Talk:Main Page/Archive index/176

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

Archive Index

The horror of a non-unique position

"Man in critical condition after hearing slightly differing viewpoint" (April 11, 2019). Babylon Bee (h/t Mike S. Adams)[2]

GLENDALE, CA—A man was rushed to the hospital yesterday after encountering a slightly different viewpoint than his own Wednesday.

Shortly before 12:30 p.m., Glendale PD officers responded to a 911 call at the Java Lounge Coffee House in the 900 block of North Emerson Road. They found a person who had collapsed in shock and went to the station for help. Witnesses say the man was having a casual conversation about politics with another patron when the minutely opposing viewpoint was expressed.

"They were both Democrats, Bernie supporters," said Janice Hughson, a barista at the Java Lounge. "Then the guy he was talking to said he had some issues with abortion and thinks there should at least be a few limitations put on the practice. That's when the man seized up and began foaming at the mouth. It was terrible."

Four other bystanders were also emotionally injured by the moderately divergent opinion but were not hospitalized.

The man is being kept stable on ideology support at St. Francis medical center, surrounded by friends and family who agree with him 100% on every single issue.

The man who suggested the slightly differing opinion fled the scene. Anyone with information is asked to alert the authorities.

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:08, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

I hope they had conservative anti-venom at the hospital. :)

I forgot how much I love the Babylon Bee.Conservative (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

I was listening to a high performance coach and he said the reason why there are so many SJWs/snowflakes is because they lack confidence. Their ideology is one that weak excuse makers adopt.Conservative (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

I don't call them SJWs anymore but SPFs: Slacker Party Freaks. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:16, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

I like class warriors. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:33, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

The hospital had better be careful. Chances are, the victim will tell his friends and family what upset him. If they are in 100% agreement as this story says, the hospital is likely to have a whole room chock full of melting snowflakes. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 21:55, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

This one's good, and it's right in line with what Denis Prager wrote about here. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:08, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

Scientist claims speed of light (c) changing

She will test the theory, but, if it's true, how can the equation E=mc² be true?

You are repeating what you saw in the Daily Star??? Seriously? She's going to test her new theory that the speed of light is changing? And no one in the "legitimate" scientific community has picked up on this? And she's going to "put an atomic clock in the International Space Station to 'verify' her theory"? Are you aware that all experiments on spacecraft are well documented and well thought out? Have you found the description of this experiment on the NASA web site?

And she is using data from fossils as her source of wisdom? And she thinks her discovery might lead to Star-Trek-style "warp speed"? Have you checked her quantitative data on the observed change in the speed of light? And seen where it fits into the graphs in the C decay article? (Disclaimer: mostly written by "expert/shill" SamHB.)

Have you checked her "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=mc² can't be true? SamHB (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

I stand corrected, and I apologize. The ACES (Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space) project is a real thing, planned for launch in 2020. But I seriously doubt the claims of the Daily Star article, about fossils, and time travel, and the possibility of overthrowing E=mc². SamHB (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

The title of this section is the first bona fide troll I've ever placed on Conservapedia, and minutes ago I revisited the section to guiltily remove it. The scientist in question didn't "admit" the speed of light is changing, she just said that she believes it to be true. There is a non-standard sense of "admit" that means "allow as plausible" but it's contrary to common usage. But the way your response captured you in perfect snobbishness makes me want to try to repeat it somehow now, in spite of myself. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 03:46, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

OK, I've changed it. The usage struck me as odd when I first saw it. The word "admit" has two common meanings: confess to some kind of personal shortcoming (anything from having overstated one's case in a casual conversation to having committed murder), or "allow for the possibility of". The second meaning is less common, but is clearly what you wanted. To avoid misleading the reader, I've changed it to "claim".

If not, "expert/shill" SamHB is proven wrong, and "Best of the Public" Andy Schlafly is right! It's too bad SamHB has always seemed to be a sycophant/toady to relativity scientists. Because he may be about to slip on his own banana peels that he placed on the floor that would impress them. That is to say, by making it harder for those who believe in the Genesis creation story to spread the gospel after seeing his poor soul desperately try to extract a contradiction where none exists. And likewise assuming he has a sincere objection rather than him conveniently setting up an obstacle course where bible thinkers would waste time and upon which they would be at risk to slip on the nearby peels and fall down. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 17:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

NASA scientist claims time travel is POSSIBLE because ‘speed of light is changing’.

