I presume you mean theoretical physics. Well the joy of our age is that we do have the resources to test those cosy little theories to destruction. This is how we have explored space, the deep sea, and the innards of the Earth. At the same time we have unlocked many of the secrets of the living cell. There has never been an age to match ours for the rate of scientific discovery, or for the breadth. It's not all chaps in corduroy smoking pipes and reading the Daily Worker, you know! --TonySidaway 20:32, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
"Theoretical" (liberal) physics is what dominates academic physics today. Much of it does not even qualify as science under Popper's test of falsifiability.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
You're just repeating yourself. If physics is dominated by theorists, what do you imagine those academics have been doing in a tunnel on the French-Swiss border? And besides' what is "liberal" about mathematics, which is what theoretical physics amounts to? There is no religion there, but we're discovering a lot about how the world works. Maxwell's equations are theoretical physics, and I'm sure you'll recognise how revolutionary they have been. Maxwell was an evangelical presbyterian, and you probably wouldn't consider him a liberal. attempts to falsify Maxwell's theoretical work and its consequences have taken most of the decades since his discovery. So much for theoretical physics failing Popper's test! --TonySidaway 10:21, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

TonySidaway, you wrote: "That doesn't bear scrutiny. Hawking, Higgs, and Feynman are/were atheists, Einstein had a religious concept perhaps quite close to Spinoza's. They all, within living memory, won us greater understanding of the world."

First, Maxwell Gladwell in his book Outliers covers the important concept of "cultural legacies". The scientists you referred to all had the benefit of being raised in a culture with biblical/Protestant/Christian heritage and the scientific revolution occurred in Christianized Europe which was no accident. See: Christianity and science and biblical roots of modern science and biblical origins of science. The skeptical period of Greek philosophy produced no great advancements of science.

Second, Stephen Hawkins has some bizarre and foolish ideas as can be seen HERE ("Hawking’s belief that everything in the universe originated from nothing, which his peers say contradicts the principle that every effect needs a cause"). Any advancements of science caused by Hawking is solely/largely a reflection of him being raised in a country with a Christian heritage/legacy and/or happens despite his atheism. There is a reason why the Shockofgod article is bigger that the Stephen Hawking article!!!!! (To my knowledge Stephen Hawking has not answered Shockofgod's question and provided proof and evidence that atheism is true!!!). Conservative 17:24, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

Public schools


Does that headline really make sense? Would prayer in public schools make calculus easier? How many of the developed nations ahead of us on that list are secular countries? Japan and Finland were numbers one and two. Haven't we cited Finland as being excessively secular before? 67% of Japanese identify as non-religious and about 22% as Buddhist (2011 numbers), so does it matter which God you pray to when you want to remember secant vs cosecant? Or can they all help?-u-IDuan 11:38, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

You're missing the big picture here. We are failing at all levels in education because liberals are running the public school system. So, instead of asking if calculus would be any better by using prayer, try asking if it would be better by removing the liberal flunky who's teaching it. Karajou 12:05, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Actually secants and cosecants are trigonometry, says this 'liberal flunky'. --TonySidaway 12:24, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Tony I mentioned both calculus and trig terms - Karajou's not incorrect. But Karajou the post specifically says atheists.--IDuan 12:29, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Yes, I'll give that to you; the posting says atheists. But who champions atheism in public schools? Liberals do. Who keeps fighting to prevent Bibles from being handed out in public schools? Liberals do. Who demands control of public schools? Liberals. Who's running everything in public education from K-12 to the university level? Liberals. Who's leading the charge to suppress or curtail anything related to conservatism and Christianity on university campuses, up to and including violations of First Amendment rights? Liberals are. These are facts that are well-documented. And as to Tony, well, he just admitted that he's a liberal flunky, and therefore not qualified at all to be teaching anything to my kids. Karajou 13:26, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
How about changing "atheists" to "American liberals"? At least then you'd have some consistency in your message, and not have to deal with awkward questions about those pesky Finnish liberals and their top notch schools. JohanZ 13:46, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Same Finnish libs who deal with a lot of ducks? If they are so "top notch", they'd be leading the world, but our liberal "educated" pals like to inform the world they are swimming in ducks. So much for liberal education. As T.R. Roosevelt said, an uneducated man might steal from a freight car; put him in a university, and he might steal the whole train. Karajou 13:53, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Karajou, allow me to point out where the wheels fall of your argument. Christianity is not the monolithic set of beliefs and values that you pretend it to be. What flavor of Christianity do you want advocated in public schools? Whose interpretation/version/translation of the Bible should be taught? Do you want a Catholic teacher telling kids that the way to heaven is by both works and faith, or an evangelical teaching that it's by faith alone? How about Seventh Day Adventist teachers telling children that hell is not eternal and they shouldn't eat meat? What about the denominations that reject the trinity? Mormonism? Did Moses really write the first five books of the Bible? Is the account of Adam and Eve allegorical or is it historical fact? Is the Bible or the Qur'an more accurate? Teach the controversy!
Opening the door to religion in public schools would only lead to a state-sanctioned version of Christianity, where children would be taught that their family's denomination is "wrong" because it doesn't mesh with the government's official curriculum. --DonnyC 14:19, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
There was absolutely nothing wrong with having Bibles or prayer in schools up until the early-1960s. That's when a loud-mouthed atheist shoved her own religious beliefs on the country. And before that atheist even opened her mouth, the worst things happening in public schools were chewing bubble gum or running in the hallways. Tell me, DonnyC, what are the worst things happening in public schools now, with Bibles being forced out as you so gleefully want? What are the worst things happening in public schools now, with liberals in direct control? Are we to seriously believe in the "liberal-logic-is-so-superior-to-us-dumb-conservatives" that a small, leather-bound book written several thousand years ago is more dangerous in the hands of a student than an AR-15 assault rifle?
And investigate this DonnyC, because now you're getting some homework to do, and you will post it here for all to see: when Bibles were a part of the schools in the 150+ years before that loud-mouthed atheist had her way, YOU WILL SHOW ME ALL OF THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. I expect an answer by 4PM EST, 21 October...that means you only have a few hours do round it all up. Being an educated man - the "facts-have-a-liberal-bias-sort-of-way - you should ave no problem finding it.
Karajou, every time your argument gets weak (which is often), you result to bully mode. I'm fairly certain I'll be blocked... again. Which is often the case around here when one of the admins finds themselves on the losing end of an argument (again an all too frequent occurrence). If you'd actually like to have an intelligent discussion on this matter, I'm willing to continue. Set up a debate or essay page, and we can discuss it like gentlemen. Of course, I'd request your assurances that I wouldn't be 90/10'd out the door after I turned the heat up in the kitchen. Anyway, here's my "homework" --DonnyC 05:53, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
Wrong, DonnyC, it is you and people like you who make the bully accusation against me when your own pushing of liberalism on this site is opposed. There's just no debate with your side, because it is always a debate that is demanded when your argument is weak, as if a debate will make everything better. Your side refuses to act like the gentlemen that you want us to be, and this posting started with TonySidaway's accusation that we are anti-science; that we insist upon "nonsequiturs" on the main page, while you refuse to even look at the articles we post; and you pushing an anti-Christian agenda as though it is wrong to have that in our schools. And the "homework" you posted, letting Google do the job...where's the documentation? Any clown can write a list on Wikipedia; where's the source material? You proved to me your intention to be lazy. Being lazy doesn't make it at school.
So, Donny and Tony, I'm telling both of you right now for the last time. Conservapedia will post on the main page any news item related to conservatism; any news item that shows what is wrong with liberalism; any news item that shows what is wrong with main stream science; any personal opinion piece promoting conservatism, God, Christianity, or that which opposes liberalism; and any article which illustrates and proves wrong the science which liberals promote. We've already shown absolute proof that global warming is nothing more than a sick hoax, evolution is just bad science, and atheism is full of hate-filled individuals. What I've seen here from both of you is an attempt by you to nitpick at petty crap while ignoring any evidence that supports our side. In short - and this is coming from the attitude that I've seen here - you've demonstrated and proven that you're no better educated than the liberal clods who proved their own intelligence in the Finland article with their penchant for ducks. Whether or not you like it, I really don't care. Conservapedia is a conservative website, it is not a liberal one, and fact do not and never will have a liberal bias. If you want to play the flunky lib, go play in Wikipedia. This "debate" is over. Karajou 09:47, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC is right. The establishment clause, which has the effect of prohibiting government sponsored worship among other things, was introduced for good reason. Moreover, religious worship is a very personal thing and should nit be imposed on children in a state school. --TonySidaway 14:58, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

So the establishment clause says we have no right whatsoever to the free excercize of religion? That's not what the Constitution says, nor is it what the Founding Fathers have said when they wrote it. Karajou 03:45, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
You have it backwards. Americans have the right to exercise their religious beliefs freely, which is exactly why the state cannot impose a form of worship on them, in schools or anywhere else. --TonySidaway 10:45, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

While I try to digest that bizarre taunting about ducks above, it appears to me that the argument has changed. At first it was on the lines of "America has fallen behind other countries because atheists ruined public education." Now it seems to be "look, we're still better than the Finns because their education system hasn't put them economically in front of the USA, and besides...ducks!"