Barry Setterfield vindicated? :)Conservative (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Not likely. Setterfield is widely ridiculed even within the creationist community. See the article C decay. He postulates two different time scales, "atomic time" and "dynamical time" in order to account for the inconsistencies in his theory. His graph of C decay has been miraculously fudged in such a way as to (just barely) skirt the error bounds as measurements got more precise through the 20^th century. And he still can't stay within the error bounds.

I am constantly amused by the intellectual contortions that creationists go through ("time dilation field", for example) in order to make their young-Earth cosmology seem to fit in with plain observations and plain common sense. SamHB (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, two points: 1) Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

Right. You can't demonstrate macroevolution in 40 years. I thought we all knew that. SamHB (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

2) Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."Conservative (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Right. If you posit that "special creation" can precisely mimic evolution, then you can't tell the difference, can you? SamHB (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Precisely mimic? Macroevolution is impossible! Abiogenesis alone is impossible and that is merely the first step of the whole proposed scheme (See footnote #2 of THIS ARTICLE).Conservative (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Right. (I'm being ironic here; you are actually wrong.) Please don't bore me with more stupid creationism garbage. In particular, I'm sure you know by now that I never read or look at (1) creationist YouTube videos (YouTube? Are you serious? You actually consider Youtube videos to be a source of wisdom?), (2) creationist websites, or religious websites attempting to make scientific statements in clear contradiction of widely known scientific facts, or (3) your very prolific writing on your pet topics, which involve all sorts of interconnected links from one of your pages to another and back again. SamHB (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Vargas, your writing style has almost always left me utterly baffled. I can't figure out what you are trying to say. It makes me wonder whether you are simply trying to outdo your "withering patrician disdain" comment and ascend to new heights of making no sense. Banana peels? What? And I don't try to make "bible thinkers [...] waste time and be at risk to slip on the nearby peels". I don't consider "bible thinkers", or any other specific group, to be my main audience. I'm not trying to make anyone slip on any metaphorical banana peels. And being called an "expert/shill", by you, doesn't bother me. I'm puzzled at being called a "sycophant/toady" toward essentially every high school or college physics textbook written since 1950 or so. I don't see how one can be a "toady" toward a book. SamHB (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Yet, you have repeated the phrase "withering patrician disdain" on nine? different occasions, even after I explained I had only copied the phrase rather than had custom-designed it to describe your introduction of a set of ideas you had formed about the moon. Don't you remember? You seemed disappointed that I had copied it from one of Conservative's quotations and dismissed it as his type of "garbage"! Please SamHB—end it. The person the phrase was being used for was being a bit pedantic, and then I saw you being a bit pedantic. The overly-precise description didn't even fit the style of argument of the person it was originally aimed at very well, much less yours. It goes no deeper than that. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 03:31, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

OK, I admit I've overused that phrase. I won't use it anymore. There are others, like "SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted" and "He (SamHB) seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable.... Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind".

Perhaps you could do with a little less florid prose about me personally, and be willing to discuss relativity in a sensible manner, one that doesn't set off my "sycophant/toady" alarm. You seem to read books and stuff, and that's good. SamHB (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Those last two phrases belonged the same long quotation of what someone else said that contained the "withering patrician disdain" phrase. You can't count that quotation three times! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:10, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

I didn't say I was citing phrases from 3 edits; just 3 phrases. From 2 edits. I'll make a deal with you: If you try to write in straightforward plain English, without all the florid phrases, I'll stop throwing your phrases back at you. OK? SamHB (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

This scientist's new physical theory would vindicate Andy's critique of E = mc² in which he asked whether if c changed it would follow that energy all throughout the universe would change as well—For example (this is my example) the mass defect in molecules would change and increase or decrease the binding energy that holds the molecules together. And if it didn't, how could we say that the equation E = mc² is true?

I thought I had adequately debunked, above, "this scientist's new physical theory", the one from the Daily Star and nowhere else, the one that involves looking at fossils. making a laughable claim of putting an experiment on the International Space Station, and something about the moon.

I had asked whether you had seen "this scientist's" "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=mc² can't be true? I guess what you wrote above, involving binding energy and mass defect, is your own "proof" of that. Fair enough.