You have to decide whether or not having a nation of ignoramuses is a serious problem. If it isn't, taunt the Finns and their ducks by all means. But if it is, you might want to encourage the government to address the problem, instead of blaming some implausible scapegoat like "liberals" or "atheists", without whom we'd all probably be looking for Noah's Ark instead of addressing real scientific questions like the Higgs Field. --TonySidaway 15:40, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Tony, for the past several years you have lurked in this site, you have seen what was posted in this site, and you have seen too many times a small bunch of liberals try to trash this site with their parody and their nonsense, and this includes the many repeated postings of the duck population in the Finland article. And you have the gall to call my citing of it here as "bizarre". The only thing it does illustrate is the true nature of the educational level of liberals in general, and it would be quite a wonder to find more than a few who are smarter than a fifth grader. It is your side of the fence that is the problem, Tony. Don't bring your problem here. Karajou 03:45, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
I still have no idea why you are going on about Finnish ducks. But I've already spoken my piece about the baffling non sequiturs on Conservapedia. If they were only confined to the talk pages, I'd be a lot happier! --TonySidaway 10:50, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
Public schools did fine before there was atheistic exclusion of Christianity from them. Public schools have far more money now than before, and yet have far lower quality now.--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Andy that's not a valid argument; it's a correlation-causation fallacy. Again, if Christianity is the root of success in public schools - why is Japan at the top of the list, where a hugely significant majority of the population defines themselves as non-religious? Are you really suggesting that just American students need Christianity to succeed?--IDuan 19:33, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Why do you say "atheistic?" The plaintiffs in Engel v. Vitale were religiously observant New York jews, and the respondent in the Schemp case was a Unitarian Universalist. Both of these cases were victories for religiously observant people over the state imposition of an unwanted form of worship or study.

But that's beside the point. In 1962-3 when those two cases reached the Supreme Court, it was less than a decade since the public school system was forced to eliminate racist segregation policies, and even in the 1960s there were segregationist policies in parts of the Higher and Further Education systems.

Hardly okay! --TonySidaway 18:09, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Correlation is often due to causation, and the exclusion of Christianity was clearly a cause of the subsequent decline in values, motivation, safety, and achievement of public schools. It is equally clear that many atheists are the driving force in expelling all things Christian from public schools to this day.--Andy Schlafly 22:52, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
So you are saying that American students - but not the rest of the word - need Christianity in order to succeed. Japan is the number one country on the linked list.--IDuan 00:54, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
"Correlation is often due to causation" Really? Many of the examples in my first econometrics textbook (Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 4th edition [2009]) show statistically significant correlations that are highly unlikely to be related by cause-and-effect. Here are a few examples where correlation exists between variables that should not be related by cause-and-effect:
  • p. 107: the log of the starting salary of a law school student is oositively correlated with the size of the law library (number of volumes) and the log of the cost of attending law school.
  • p. 153-154: the selling price of a house is correlated to the assessed price of the house just prior to sale.
  • p. 155-156: the log salary of a school teacher is negatively correlated with the log of the size of the school's staff
  • p. 615-616: the probability that the favorite team (according to the Las Vegas bookmakers) wins is positively correlated with the point spread.
In general, economic and world systems are highly complex, involve many inputs (many of which cannot be measured), and are almost impossible to conduct controlled experiments on. As you know, when X and Y are correlated, then either X causes Y, Y causes X, or Z causes both X and Y. The third scenario is by far the most common for economic and world systems. GregG 09:00, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

I think my point stands. Atheists do also benefit from the Establishment clause, but state sponsored religious worship and study were banished from public schools not by atheists but by Jews and Unitarian Universalists. Why? Because all people benefit from freedom to choose their own religious beliefs and practices. --TonySidaway 10:30, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

If i could put a word in here edgewise, the reason certain countries such as Japan do a better job in education is because they are more "Christian" in such things as discipline, being studiousness, etc. Which reflect fidelity to aspects of their historical culture and the light God gave them. (Romans 2) Harvard's law of 1642 required far more of that than today's Harvard.
As for [Separation of church and state] being necessary, it is in order to prevent compelling submission or support of one State religion, yet it is impossible to separate either the educational or legislative system, etc. from moral beliefs, which primarily reflect religious beliefs of the administration of such, and in a democracy, that of the people. As the country has become more secular, so the ever-morphing values of secularism have supplanted those of Christianity, which itself has become too much like the culture, which has forsaken its values. To its own hurt.
This is where cause and effect come in. Daniel1212 20:00, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

There are three possible effects of the exclusion of Christianity on public school achievement: positive, none, and negative. "No effect" is implausible, and a positive effect is unlikely given the disastrous decline of public schools.--Andy Schlafly 22:32, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

Let's not get carried away. Raw PISA and TIMSS 8th grade scores suggest a measurable, albeit modest, improvement over time by US children. Public schools aren't in "disastrous decline".
Daniel1212's argument is inventive, to say the least. So some oriental cultures show better educational results? Okay, call them "Christian" against all the evidence, so you can attribute their success to Christianity. And for our next trick, we prove black is white (and get run over on a Zebra Crossing, as Douglas Adams put it). --TonySidaway 09:50, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
I don't see how you can simply write off the hypothesis that a ban on school-sponsored prayer in schools has negligible effect on achievement. GregG 08:37, 22 October 2013 (EDT)

TonySidaway, four things:

1. new study: private religious schools outperform traditional public schools and public charter schools:

2. From 2008: Markets of competing private schools consistently outperform public schools, concludes a Cato Institute study that analyzes 25 years worth of educational research from over 18 nations.[34]

3. USA homeschoolers consistently outperform public school students:

4. "Harry Conn, in Four Trojan Horses (pp. 17-18), makes reference to a study of the people listed in Who's Who of America. According to Conn, Who's Who in Who's Who showed that "it took 25,000 laboring families to produce one child that would be listed in Who's Who." That number dropped to 10,000 families of skilled craftsmen to produce one Who's Who. Among Baptist ministers the ratio was 6,000 in 1; Presbyterian ministers, 5,000 to 1; lawyers, 5,000 to 1; dentists, 2,500 to 1. Episcopal priests had the best... 1,200 to 1.

Oh. Except there was one more category. "For every seven Christian missionary families that sailed from the shores of the United States .... one of their children would be listed in Who's Who!""[35] Conservative 16:35, 22 October 2013 (EDT)

TonySidaway, by the way, the present state of affairs has the religion of Darwinism, which is a tenet of the religions of atheism/agnosticism/liberal Christianity, being taught in the public schools, which certainly violates people's liberty - for example, people's religious freedom. See: Atheism is a religion. Conservative 18:59, 22 October 2013 (EDT)

Virginia governor's race

As someone born in Virginia and now living in the capital, Richmond, attending VCU, I can say that the opinion of most Virginians is that our choices for governor are both terrible. Genuinely no one really likes either candidate- McAuliffe has the charm (and brain) of a used car salesman and Cuccinelli is a high school bully.--IDuan 00:57, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV.

In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American MSM increased 20%.

In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall. -

(Currently, the lifetime treatment cost of an HIV infection is estimated at $379,668 [in 2010 dollars] - ) Daniel1212 19:06, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

Obamacare Website

It's about time we had a website headline - the exchanges are a total fiasco - and from what I've been reading not one that can be quickly fixed. I do have to reitterate though that we would have been able to report on this for about two weeks now, putting a lot more pressure on Obama and the law - had a segment of House Republicans decided that a government shut down was a reasonable strategy.--IDuan 00:10, 23 October 2013 (EDT)

Agreed. Delaying the signup penalty 60 days effectively lowers revenue projections and increases the deficit -- essentially a violation of the Continuing resolution and debt ceiling deal made only one week prior. OscarO 17:00, 27 October 2013 (EDT)

"Firms will clean up your Wikipedia page for a fee"

The row of four equal signs below this headline should be four hyphens. Thanks, GregG 22:18, 24 October 2013 (EDT)

Try more positive framing?

Besides often running afoul of Betteridge's law of headlines, I can't help but notice that many of the headlines that appear on Conservapedia's In The News section often frame the item in a negative light. For example, one current headline announces "Bad news for liberals: the Virginia gubernatorial race has tightened a week before the election...". That could just as easily have read "Good news for concervatives:...". Also, we often hear that it's going to be a BAD, TERRIBLE, or WORST day/month/year for Darwinism/evolutionism/atheism, but we seldom hear that it's going to be a GREAT, STELLAR, or BEST time for Creationism. Or maybe just to spice things up, instead of covering a constant litany of the failures of public schooling, how about more homeschooling success stories? --DonnyC 22:51, 30 October 2013 (EDT)

"Well, bad news travels like wildfire. Good news travels slow." - Johnny Cash.[36]
It's bizarre how liberal editors can prevent the implementation of good ideas here simply by suggesting them. It's quite a hole you've dug for yourselves. JohanZ 13:35, 31 October 2013 (EDT)

The 93 Million ObamaCare Lies

Please add this: [37] to the Previous Breaking News.

P.S. For everybody who likes satire: [38].--JoeyJ 13:54, 1 November 2013 (EDT)

LAX Shooter

The Main Page asks if the LAX shooter was "inspired by violent video games", but it seems there's no evidence for that allegation - the only suggestion is that he was inspired by fears of a "New World Order", fiat currencies and other lunatic-fringe "patriotic" beliefs. Could you update the Main Page so it's not so speculative? CescF 12:41, 4 November 2013 (EST)

The liberal media won't immediately ask this obvious question about young mass murderers, so the lack of reports about it is meaningless.--Aschlafly 13:21, 4 November 2013 (EST)
Am I to assume, then, that you're directly involved in the investigation? If not, you should give the LAPD a call and tell them what they're missing that's so obvious you saw it from the other side of the country. RichardLittle 15:02, 4 November 2013 (EST)

It's certainly thought-provoking to read Fox News being described as a member of the "liberal media". CescF 00:34, 5 November 2013 (EST)

CescF, Fox News paid $10,000 to sponsor an event for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and had a reporter attend the event.[39] See: Fox News and homosexuality. I hope this tidbit of information further provokes your thought processes! With that being said, your original complaint had some merit. Conservative 21:34, 5 November 2013 (EST)

Richie Incognito

The story is laughable for sure. Richie bullied a 6'5 gladiator, who went and told on him. --Jpatt 19:58, 5 November 2013 (EST)

There's no indication the bullying was physical, so why does it matter how tall Martin is? (Not to mention, Incognito isn't exactly tiny.) JustinD 23:38, 6 November 2013 (EST)

Kathleen Sebelius Nazi Link is Dead

Title says it all, really. Just pointing it out, you can probably find another link for the same thing. -- AWBissell (Talk)

The link appears to be working now. And to be honest, the dead link was a better article than the actual article. To say that the story is ill-conceived and even more poorly reasoned is being charitable. --DonnyC 19:37, 7 November 2013 (EST)

More Big Government invasion of our lives

I see that the Government is again trying to tell us what to do, this time telling us what we can and can't eat. Like anyone in this Godforsaken economy, I work long hours and I can't cook and I mostly eat frozen and packaged foods like pizza that I enjoy - and now they're telling me I can't? Why don't they "get off my lawn!" They're stopping me praying, they're stopping me eat what I want - what next? Will they try and regulate my toilet habits? KBinbota 16:46, 7 November 2013 (EST)

Chris Christie Consistency

I don't mean to nitpick, but MPR appears to have several differing views on Chris Christie. Some applaud his election, while others lambast him for being liberal. In order to make MPR more consistent, we may wish to remove or modify some of these posts. -- AWBissell (Talk)

I don't think MPR has to be consistent - do major newspapers make sure all of their different opinion writer's have the same position? MPR is tantamount to food for thought.--Iduan 10:08, 8 November 2013 (EST)
Very well put, Iduan!--Aschlafly 10:45, 8 November 2013 (EST)
Alright, thanks for telling me. I just wanted to make sure we were presenting the face we wanted to.

Youth Unemployment

Here's an graph in the public domain on Obama youth unemployment in its 5th year for the main page, if it would be helpful. OscarO 15:33, 10 November 2013 (EST)

Interesting graph for youth unemployment. Thanks for mentioning it.--Aschlafly 23:04, 11 November 2013 (EST)

Interesting link for the obesity discussion

Dealing with American obesity is long overdue, so it's great to see that the medical profession is starting to get tougher on the issue. But the obesity=liberals suggestion of the item doesn't really sync with the data, which shows that the obesity problem is very much at its worst in the deep South of the USA, which is not an area know for its liberalism - Louisiana has over a third of its population ranked as obese, for example. Just an FYI. CescF 11:59, 15 November 2013 (EST)

Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were Western World Christians.[1]

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)
CescF, have you heard of multiple regression analysis? If not, I would suggest looking it up. You see, we live in a multiple variable world, so you certainly did not show a correlation between the very religious and obesity. For example, one would have to take into account socioeconomic factors. The fact is that the majority of Christians live outside the Western World and many of these Eastern World Christians are very slim. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if it was found that most Christians are slim. And with the explosive growth of Christianity outside the West, I wouldn't be surprised if Christendom is becoming slimmer over time at the present time.
Plus, numerous studies show that those who engage in regular spiritual practices tend to live longer and the religious tend to be more active in sports than the non-religious. Also, have you read about the very large Gallup study relating to the very religious, the non-religious and health habits such as healthy eating and exercise? Next, have you read the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications by McCullough and Willoughby? For details about these matters, see: Atheism and obesity and Lesbianism and obesity and Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism and Atheism and health and Homosexuality and obesity
So the data supports that being very religious leads to healthier behavior and that includes diet and exercise - two known factors which greatly help to reduce obesity.
Also, we know that neuroticism, lower self-control and anger are known causal factors for obesity and that atheists and homosexuals have lower mental health . See: Atheism and depression and Mental Health and Homosexuality and Atheism and obesity and Atheism and health. Furthermore, the more militant variety of modern atheism, New Atheism, has often been accused of having an angry tone. And given that anger is a causal factor of obesity, it is not surprising that 3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement had problems with excess weight. See: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight. And PZ Myers who later joined the New Atheism movement had problems with excess weight. See: PZ Myers and excess weight.
So the contemporary data syncs very well with the idea with the proposition that being very religious is a causal factor for better health which includes thinness and that atheism is a causal factor for obesity.
Even the historical record supports that being very religious are healthier. The Mosaic diet is very healthy[40]. Also: Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Paul and Peter - all thin! And leadership is by example. If only the New Atheism "leadership" understood this basic principle. See: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight Conservative 01:54, 16 November 2013 (EST)
Finished my response to this matter. For additional information, see: Talk:Atheism and obesityConservative 17:50, 16 November 2013 (EST)
You certainly put a lot of energy into your response, and thank you for that. But given your explanation, how would you explain the obesity problem being worse in the South? Lower levels of Christianity? Greater levels of poverty? CescF 21:01, 16 November 2013 (EST)
Hi Conservative! I showed this page to my Pop, who's a statistician. I saw 'multiple regression' in your comments and I thought it sounded like Pop's kind of thing. He said that if you can post your table of data relating to obesity on this wiki, including rates of obesity in different US States, as well as socio-economic, political and behavioural factors such as religion, he'd be really interested to do a multiple regression analysis to get into the data and test how much atheism and liberalism contribute to obesity. StaceyT 19:54, 7 December 2013 (EST) x

North Korea

"A Christian North Korean missionary group dropped 50,000 balloons carrying Bibles and religious tracts into the militant atheism state of North Korea last year.[1]" Please link to Religion and Atheism in North Korea.--Alex00 11:47, 18 November 2013 (EST)

I did as you requested. Thanks! Conservative 16:45, 19 November 2013 (EST)
Minor semantic note, North Korea has deified Kim Il-sung and, more recently, Kim Jong-il. The agents of the state responsible for maintaining the cult of personality around both figures have gone so far as to invent a system of mythology ascribing miracles and other supernatural powers to both. This cult of personality is basically a religion, as it possesses its own mythology and deities. "Atheism" means a lack of belief in any gods, thus it is inaccurate to refer to North Korea as an atheist state simply because it suppresses more conventional religions.--JHunter 17:17, 19 November 2013 (EST)

It is very common for so-called atheists/agnostics to worship someone/something (Stalin, Mao, North Korea, scientism, self-worship/narcissism, etc) and/or develop cults of personalities. In addition, atheism is commonly allied with political leftism which also often has "cult of personalities" (for example, "Obama zombies"). See: Atheism and politics. It is the human condition to commonly worship.

Second, and more importantly, there are authoritative reference works in the Western World that define atheism as denying the existence of God (and not gods) although some use the plural as well as in gods (see the footnotes for the first sentence of this article). For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the rejection of God. See: But the very authoritative Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses both the singular and plural - namely the rejection of the existence of God or gods. See:

Also, atheism is the minority view in the world and atheism in a locale is often shaped and a reaction to the culture in which it resides. The atheist philosopher, John Gray, acknowledged this point. Hence, atheism is often seen as a rejection of monotheism. And given the explosive growth of global Christianity and given Westernization, atheism is going to be probably seen as the denial of the existence of God more and more. Runt size religions in terms of global market share like atheism/agnosticism and small regional religions are being gobbled up and chipped away at by dominant monotheistic religions in the world (see: decline of global atheism). This has happened in Korea and the world's biggest church (or at least on the largest churches) is in South Korea and I believe it has one million members. The demographic scholar Eric Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia that in an age of globalization the West is going to be de-secularized via religious immigrants, the higher fertility rates of religious conservatives and the sub-replacement level of fertility among secular populations (see: Global atheism).

Lastly, atheism is not merely the lack of belief in God but a denial of the existence of God/gods and the encyclopedias of philosophy in the world acknowledge this matter. I am not aware of a single encyclopedia of philosophy that defines atheism as merely the lack of belief in a God or gods. See etymology of atheism at etymology of atheism and Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism. Conservative 18:32, 19 November 2013 (EST)

Any thoughts on this?

Pope Francis has recently denounced unfettered capitalism in general and supply side (AKA trickle-down) economics specifically, stating that: "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."[1] Thoughts? --DonnyC 13:47, 26 November 2013 (EST)

The Pope's remarks are interesting. It looks like a clarion call for more charity, something that is hard to disagree with. The liberal media are constantly picking and choosing what they want in the Pope's candid remarks, but I didn't see any support by the Pope for bigger government. To the contrary, he criticizes government as being corrupt.--Aschlafly 19:31, 26 November 2013 (EST)
Indeed, it appears as if the Pope is advocating a more powerful regulatory body for the economy that protects the poor, but is not necessarily advocating bigger government, per se. Rather, I think his criticism is mostly leveled at those who enable corporate exploitation, and those who perpetuate this exploitation by turning a blind eye to the wrongs that result from unfettered corporate profit-making. Brenden 20:05, 26 November 2013 (EST)
The Pope notably does not advocate for more regulation. Nor does His Holiness criticize the corporate form.
I think the lamestream media article illustrates how the press will continue to see in the Pope's remarks whatever it wants to see.
It is indeed amazing how people can see whatever they want to see. Anyway, I'm still reading through the Pope's Evangelii Gaudium, so I can't offer a complete critique. At first glance, most of the work is standard Catholic boilerplate that non-Catholics probably won't find particularly compelling or interesting. Yes, there is a lot in there for conservatives to like (strong pro-life and pro-family messages), but his economics do read decidedly left of center.
"204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded."
I've been searching through the document to read some of the juicier quotes in their fuller context, and so far I really haven't found anything to indicate that his words are being mischaracterized.--DonnyC 23:54, 26 November 2013 (EST)
Thanks for this dialog and the interesting quote. I have an open mind about all of what the Pope says, and liberal media would do themselves a favor by opening their minds more than they do.
As to the specific quote, it specifically criticizes the "welfare mentality" that so characterizes the Left today. It also criticizes the downsizing by big corporations as they pursue self-enrichment for their top executives. The Pope's comments are welcome.--Aschlafly 11:17, 27 November 2013 (EST)