Now I assume you've read the actual proof, the one overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. (If you haven't, go to Essay:Rebuttal_to_Attempts_to_prove_E=mc² and look around.) What the equation says is basically that "energy (E), right now, is equal to c-squared, right now, times mass (m), right now." What you refer to above as "mass defect" and "binding energy" is the same thing. So if the speed of light changed from one era to the next, either energy or mass would have to change. We have these fundamental laws called "conservation of mass" and "conservation of energy". So "this scientist" (Louise Riofrio, by the way) is saying that one or both of these principles must not hold. And she uses fossils, and publicly available data about laser reflections from the moon, to validate this? SamHB (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

And consequently, assuming that change in the speed of light, since a constant speed of light is what Einstein presupposed in his 1905 paper about relativity, removing that principle would cause the rational basis of Einstein's relativity rehash to topple and fall.

For the record, despite all that, I doubt that Andy would adopt this scientist's theory, because she bases the change in the speed of light on her supposition that the moon is 4-5 billion years old, and therefore, it ought to be further out unless that speed of light had changed over the eons. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:25, 16 May 2019 (EDT) VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:15, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Actually, Andy seems to have accepted worse crackpot theories than this one. See item 46 in Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity. And I find it amusing whenever creationists have to back off of something because it involves time scales of more than 6000 years. SamHB (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

You should vape that. The ambiguity of my claims would quickly reduce SamHB to apoplexy as would his being called a sycophant/toady. How did you figure it out? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:32, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Don't bother vaping it. I would just put it back. SamHB (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Via a couple of search engine queries.Conservative (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, re: you refusing to look at evidence presented at creationist websites

SamHB, re: you refusing to look at evidence/arguments presented at creationist websites: See: Genetic fallacy. If you insist on being illogical, I cannot be of assistance to you.Conservative (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Right. I think I can endure living without your assistance in this matter. SamHB (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

History is the new intellectual battlefield

Just wanted to ask, what are we doing to defend history? More importantly, to advance it and restore it? Anybody have ideas? Progressingamerica (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Your question is ambiguous; are you referring to defending historical values and traditions, or defending old, sometimes discredited historical. narratives? Each generation has to discover history for itself. For example, in 2003 the United States went to war to build nation states in Iraq amd Afghanistan, i.e. instill a sense of "nationalism" in what we called "Iraqis" and "Afghanis," whose primary loyalties were to tribes and/or religion. Today, "nationalism" is a dirty word, loyalty to a religion (e.g. Satanism, Islam, etc.) is okay so long as it's not Christianity, and tribal identity politics are sacred. So what exactly do you mean by "defend history"? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:51, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

I left it ambiguous on purpose to get some thoughts, but my point is that if "each generation has to discover history for itself", how can we change this problem and overcome it, or in the least minimize it? Hopefully to reverse it. Our enemies aren't sitting back waiting for "each generation to discover history for itself". Progressingamerica (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Education. Strip out the cultural Marxism, and teach history as a search for economic improvements. Sure, Columbus discovered America to enslave Blacks, exterminate Indians, and rape the planet, and Ford invented the automobile to produce carbon emissions and kill us all, but had Europeans remained at home in Europe they probably wouldn't be overrun by Islam right now, and if Ford didn't invent the automobile, we wouldn't be living suburbs and driving to work. Economic improvements bring trade-offs, not perfect solutions. When artificial intelligence takes over, we won't need people anymore. And without people, we won't need artificial intelligence to determine when to launch a nuke. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:32, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Another good example is U.S. Defense spending. In the old days of the Cold War, we gave weapons to whoever shared our values of peace, love, freedom, democracy,etc.. Since the Clinton administration and Clinton Foundation, we sell weapons to whoever is willing to pay bribes to corrupt politicians. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:58, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

This will come across contentious and for that I apologize, but those all sound like policy ideas. In other words, those are "something someone else can do" kinds of things. I was thinking a little closer to home. What can we do. Not what can they do. The idea that I came up with, and this was some time ago, was that of recording audiobooks and bringing things that progressives don't want to be seen back into the disinfecting sunlight. Is it a requirement conservatives must either be running some sort of blog/vlog, on talk radio or on TV?