Alexa Ranking

Lieberal LSM website Alexa shows Conservapedia's rank plummet below 100,000[41]

I've long been skeptical about Alexa rankings, and I don't think it has much meaning. Public interest in politics is cyclical, and this time period (more than a year after a presidential election, yet long before the midterms) is probably the low point in the four-year cycle. But the vast majority of Conservapedia's traffic has always been through name recognition, not Alexa-type browser searching.
The truth is always on the road less traveled. God seems to prefer it that way. If the truth were repeatedly handed to everyone, then what would be the point? See, e.g., Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?--Aschlafly 17:12, 30 November 2013 (EST)
what would we do without your spin? :) -JeremiahS 17:29, 30 November 2013 (EST)
The young earth creationist websites of CMI, ICR and AIG saw significant web traffic growth in 2013, while a certain atheist gentlemen whose initials are PZM is seeing his blog network web traffic be lower than it was in the beginning of the year (see the Quantcast data for CMI, AIG and FtB which directly measures their web traffic via embedded tracking code on their websites). The Christian body that I belong to saw excellent growth in 2013. In addition, a certain atheist wiki saw its global market share drop in the 4rth quarter of 2013. Furthermore, global atheism lost global market share in 2013 and will continue to do so in 2014 and beyond (see: Global atheism). As the friends of Joseph Thomas Kennedy often say, "I am happier than a possum in the corncrib with the dog tied up." :) Conservative 05:26, 1 December 2013 (EST)

Clearing up a misnomer. Some gentlemen are under the illusion that some war is over. Yet the conservative message is quickly growing on the internet and so is young earth creationism (YEC) and the Quantcast data clearly shows this matter in relation to YEC.

Furthermore, the scent of ObamaCare burning is clearly in the air and so is its fiscal feasibility given that young people are not enrolling in the federal boondoggle in sufficient quantities to make it sustainable. Also, the fabric of European socialism and secularism is clearly fraying due to: an aging secular population not being replaced quick enough through births, growing sovereign debt and conservative religious immigration that is resistant to secularism.

And while this destruction of secular leftism is occurring, global atheism is shrinking while global Christianity is seeing explosive growth. And the British agnostic and academic Eric Kaufmann notes about this matter, "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."

I would suggest that some gentlemen have a myopic view of the culture war and they need to take their blinders off so they can more readily see that global secular leftism is burning and no matter how fast they spin on their wiki content creation wheels, it is not going to reverse matters. Conservative 17:36, 1 December 2013 (EST)

The question should not be "How popular is Conservapedia?" rather it should be "How well does Conservapedia serve the needs of its users and meets their expectations?" Many reference websites, including Wikipedia and tech support reference knowledge bases have a user feedback question on the bottom of the page. There are many possible approaches for mediawiki software. For example, look at:

There must be a better way than google hits and Alexa ranking to determine whether our offerings are valuable to the people who use them. Thanks, Wschact 09:18, 2 December 2013 (EST)
Influence on the public is extraordinarily difficult to evaluate. Obama was just named as one of the least influential celebrities, along with Miley Cyrus and others. [42] But one wouldn't know this by monitoring internet statistics, or even doing surveys.--Aschlafly 22:49, 2 December 2013 (EST)

Harvard Law Off Campus

Only 33% of Harvard Law students live in on campus dorms. Please amend the main page news item to remove this inaccuracy. link

The percentage is higher for 1Ls, and higher still for single 1Ls (as Obama was). When all Harvard dorm space is included, the percentage is even higher.--Aschlafly 18:38, 5 December 2013 (EST)
"When all Harvard dorm space is included" does this include comparatively more expensive apartments? Doesn't including this option undermine your initial point? --HHB 13:49, 8 December 2013 (EST)


You know what South Africa doesn't suffer from anymore? Apartheid. It's interesting how we don't mention that.--Iduan 23:31, 5 December 2013 (EST)

The Main Page Right expressly says that it reports on "what the MSM isn't fully covering." Conservapedia is not trying to be redundant with the mainstream media.--Aschlafly 00:09, 6 December 2013 (EST)
Well thank goodness a couple notches down we reported on Bashir quitting MSNBC because I certainly hadn't heard that anywhere else. The undeniable reality is that we are redundant to MSM if we consider the story large enough - but apparently ending South African apartheid and becoming a symbol for freedom everywhere wasn't a large enough story to us. Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure what the point of the additional information is - Mandela fought for liberation and democratic representation in a poor country? - Does that make his cause invalid? --Iduan 02:44, 6 December 2013 (EST)
The liberal media ignore and deny how much South Africa has struggled since the imposition of changes demanded largely by outsiders. Isn't there at least an obligation to help, rather than resort to selfish liberal denial?--Aschlafly 10:40, 6 December 2013 (EST)
What changes are you referring to? You can't mean the end of apartheid Andy the country was majority black that isn't "demanded largely by outsiders" (except insofar as black were outsiders of the old political system, in which case the statement is true). The South went through a rough time after slavery ended, does that mean ending slavery was a mistake? Side note: their followup president - Thabo Mbeki, was relatively anti-West ("outsiders") and he's not historically regarded as great.
Mandela was not a great president - if that's what you're suggesting - and I think it is - you're not going to hear argument from me. He favored donors - which on this continent would be considered a huge sin. But his status and work as a liberation leader overshadows his shortcomings during his four years in office - there's no denying that.--Iduan 11:06, 6 December 2013 (EST)
Do you think the millions of citizens who have fled South Africa are all racists?--Aschlafly 19:54, 6 December 2013 (EST)
I think they fled from fears of retribution - which Mandela did not advocate - this wasn't a black nationalist. Whites were the privileged class whereas South African blacks were class-less, but that does not mean that all whites were racist. Do you think apartheid wasn't a racist system?--Iduan 22:06, 6 December 2013 (EST)
Apartheid is obviously a racist system, by definition. Do you really think millions of citizens fled South Africa due to "fears of retribution"??? The real reason that millions have left is almost certainly not "fear of retribution," but the decline of the country economically, the increase in crime, and the spread of disease. At some point it would make sense to take a look at the living conditions, wouldn't it?--Aschlafly 22:53, 6 December 2013 (EST)

First of all - let me see a citation for your "millions" number. Moving on - the country didn't decline economically except for the richest white population - that's simply not true. Are you not counting disenfranchised and poverty ridden black South Africans? Is this a "If I lived there then - I'd be great! But if I lived there now it'd suck" type of deal? That's not actually a great way to measure economic stability. Also - if by spread of disease you mean AIDS - that would've been fleeing from Thabo Mbeki's policies.[43] I'm also still confused by your insinuation that apartheid was ended because it was demanded "largely by outsiders".--Iduan 10:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)

Why did you omit any reference to how crime has become pervasive in South Africa? According to one independent South African news organization, "crime [has become] a major part of South African life, be it violent robberies or drive-by shootings." [44]--Aschlafly 13:59, 7 December 2013 (EST)
The reason I didn't bring crime up is the same reason you didn't bring up crime until your last post - because we weren't talking about crime. You might as well ask me why I didn't bring up New Zealand. We were talking about your refusal to recognize that Nelson Mandela played an integral role in ending apartheid. You posted here five times and didn't mention the word crime until your fourth time and then you accuse me of liberal denial? Please - that's a joke. A more valid question is why did you refuse to cite a source for your millions number?--Iduan 16:16, 7 December 2013 (EST)
Also wait a second - your quotation is fraud. That's lying. You changed "being" to "has become" to support your claim that crime wasn't a problem before. The only appropriate substitution would have been to say "[is]".--Iduan 16:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)
My response is on User talk:Aschlafly, in response to your related posting there.--Aschlafly 21:45, 7 December 2013 (EST)

Gandhi on MPR

You spelled Gandhi wrong (Ghandi) on MPR. Please could you fix it. StaceyT 19:58, 7 December 2013 (EST)

Fixed the typo. Thanks. Conservative 20:31, 7 December 2013 (EST)
It says Ghandhi now. It's Gandhi (h after the d, no h after the G). Thanks in advance for fixing this. StaceyT 16:07, 8 December 2013 (EST)

Use of Violence

Given that MPR rightly notes the anniversary of the 13th Amendment, would it be a better reflection of history to change the later headline to something like "Unlike Martin Luther King and Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Abraham Lincoln were willing to use violence to achieve their political aims." --DHouser 11:13, 8 December 2013 (EST)

Hey Doogie, unlike the liberal indoctrination you were taught, Abraham Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. The political aims of the South were to destroy the Union, by violence. --Jpatt 11:40, 8 December 2013 (EST)
No question about it, but you'll concede that Lincoln was willing to use violence, as were so many great men and women who faced opression - and thank God for it.--DHouser 12:33, 8 December 2013 (EST)
It was God's plan for sure. Your use of the word "violence" is invalid. --Jpatt 12:55, 8 December 2013 (EST)
Jpatt, good point. Also note that Mandela and the ANC didn't start the extraordinary violence of the apartheid regime against blacks. They reacted against it with astonishing restraint. Mandela's violent opposition to the racist regime consisted only of a brief period when he organised sabotage of state-owned property, not attacks on people. It wasn't the ANC who massacred hundreds of schoolchildren in cold blood. StaceyT 16:29, 8 December 2013 (EST)

Any use by Abraham Lincoln of violence was not to eradicate racist slavery, but to save the Union. See American_History_Lecture_Six#Secession.--Aschlafly 18:56, 8 December 2013 (EST)

Firstly: but you're acknowledging he was willing to use violence. (Jpatt I agree with you in principle, but I think the political aims of the south were sovereignty for the Confederate states - if Lincoln had accepted their secession (which to be clear - would have been a mistake) there wouldn't have been violence.) Secondly: Is saving the union a more noble cause than eradicating slavery? Our founding fathers were also in favor of using violence for their political freedom. Since when are we pacifists?--Iduan 22:58, 8 December 2013 (EST)
To acknowledge violence to stop secession, you must acknowledge violence against the people by means of slave holding. The idea America put forth was and is unique. The success, as I believe Lincoln sought, was for a united free country, a beacon of human hope for countless more generations. A model for the world. The world has benefited from the USA, Lincoln can be credited for keeping it all together. --Jpatt 15:06, 9 December 2013 (EST)

Obesity (again)

Hi Conservative, I followed your posting about obesity with great interest. You probably haven't seen my comment which is now half-way up this page so I'm repeating it here. In relation to the discussion on, 'Interesting link for the obesity discussion', you posted, 'have you heard of multiple regression analysis?' I showed this discussion to my Pop, who's a statistician, because I thought 'multiple regression' sounded like Pop's kind of thing. He says that if you can post your table of data relating to obesity on this wiki, including rates of obesity in different US States, as well as socio-economic, political and behavioural factors such as religion, he'd be really interested to do a multiple regression analysis to get into the data and test how much atheism and liberalism contribute to obesity. Thanks in advance for supplying these data. StaceyT 16:12, 8 December 2013 (EST)

Have your father look at the studies, statistics, journal articles and other relevant data I cited at: Atheism and obesity. My favorite statistic is 3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement were overweight! See: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight. On the other hand, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Peter and Paul were all thin! See: Mediterranean diet by Mayo Clinic. I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 21:55, 8 December 2013 (EST)
I'm having difficulty following you, Conservative. (1) Which is the specific article(s) or website(s) with the numerical data that you use to back up your claims about atheism and obesity? (2)When you say that 3 out of 5 founders of New Atheism were overweight, how does that compare with the proportion of people in the same general population? Looking around me in the UK, and even more when I go back home to the USA, I'd say that 50-70% of a group of people in an industrialised country being overweight is pretty normal nowadays. (3) I've seen Richard Dawkins at a book signing. He's definitely not overweight. Quite lush in fact... (4) I guess most people in Biblical times were pretty thin because they walked everywhere, did manual labour and didn't have so much to eat - true? StaceyT 18:15, 11 December 2013 (EST)
The comparison would not between atheists and the general population, but between atheists and others of comparable economic and educational background. Obesity is generally less prevalent among the well-to-do who were given expensive education, which is the comparable population against whom atheists should be compared.--Aschlafly 18:58, 11 December 2013 (EST)

StaceyT, generally speaking, I put my strongest and/or most interesting information in an article first in an article. Hence, I would recommend examining the first 10 footnotes in my article and/or the first 3 sections of my article. At the same time, the article builds a cumulative case so examine the whole article. You can also examine the talk page for that article. Any further comments you want to make, I would suggest using the talk page of that article.

Secondly, the New Atheists adamantly maintain that they believe in science. So given what science tells us about the effects of obesity, it is rather ironic that 3 out of 5 of the founders of New Atheism, were overweight - especially since obesity is very treatable and preventable. (exercise/diet, etc.). Conservative 13:53, 12 December 2013 (EST)

"Liberals thought he did a marvelous job in interpreting Obama as he read from a teleprompter:"

What does that even mean? Why would liberals believe the authenticity of someone pretending to know sign language any more than conservatives would? I feel like I see where you were trying to go with that joke - but it didn't happen. God might have a sense of humor, but Andy I don't think he gave you one.--Iduan 11:10, 11 December 2013 (EST)

It did happen. No one in the liberal media or anywhere else stopped the fake interpreter.--Aschlafly 11:38, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Yes there was a fake interpreter. And no one noticed him - conservative or liberal - what's the point? It reminds me of when that couple crashed the white house party in Obama's first year of office - some people are idiots and they'll get away with it.--Iduan 11:44, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Liberals run the media and controlled the event. Some conservatives surely did notice, but conservatives had no authority over the telecast or the event. And some liberals may have noticed too, but they won't publicly say something that is politically incorrect or embarrassing to fellow liberals.--Aschlafly 12:16, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Would it be worth noting that Obama was clearly not using a teleprompter? You can see him look at his notes and flip pages during the speech. AdamDZ 14:14, 11 December 2013 (EST)
ONLY A LIBERAL WOULD NOTICE THAT, ADAM. Sorry, Andy, I did notice you were wrong, but conservatives don't embarrass other conservatives so obviously I couldn't say anything. Your entire argument just doesn't make sense. The reality is this was probably a tightly run production with a director and assistants who just all assumed the guy standing up and seemingly signing was a legitimate sign language interpreter. It happens. And if liberals run the media and won't comment on this story - why is it on the home page of the New York Times? Liberals will only say things to "embarrass fellow liberals" after the fact? Okay...--Iduan 14:20, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Glancing at notes is a decades-old trick for creating the false impression that someone is not reading from a teleprompter. Newscasters have used this trick since at least the 1970s.--Aschlafly 14:34, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Can you point to another time that Obama's done this? Or can you point to the teleprompter? Sorry but you criticizing these guys for making a mistake and getting all conspiracy crazy while making a mistake of your own is maybe my favorite God does have a sense of humor of all time. If I make a "top 10 instances of God having a sense of humor" that one is number 1.--Iduan 14:38, 11 December 2013 (EST)
Aschlafly, with all due respect, did you actually watch the speech? Because there weren't any teleprompters. AdamDZ 14:42, 11 December 2013 (EST)

Forget about teleprompters... I'm still trying to tease out where the humor is, much less how God played a roll in it. Based on the examples that Mr. Schlafly keeps highlighting, one can only reach the conclusion that God has an exceedingly poor sense of humor. Which is possible. It is often said that a man's vision of God tends to be a more perfected version of himself. --DonnyC 15:25, 11 December 2013 (EST)

This is one of the dumbest headlines I've read on the main page, and God knows there's been some stiff competition. There are hundreds of different sign languages in use around the world, and only a tiny fraction of the global population fluent in them. Even better, if the signer had been signing in proper South African Sign Language, it would have been mostly unintelligible to American viewers as American Sign Language is from a different SL family. Andy, please delete this exceptionally dumb headline. JohanZ 16:35, 11 December 2013 (EST)

Re: "Liberals thought" - A woman at my church says she "turns the dial" when she comes across an Obama speech. In early 2012, many Americans were "tuning out" Obama.[45] Now with Barack "if you like your plan, you can keep it" Obama's approval ratings tanking in the low 40s and more and more American personally distrusting/disliking Obama, it really wouldn't surprising me if the audience for Obama's speeches was mainly liberals with some politically active hardcore conservatives tuning in to catch him in some more lies/folly/etc. Even liberal PBS began to question in 2013 whether or not Obama is overexposed in terms of chasing after the public's attention.[46]

One last thing. I did some calculations and about 20% of Obama's second term is already over. Judging from the first 20% of his second term, it certainly seems like the remaining 80% of his term will be a lame duck presidency. So I think the American public will pay attention to him less and less.

Furthermore, it seems like the Democrats will lose seats in the Senate further reducing Obama's power - especially given the new rules in the Senate. So again, less people will pay attention to Obama. Conservative 14:23, 12 December 2013 (EST)

I've been away for a while, but man am I glad to see some of these classics are still here. Never change, Andy. And remember - liberals loved that interpreter, and thought he did a great job, and still won't admit there was a problem. And no matter what anyone says, this is a reflection on Obama. Don't let this story die! EricAlstrom 22:10, 12 December 2013 (EST)
Nice try. The interpreter must have suffered from a sudden bout of schizophrenia, right???--Aschlafly 22:17, 12 December 2013 (EST)
Alright, then, if the interpreter is lying about mental illness, tell us what really happened. Why was a man up there giving nonsense interpretations? Who stood to gain what from that? EddyJ 22:26, 12 December 2013 (EST)

EddyJ, who hired and/or picked the interpreter giving nonsense sign language? Was it an incompetent government worker? As much liberals wish to deny it, this incident was another humiliating defeat for big government and a conservative "I told you so" moment. :) First the website and now this! Conservative 01:41, 13 December 2013 (EST)

Conservative and Mr. Schlafly, you are both right; liberals hired this interpreter and now liberals are trying to protect Obama from InterpretGate. The American people see the connection. And calling out Obama for using an invisible teleprompter? Brilliant! Keep this going until 2014! EricAlstrom 03:07, 13 December 2013 (EST)

The average postwar U.S. expansion has lasted 58 months. The U.S. at month 52 of the current expansion. Obama has about 38 months left in office. And the USA is in deeper debt than it was in 2008. Obama will probably see a recession at the end of his term and his approval rating could dip into the 30s like Truman, Nixon and George W. Bush.

Much of American public thought Carter was incompetent, but still a pretty decent/honest man so his average approval rating was 45.5. Obama has been caught in several very damaging lies about ObamaCare, we are still in war in Afghanistan and Obama likely will face a recession. On top of this, ObamaCare will probably keep chipping away at Obama's approval ratings and he is too proud and stubborn to abandon ObamaCare. Obama also lacks the degree of personal charisma of FDR and he is not a unifier, but rather a liberal partisan.