No, it is not. Non-commercial open source/public domain audiobooks are a valid form of conservative media. It's been neglected for far too long to be honest. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

If we did that, immature hecklers would use the recordings of our voices and reattach them in ways that would make it seem as if were saying non-conservative things, or supporting our conservative arguments with foolish reasonings. No thank you. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Confirmation bias is built into the battlefield of historical reasoning. If, for example, you believe 2 + 2 = 4, then you're going to look for the evidence that supports 2 + 2 = 4. Or if you believe negroes have smaller brains, than you're going to look for the evidence to support that thesis. Or if you believe God created the heaven and the earth, than you'll find evidence to support God created all creation. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:05, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

There was a French philosopher who once said that it doesn't matter what kind of history students learn, so long as they all learn the same thing. I think there is a lot of truth to that. The left is constantly changing what kind of history gets taught, undermining the point of the subject. "Hey hey, ho ho. Western Civ has got to go," as Jesse Jackson put it. PeterKa (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden the tongue tied

Is Biden ready for eight more years in public office? Not if this amazing video is any indication: "Old Man Joe: Biden Slurs his way through First Speech as Presidential Candidate." Hey Sanders! It looks like the Democratic Party is all yours. PeterKa (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Trump sounds like English is his second language. JohnSelway (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Did you see the video? Biden's problem is clearly worse than Trump's. The media has been telling us for years that Trump's brain is barely functional. What does that say about Biden? PeterKa (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Excredible. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 09:22, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Hey I don't like Biden either but at least most of what he says is understandable. Trump seems to only know a few words - terrific, beautiful, big, Obama, wall and 'big league'. JohnSelway (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Trump is actually extremely understandable/good at communicating with voters -- he connects with voters in a way that career politicians like Biden don't, and that's something that even his critics (the ones beside Jennifer Rubin and Max Booth!) admit. Watch a Trump rally and see for yourself. But Cons is right -- it's public policy that matters, and Trump is spot-on in that regard (see Donald Trump achievements). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

I don't care how understandable Biden is. What he advocates is wrongheaded. He was for the weak trade deals which shipped jobs overseas. He was for the Iraq War. He was for the stimulus plan boondoggle which failed. He is for cap and trade. He is for student loan forgiveness, etc. etc. Biden's presidency would be a drag on the USA economy.Conservative (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Trump's rallies are going to be bigger than Biden's. Trump wouldn't have big rallies if he wasn't a good communicator. And Trump strives to keep his promises. The reason many people ignore politicians is that they don't keep their empty promises.Conservative (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Slacker Party Freaks

This is my new name for SJWs. There are many like it, but this one is mine. I don't think Hillary is a SJW or SPF, but to attract them, it benefits her to act like one.

Scott Lively studied the juggling of terminology and categories with regard to homosexual activists, and he came up with a great insight, almost as good as ShockofGod's question for atheists. After hearing some speech or some person described as "homophobic" by a homosexual activist and self-appointed mental health expert, he encouraged his internet audience to try and ask these activists, "what are some of the non-homophobic arguments or persons opposed to the practice and sanctioning of homosexuality?"

This line of thinking can also be applied to Hillary's response to the New Zealand atrocity.

She wrote: "My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms."

White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.

Clinton used to sign her tweets in an initialized form when she actually wrote them rather than her staff, but that notice no longer appears on her Twitter page, so the authorship status of her tweets is not now clear.

You may notice first that the tweet isn't even grammatically correct. "fight the (A and B) of (C and D) in all ITS forms."

"...Fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia..." Yes, now Secretary Clinton is a self-proclaimed mental health expert who can diagnose phobias, which in reality are well-defined syndromes, but just think how helpful she could have been through the ages had she applied her unique talents to contemporary political discourse:

"King Louis XVI needs to put a stop to his Republica-phobic failure to enthusiastically embrace the beheading element of his nation's new Revolutionary regime..."

"The American colonists need to drop their objections to taxation without representation and own up to their Britainophobic prejudices against Tyranny."

Like the examples, Secretary Clinton isn't on point to consider any non-Islamophobic opposition to Islam; in fact, she isn't even on point to consider any non-Islamophobic fear of Islam.

So when the expected happens, Islamists escalating the violence of the atrocity with their own atrocities against innocent Sri Lankan Christians, innocent unlike the ChristChurch mosque community discovered to have had ties to terrorism, Secretary Clinton leaves out the unforced conclusion that it is an expected response:

On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.

But Secretary Clinton? Didn't you just days ago call the fear, namely of the expectation of more Islamic violence, this very day taking the form of just such escalated, retaliatory violence, a mental disease?

It's worse than you imagined: Not only is the opposition to Islam non-phobic (reality based), but even if it is phobic, it's completely understandable on the basis of this day's Islamic action! It's not a perpetuation or normalization of a phobia, it's a perpetuation or normalization of violent action! Don't you think you owe those prescient enough to expect future Islamic violence at that time an apology today for calling them phobics?