I believe the odds of Obama regaining the trust and approval of the American public is pretty slim given his incompetence, lack of character, stubbornness/pride and aloofness. There will be no fireside chats that the American public will widely listen to from Obama and his main audience that is willing to listen to him and not tune him out, will probably be liberals, left leaning moderates and hardcore conservatives who want to catch him in more lies/folly. Conservative 06:43, 13 December 2013 (EST)

As this was a South African event, I assume the South African government hired the South African company that provided the South African interpreter, so I'm not sure what that says about Obamacare, which is an American initiative, not a South African one. EddyJ 09:18, 13 December 2013 (EST)
EddyJ, the fruits of liberal incompetence are coming home to roost: decline of global atheism, significant problems in the Eurozone, ObamaCare problems, etc. etc. etc. It took the Soviet Union 70 years to fall, but fall it did. Liberalism since the 1960s has been fashionable, but the pendulum, due to necessity, is about to swing back much more significantly after 50 years. People are beginning to taste the bitter fruits of liberalism in a more dramatic fashion. This translator bungling is symptomatic of the incompetence of liberals.
Second, my point still stands. "Liberals thought" may be accurate given the degree that people are tuning Obama out. Why bother listening to an incompetent liar? Conservative 11:48, 13 December 2013 (EST)

UK's Globe and Mail

It is the 'Globe and Mail' also Canadian, not from the United Kingdom.

You'd think the red maple leaf on the article's banner logo would have tipped off whatever genius posted that. EddyJ 13:20, 13 December 2013 (EST)
It now reads "Global and Canada's The Globe and Mail." Jesus Christ, man. Get it together. EddyJ 13:21, 13 December 2013 (EST)
EddyJ, I see some bitterness has crept in your heart concerning this news. I am just the messenger - relax. Second, I do recall that The Globe and Mail is Canadian now, but I must confess that I never read the newspaper as there are better news outlets. However, it is rich that a liberal Canadian newspaper (that no doubt is for socialized medicine) is now calling Obama a lame duck. Third, something told me that major news outlets would start calling Obama a lame duck at this juncture and sure enough when I did a search, they are. Lastly, please use more self-restraint and don't use the name of Jesus Christ in vain. Conservative 13:34, 13 December 2013 (EST)
Bitter? Hardly. I never voted for Obama as he is far, far too conservative for my liking. I knew he would never take meaningful action on the environment, introduce a universal state-funded health-care system, close the open wound that is Guantanamo, work to place meaningful limits on the corporate greed that caused the financial crisis from which working people have yet to recover from, propose a constitutional amendment allowing homosexuals to marry, or take an activist stance against attempts to limit abortion rights or against capital punishment . I'm still waiting for a proper progressive candidate. Know anyone interested in the job? EddyJ 13:39, 13 December 2013 (EST)
You are going to be waiting a long time for a "proper progressive candidate" with a 16 trillion dollar US federal government deficit and the Obama second term failing. You will see austerity measures being imposed far sooner. Conservative 13:51, 13 December 2013 (EST)

"Obama has sunk lower in the polls"

This is a question for Mr. Hurlbut - what is the poll that you are citing in your main page link? I recall Mr. Bush's approval dropped down to the mid-20's, but I haven't seen a similar poll for Obama. Thank you! EricAlstrom 01:14, 15 December 2013 (EST) due time. In due time... :) The unpopular ObamaCare hasn't fully rolled out yet in terms of its consequences. Conservative 03:14, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Kobe Bryant

We know he's coming off an acl tear right? It was his third game back; the lakers have 0 pgs - and no one thinks Kobe is better than Durant - find me a player ranking where he's listed ahead of him. Kobe is well past his prime; Durant is entering his. But Durant does have 0 championships and Bryant does have 5.Iduan 01:23, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Kobe has 0 championships without super-coach Jackson. Kobe has been way, way overhyped by the media ... perhaps because the media does NOT want the outspokenly Christian Kevin Durant to become the next Michael Jordan in the eyes of the public.--Aschlafly 11:54, 15 December 2013 (EST)
Andy. Michael Jordan never won without Phil Jackson either.Iduan 12:03, 15 December 2013 (EST)
this is why you shouldn't comment on basketball. You also know Durant ranks himself the second best player behind Lebron James. His stats show it too - he generally shoots and scores more - but scores on a lower fg percentage and doesn't have the assists or rebounding numbers of James. Didn't the heat beat the thunder two years ago? And we saw how Durant could not guard James to save his life. If Durant is so dominant - where are his championships? He has a great roster behind him - Russell Wilson is a superstar far better than Dwayne Wade (now). --Iduan 12:09, 15 December 2013 (EST)
You make an interesting point about Michael Jordan, but he did not fail miserably without Jackson as coach, as Kobe has.
"this is why you shouldn't comment on basketball"??? I would never say that someone else should not comment on basketball.--Aschlafly 12:40, 15 December 2013 (EST)
haha come on Andy it's 100% not your expertise - your writing shows it, but when you use mpr to comment on basketball when your expertises are law and religion - it calls into question credibility. I also - and I think you'll acknowledge this is fair - think you want Kevin Durant to be the next Michael Jordan, regardless of whether he is. Sure it'd be great if an upstanding citizen and outspoken Christian had as much success and media exposure as Jordan - but as long as Durant is second to James it won't happen; blaming the media for that isn't fair - he's just not the best player in the league. Highlighting that he can defeat a hugely depleted lakers team who's best player is coming off an ACL injury seems like a desperate search for a silver lining - and then when we throw in usual narratives - about how Kobe is "overrated" (even though every media outlet ranked Durant ahead of Kobe this year and last, and no expects the lakers to beat the thunder this year) - it starts to ring false. Media outlets don't under rank Kevin Durant - they rank him where he is - the second best basketball player In the nba.--Iduan 13:05, 15 December 2013 (EST)
Kobe was also obviously overhyped before he tore his ACL. His Lakers even had a losing record for much of the time. So the ACL excuse doesn't work.
Durant was better than LeBron at the Olympics, and is better than LeBron now. Yet 90% of the media attention goes to LeBron and Kobe, and less than 10% to Durant. Why? Because Durant is an outspoken Christian, and the liberal media do not want that.--Aschlafly 13:24, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Durant admits he's not as good as his Lebron - the stats show he's not; his playoff performance shows he's not. If Durant is better - why hasn't he won championships? Russell Westbrook is better than Dwayne Wade.--IDuan 14:02, 15 December 2013 (EST)

As a devout Christian, Durant is modest and humble. Should that be held against him too??? He outscored LeBron in the 2012 Summer Olympics, but did pull the stunt that LeBron did in changing teams just to be with better players.--Andy Schlafly 14:38, 15 December 2013 (EST)
Career stats for LeBron James: 27.5 points per game, 7.2 rebounds per game, 6.9 assists per game. Career stats for Kevin Durant: 26.9 points per game, 6.9 rebounds per game, 3.2 assists per game. Not to mention 2 championships to none, and one of those championships came at the expense of Durant's team. So how exactly do your justify your claim that Durant is the superior player, Mr. Schlafly?---Eg
Durant "was No. 2 in the league in free throw attempts and hit them at a 91 percent clip. LeBron ... took far fewer FTAs than Durant (215 fewer) and hit them at a 75 percent clip." [47]--Andy Schlafly 16:50, 15 December 2013 (EST)
  • *slaps table in laughter* Don't ever change, Andy!---Eg
Eg is right it's just laughable at this point. You don't know basketball - scoring on an Olympic team? FT percentage? Players are measured on championships - Durant may win one yet - but the one time he had a chance he faced Lebron James and lost. You can pretend that didn't happen all you want - but it did. But hey let's make sure Durant get's a free throw medal at the end of the season - maybe you can send it to him; it's a big deal.--IDuan 00:10, 16 December 2013 (EST)

By the way - Charles Barkley had a higher scoring average than Michael Jordan on the 1988 Dream Team. I look forward to you arguing that he is the better player.--IDuan 00:12, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Iduan, you are missing a key point: "Literally 'En theos' is the English language equivalent of the Greek words which mean 'in God.' Furthermore, the word Enthusiasm, arrives from the greek word enthusia, which by turn arrives from the word En theos. so when we say that we feel enthusiasm, it means that at that moment we feel like we have God inside us."[48]
A Holy Spirit filled Christian player like Tim Tebow and Durant has powerful God given enthusiasm which raises the morale/enthusiasm of the whole team. There is no such thing as KobeMania or BarkelyMania. On the other hand, TebowMania miraculously wins games against all odds! Conservative 03:06, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Pope declares Marxism wrong.

What does liberalism have to do with Marxism? Most Marxists repudiate liberals as reformists who are not interested in revolution, and mainstream American liberals do not want to give ownership of the means of production to the proletariat. Have you actually read Marx? Do you actually read political critiques from the liberal side, or only the summaries that appear in appropriately conservative outlets? EddyJ 19:08, 15 December 2013 (EST)

The left versus liberal thing is mostly about posing. Liberals certainly like Marxists. When Clinton was in office, who know where he really stood? But when he left office, we sure found out. A few months later, he gave a ferociously left-wing speech proclaiming Americans to be the world's real terrorists. If anything, Obama is further to the left than Clinton. Earth Day is Vladimir Lenin's birthday. Back in 1970, Lenin's birthday was a big deal Soviet holiday. So it is hard to believe it was coincidence. PeterKa 01:49, 16 December 2013 (EST)
EddyJ, the proletariat can already participate in ownership of the means of production. It is called the stock market, employee stock ownership plans, home-based businesses, etc. etc. Plus, there is the information economy which is a PC/internet away. It's time to get out of the 19th century.
Second, thanks for giving me the great product idea: "Conservative Cliff Notes - for the busy conservative who wants concise summaries of liberal tripe". I will see if the Cliff Note people want to do a joint venture. :) Conservative 02:54, 16 December 2013 (EST)
In addition, in 2009 it was reported that 74 million impoverished entrepreneurs/capitalists received microloans through microbanking. [49] Granted in our fallen world (See: fall of man), there is much more work to be done to help the poor, but capitalism is still the best system to uplift the poor. Even Russia abandoned Marxist/Leninism and China has privatised much of their economy. Capitalism was made for sinners of which there are many. Marxism was made for economic saints of which there are few.
But mankind, due to our fallen/sinful nature, will never completely conquer poverty. Only God can establish a paradise and leftist utopian ideas are morally bankrupt. What Jesus said still applies today, "The poor you will always have with you." Conservative 20:20, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Writing class.

Andy: Are you planning to run your writing class again in the near future? I just mercilessly chewed out a well-meaning editor, something I'm not proud of having done. But people need to be aware that a wiki is only "the best of the public" if its members and administrators attempt to keep the quality high. It could become "the worst of the public" (or, more likely, something in between) if such attempts are not made. Having a writing class to help contributors would be an important step toward maintaining high quality. SamHB 22:34, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Jersey sales - why Kevin Durant doesn't sell

Okay - we're beyond which player is better - I'm fine with number one or two - frankly as I said I think Durant has a good chance at a championship this year - the Heat don't look as good as they did last year. All I'm going to say is that I think you need to consider market as a reason why jersey sales don't necessarily reflect top talent. I'm not saying it explains everything but it's worth taking a look at - because while fans can be from anywhere, it's logical to assume that generally they'll trend towards where the team is from (I lived outside Washington, DC, and I know there are a lot more Redskins/Wizards fans than anything else there). Lebron James is going to be number one because he's won the last 4 MVPs and 2 NBA championships.

Jersey Rank Name City City Population Metro Population Championships MVPs
1 Lebron James Miami 413,892 5.56 million 2 4
2 Kobe Bryant Los Angeles 3.858 million 16.4 million 5 1
3 Derek Rose Chicago 2.7 million 9.5 million 0 1
4 Kevin Durant Oklahoma City 599,000 1.29 million 0 0

That's a HUGE disadvantage for Durant no matter how you look at it - only 1.29 million - that's almost 1/5 of Miami's metropolitan area; 1/15 of LA's. It also makes sense that the next on the list is Carmelo Anthony - who hasn't accomplished much but is the star player of New York City.--IDuan 17:31, 19 December 2013 (EST)

Really interesting

Great find on the algae article--IDuan 00:48, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Duck Dynasty

Someone with editing rights to the homosexual agenda article should add this latest manifestation to a section on examples.Daniel1212 20:31, 21 December 2013 (EST) I used to keep up with them somewhat, but now its like every few days. Daniel1212 06:27, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to the whole CP-Community.--JoeyJ 16:03, 24 December 2013 (EST)

One reason viewership was down

Perhaps viewership was down in part because none of those "overrated sports stars" were playing. Steve Nash was out with an injury (and rumor has it he is retiring), Kobe Bryant - who has played six or seven games all season after returning from an ACL tear - was out with an MCL tear. Even Steve Blake was out with a torn ulnar collateral ligament.--IDuan 22:29, 26 December 2013 (EST)

Injuries are part of the equation, not a separate consideration. Making excuses for Overrated Sports Stars by citing a new injury every few weeks is not persuasive. If Kobe Bryant is injury-prone now, then why did ABC pass over the durable (and better) Kevin Durant?--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 26 December 2013 (EST)
First of all - schedules are decided before the season starts not made on the fly. Christmas games aren't intended to be a math up of the best teams - no one makes the Christmas game schedule thinking "We'll have the number 1 vs number 2 teams". If that were the case - bearing in mind that schedules are decided before the season - why not have the Spurs likely played the Heat (given that they were the best teams from their conferences last year). Or if you're suggesting that Christmas games should be decided right before Christmas so the best teams play each other - Indiana, Portland and Oklahoma City all have the same record and are at the top of the NBA standings, so perhaps two of them should've played. Furthermore - as to Kobe Bryant - It's the first time in 15 seasons that he's missed a Christmas game - one injury does not make a player injury prone; they had no idea he would be injured again.
Last thing: no one says Kobe Bryant is better than Kevin Durant - Kobe Bryant is 35 years old. The reason people like the Bryant-James rivalry is the same reason we liked Jordan-Bryant when Jordan was on the Wizards. Kobe Bryant was much better than the 38 year old Michael Jordan, but it was the old guard vs the new guard.--IDuan 00:52, 27 December 2013 (EST)
The marquee Christmas NBA game is based on hype and expected audience -- that's the free market. Even though Kobe Bryant is nowhere near the best player in the NBA, he is overhyped as though he is. That's why he's in the Overrated Sports Stars. And Kobe Bryant was not better than Michael Jordan when Jordan played for the Wizards. If supercoach Phil Jackson were coaching the Wizards, Jordan would have won more titles there, too.--Andy Schlafly 10:47, 27 December 2013 (EST)
The stats show otherwise - Jordan as a 40 year old player was impressive, but he was not the best - at 39 he wasn't even voted into the All Star Game (Vince Carter yielded his spot to him). Also keep in mind Jordan never won without "supercoach" Phil Jackson - and his Wizards team missed the playoffs. I live outside DC you don't know as much about the Wizards as I do bud. They were a terrible team. Jordan had drafted Kwame Brown #1 overall - and he was the biggest bust in NBA history. But more to the point - because at this point you're lying to yourself so I'll make it clear - NO ONE HAS SAID KOBE BRYANT IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA FOR YEARS. Who hypes him up to be the best, Andy? Find me one source - this year OR last - that ranked NBA players and had Kobe #1. Or #2. Go ahead, make my day.
Just to show how full of it you are here: ESPN ranked Kobe Bryant the 25th best player this year [50] I think because you don't follow basketball - you imagine these headlines that scream "KOBE IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA HE WILL WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR" - and I'm sorry to break your heart, but they don't exist. No one said the Lakers would win this year. Some people thought they would compete last year when they had Dwight Howard, a young star, but that's it. You don't have an opponent - no one is saying what you're accusing them of saying. It's you vs your imagination.--IDuan 14:34, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Break in section to talk about real basketball headlines

Fun fact: ESPN ranked Kevin Durant #2 and Russell Westbrook #5 - so if there ever was a time for OKC to win a championship, it's now. They're off to a good start - they're tied for the second best record in the league. If they get a championship - it will be the first NBA achievement on Durant's resume - which will perhaps help him overcome his super small market to sell more jerseys. Also - in case anyone is wondering why the #25 player gets attention - the answer is three fold: one) he has won 5 championships and two) for a while - despite not frequently winning MVP - was regarded as the best player in the league (Steve Nash consistently won MVP for making the playoffs with the Suns, Nash had Amare Stoudemire, Kobe had Smush Parker. Those who know NBA will understand), three) he plays for the Los Angeles Lakers - perhaps the most storied franchise (despite not having as many championships as the Celtics).-IDuan 14:42, 27 December 2013 (EST)

You should be more gentile and respectful. When Andy is proven wrong in a 'forceful' manner, he tends to disappear. Guide him to water, but don't expect him to drink. AdamDZ 16:10, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Good news for pro life as China reforms its one child policy

[51]--JerryCa 22:55, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Thanks for the great news. I'll put on the main page.--Andy Schlafly 23:36, 27 December 2013 (EST)
I don't think they have abolished it completely but is certainly a step in the right direction and will significantly lower the abortion rate in China. Despite it being reformed for practical reasons, the cold fact that if it is not the number of people above working age would rise to over 20% in the medium term future rather than some higher moral calling by China, it is indeed good news--JerryCa 11:31, 28 December 2013 (EST)
Good points, Jerry. Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 28 December 2013 (EST)

Antarctic Expedition

Found several references to climate change concerning the Antarctic expedition after a couple minutes of research. Any chance the leading item on the main page could be deleted? --NormaN 19:58, 28 December 2013 (EST)

I looked at your citation to the USA Today article (your last link). Just as the main page says, it omits how the expedition that is stuck in ice was a global warming expedition. So the USA Today article reinforces the need for the main page headline.--Andy Schlafly 22:07, 28 December 2013 (EST)
So Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, is simply on a vacation cruise? Or is it somehow possible he is aboard a research ship and conducting actual climate change research.--NormaN 13:29, 29 December 2013 (EST)
What is your point? The Main page headline says it was a global warming expedition, but that the lamestream media are concealing that.--Andy Schlafly 13:44, 29 December 2013 (EST)
The CNN article clearly states the expedition is there to study climate change, the other two articles clearly mention Turney studies climate change. If you can’t see the obvious, I won’t bother to point it out.--NormaN 15:41, 29 December 2013 (EST)
CNN is a liberal news organization with an agenda, and they knew it was about global warming with the expedition stuck in the ice. The New York Times is also a liberal organization, and they're covering up for Obama and Hillary concerning Benghazi. The Denver Post is also a liberal organization, and they covered up the fact that the recent school shooter was a socialist. When the truth hurts, liberals cover it up, gloss it over, shut it down. If you can't see the obvious, that's too bad, but we will be pointing it out. Karajou 15:57, 29 December 2013 (EST)
In further reply to Norma, USA Today pointedly omits that the expedition was to study global warming. It does mention who Turney is, but in a way that a reader could easily conclude that the reference was for identification purposes only. If Turney were leading a global warming research expedition on this trip, then the reader could easily have expected the USA Today article to mention that. It does not.--Andy Schlafly 18:12, 29 December 2013 (EST)
Wow! I'm almost speechless. The story is about a ship stuck in the ice and the possible hardships of the crew. Yet Conservapedia wants to make it into a conspiracy about climate change. --NormaN 20:46, 29 December 2013 (EST)
Looks like you may have given up on the claim of "global warming." As to "climate change," climate has always been changing for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. We don't need professors to get themselves stuck in ice, and be rescued at enormous public expense, to tell us that climate always has and always will be changing.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 29 December 2013 (EST)
Since my earlier posts never mentioned ‘global warming’, I’m sort of wondering why you made this bogus claim. Actually I’m not; I know why you are twisting my words. I also know legitimate climate scientists realize the earth’s climate has changed throughout the eons and will continue to do so far into the future. The question is why you somehow doubt that they do. Can’t wait for you to complain about the enormous expenditure of tax-payer money to rescue lost hikers, auto accident victims, downed aviators, etc.--NormaN 10:48, 30 December 2013 (EST)
We doubt that they know what they're doing because it's always centered around a liberal agenda, and that agenda is faking data, inflating claims, and blaming man and his SUVs and hair spray cans for the increase in temperatures so they can get a massive increase in taxes. And one of the things that slipped by you was how could a ship - an icebreaker - full of the "exceptionally-intelligent" get stuck in a sheet of ice which grew where they were at when it should have retreated? What season is it down there at this time of the year? Or do you get your answers from Al Gore? Karajou 11:16, 30 December 2013 (EST)
Then this news bit comes out:[52] NormanN, why do you worship people as stupid - STUPID - as these bozos on this ship? Why? These people think the ice is melting, when it actually increased around them to the point where it's ten feet thick; rescuers on another ship cannot get closer to them than 18 miles. They whine and complain about fossil fuels causing global warming, but what do they do? They get on a ship powered by fossil fuel, get stuck in pack ice they say is melting, get sent rescuers who are also in fossil-fueled ships and aircraft, and they have the whole world laughing at them. This is pure, blatant, liberal stupidity in action for all the world to see, so that begs a bigger question: just what kind of an idiot do you have to be to follow such people? Karajou 15:15, 30 December 2013 (EST)
This entire conversation started when I pointed out a glaring error on the main page. Not only has this error yet to be acknowledged, the on-going posts are contributing nothing to my original concern. In fact the rhetoric is now becoming rather ridiculous. Now, to answer your questions. I don't know of any climate scientist, liberal or otherwise, who claim spray cans have contributed to climate change, or global warming as you call it. You may be thinking of ozone depletion. It is summer in the southern hemisphere. Ice flows with the currents in the polar regions, it is not unusual for a ship to be surrounded by ice and become trapped, this is what happened with the Russian ship. The Akademik Shokalskiy is not an ice-breaker. I get my answers from reputable sources. I don't understand how the Fox News article has any relevance to this discussion. I do not worship the people on the Akademik Shokalskiy, not a very smart observation on your part. Why use fossil fuels to explore the polar regions? Sail went out of vogue ages ago I suppose. As for being an idiot by following these researchers, you seem to be following their exploits rather closely, more so than me. Should people be asking 'what kind of an idiot' you are? Could we please get back to the original concern?--NormaN 16:50, 30 December 2013 (EST)

Beckham snubbed for knighthood.

[53]--JerryCa 15:02, 29 December 2013 (EST)

Great tip. You're fantastic at spotting good headlines!--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 29 December 2013 (EST)
The problem with using celebrity driven tabloids like the Daily Mail as a source is that they often manufacture controversy. Nobody was expecting Beckham to get anything. Beckham's sporting career is over: going to the US to play soccer is a kind of semi-retirement, like Formula One drivers going to the States to race. It's well paid, glamorous and undemanding. He's already been awarded an OBE which is as good as it gets for sportsmen. He is increasingly focusing on promoting British sport abroad and helping kids take up sport through his Football Academies. In time, he might achieve something significant but, right now, he's just getting started. To knight him now would be an embarrassment to everyone. One day, even if he doesn't reach Sebastian "London 2012" Coe's stature, he might get something for being the grand old man of football, who knows, but the humiliation is in a Daily Mail hack's imagination.
The proper source for news about honours like knighthoods is Rupert Murdoch's Times. If that's too liberal a source, the Daily Telegraph will do. If you want news about the Kardashians, then check the Daily Mail.Rafael 11:02, 31 December 2013 (EST)
As reported by The Daily Telegraph[54] and The Times [55]. Beckham was a good player but off the top of my head I can name at least five better England and Manchester United players who he played with. England: Shearer, Owen, Gazza, Gerrard and Scholes. United: Cantona, Giggs, Keane, Scholes and Van Nistelrooy, and that is not counting players in less glamorous defensive roles who can't be directly compared such as Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Gary Neville and Peter Schmeichel. Of the British players mentioned the only one even suggested for a knighthood is Ryan Giggs who was/is a far better player than Beckham.--JerryCa 15:07, 31 December 2013 (EST)

"The liberal media use this tragedy to try to embarrass the socially conservative Putin..."

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The cited story is pretty straightforward reporting and doesn't go out of its way to embarrass anyone. Are you arguing that simply by reporting a terrorist attack, the media is taking a shot at Putin? Would you not find it odd if a suicide bomber set off a bomb at Grand Central Station and the Guardian did not report on the incident? EddyJ 11:18, 30 December 2013 (EST)

Putin is leading the fight against the globalist gay agenda. The liberal media will therefore pounce on anything they can use to make Putin look bad, especially with the Olympics approaching. The cited story is an example of this. --RonnyR 12:25, 30 December 2013 (EST)
The cited story is an example of reporting on a major terrorist attack in a prominent country that's been involved in a secessionist conflict that goes back well over a decade. Do you seriously think a terrorist bombing (now 2, actually) shouldn't be reported on? EddyJ 14:02, 30 December 2013 (EST)

Having one's account blocked for using one's real name

I have recently noticed quite a number of incidents of blocking accounts over the "user name policy", when the name given appears to be completely legitimate. Most new accounts, of course, are garbage. Most of those have numbers in them, which is apparently a tip-off that they are spam. Many others have obviously unfriendly names. But a few seem quite legit. In particular, two very recent ones are KarenLampman and EricaBurdge. I've never known anyone with the surname Burdge, but I have personally known someone named Lampman. The account creation page does not say that user names must be the given name followed by the initial. (By the way, "SamB" was already taken, which is why I put in the "H".)

You may not think that being told that your name is unacceptable and you need to create a new account is a decent way to treat people, but you are wrong. Think about it. These people come here in good faith, give their full name, see no policy against it, and are rebuffed. Even a minor rebuff like the ones you give are, in my opinion, enough to send people away. They'll never come back. Is this the way you want to treat newcomers? SamHB 00:30, 2 January 2014 (EST)

Before we answer that question, SamHB, please explain just how the two individuals you mentioned are allowed - in good faith - to break into data servers again and again for the purpose of planting spam pages - in good faith - on this website, while using what you think - in good faith - is their actual bona-fide first and last names. Please go right ahead and answer...I would love to read the latest explanation that excuses their behavior. Karajou 01:42, 2 January 2014 (EST)
Perfectly fair argument, Karajou, but why not list it as the reason for the block and save the confusion? --DHouser 10:06, 2 January 2014 (EST)
Spam is good enough for a reason. And when we do make a block, we have already looked at the background...right, Horace? Karajou 11:21, 2 January 2014 (EST)

Horace is still obsessed with CP due to my atheism and evolution articles? You know what they say, don't you? The bitten dog yelps the loudest! Conservative

Every user from Australia is not Horace... CScotson 15:37, 3 January 2014 (EST)
And why would you mention Australia? Karajou 16:19, 3 January 2014 (EST)
Because I have attempted to use this website from Australia before and have been blocked immediately by Cons. for being a sock of Horace. Apologies for my poor phrasing in my first comment. CScotson 15:05, 4 January 2014 (EST)

Capital Punishment, leftist style

Anti aircraft machine guns and a pack of starving dogs. Caution: Graphic content. [56]--JerryCa 10:50, 3 January 2014 (EST)

The problem with using a celebrity driven tabloid like the Daily Mail as a news source is that it puts sensationalism over substance. A little analysis goes a long way...[57]Rafael 16:49, 3 January 2014 (EST)
Another example of liberal denial by the Washington Post? It wouldn't be the first time. The Washington Post also pretends that Fidel Castro is still alive, despite his disappearing with terminal cancer in a hospital more than seven years ago. [58]--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 3 January 2014 (EST)
That's okay, Andy, the Mail thinks Castro is alive too. What media outlets/Cuba experts/analysts/commentators aren't working to perpetuate the hoax? EddyJ 18:43, 3 January 2014 (EST)
If Fidel Castro miraculously survived terminal cancer after disappearing in a Cuban hospital 7 years ago, then why haven't the liberal media called for a meeting between Obama and Fidel???--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 3 January 2014 (EST)
So the answer is "just me," then. Thanks! EddyJ 19:34, 3 January 2014 (EST)

Three Kings Day?

Isn't that a somewhat liberal phrasing that shifts the emphasis away from Christ and on to the worldly? What's wrong with Epiphany, with its connotations of revelation and transcendence? Rafael 14:41, 3 January 2014 (EST)

"Epiphany" is what the holiday is usually called, according to various dictionaries. Historically, epiphanies of various kinds have been celebrated on this date. It was originally a holiday to celebrate the baptism by John. Jan. 6 was solstice on the Egyptian calendar, equivalent to Dec. 25 on the Roman calendar. The Bible doesn't say in any direct way that the magi were kings; It's really a bit of overinterpretation. PeterKa 22:56, 3 January 2014 (EST)
Excellent comments. I've changed it as suggested.--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 3 January 2014 (EST)