But she can't reconcile her diagnosis of Islam's opponents as phobic with Islam's terroristic behavior, by definition fear-inspiring, especially in the context of politicians like her ignoring or refusing to do anything about the problem. She needs to be seen as an unapologetic slacker. So she won't bother. She thinks understandable fear of Islam, phobic or not, is more dangerous than a pattern of murderous attacks, a pattern outscaling white supremacist terrorism, that she doesn't refuse to call out, by a factor of hundreds. She won't change because she needs to be seen as a politically fixed-prejudiced freak. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:52, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

My estimation, Hillary has a fan base of radical feminist women over 50 who vote Democrat, less than 8% of the population at best. The rest are MSM journalists and a few under 50 feminists or loyal liberals just humoring her. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Millennials, Blacks, and Republicans have either lost patience with her or hate her guts. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Secretary Clinton is patient zero of my self-defined SPF syndrome, but just a carrier, that is, and not among the infected. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 03:32, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Why Hillary Clinton is hated by her former friends/allies. After General Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg, he said, "It's all my fault". Hillary is such a narcissist she essentially said, "It was mostly other people's fault". In short, excuseitus and blaming other people. She isn't a great leader. Great leaders take responsibility.

At its heart, SJWism is an excuse for underachievement. Hillary's vain excuse making partly involved SJWism (America wasn't willing to elect a woman she said), but it was mostly a reflection of liberal, baby boomer narcissism.Conservative (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton also suffered from complacency and a feeling of entitlement. Donald Trump outworked her and outsmarted her.Conservative (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

When will the SJW fad end?Conservative (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton is a homosexual. The gay rights movement became a federal issue during the Clinton administration, when the Clinton's married the gay pride movement to the Black civil rights movement. The monster she created bite her in the butt when a gay couple, the Obama's, stole her birthright and nomination from her in 2008. Now it's passed to the second generation of gay activists who want to be the second gay couple to occupy the White House. Hillary's all about ego now. She doesn't know when to quit while she's ahead, and feels she's been cheated. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:08, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

(You yourself just married "doesn't know when to quit" to "quit while she's ahead". Very smooth way to echo your point with a motif, sir—very smooth way. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 17:10, 30 April 2019 (EDT))

---

Jews and U.S. politics

Trump is the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. Meanwhile, the Dems proudly proclaim their support for the openly anti-Semitic Ilhan Omar. Yet U.S. Jews remain as Democrat as ever. Here is the Jerusalem Post: "US Jews contribute half of all donations to the Democratic Party." PeterKa (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Even after Trump hired a Jewish lawyer. I made an appointment with a Jewish firm, and when I arrived a lawyer walked up to me and said "Andrew D. Goldstein, former U.S. district court prosecutor, attorney-at-law!" As I clasped his hand I recognized him from Mueller's prosecution team and began to scream. He just clenched my hand tighter and gave me a wicked smile. Then mercifully, I suddenly started straight up and awoke in a cold sweat. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:51, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Congress's arrest powers

Inherent contempt was the subject of a recent (March 25) Congressional Research Report. Inherent contempt was used in the Tea Pot Dome scandal, and threatened to be used by Sen. Sam Ervin against Alexander Butterfield in the Watergate hearings (Butterfield maintained Nixon's tape recording system, eventually complied with the subpoena and revealed the existence of the Nixon tapes). The report says,

The House or Senate may also seek to utilize the inherent contempt power to enforce compliance with congressional subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. As noted, the Supreme Court has confirmed the existence of each house’s independent and unilateral authority to arrest and detain individuals in order to compel compliance with a subpoena.252 If either the House or Senate was to revive the inherent contempt power, the chamber may consider establishing specific procedures to be followed in its exercise. Such procedures could govern consideration of an inherent contempt resolution and actions of the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as the process by which the House or Senate would conduct the “trial.”253 These procedures could be established by a one-house resolution or—if both the House and Senate seek to use uniform procedures—by concurrent resolution or by statute. Although rare, the inherent contempt has been used to detain executive branch officials, including for non-compliance with a congressional subpoena.... pg. 33

As I understand it, a court ruling says Congress can't use Inherent contempt in a fishing expedition, but does have the right to arrest and try an individual for obstructing Congress's primary function of legislating (I think that's how it's interpreted). Anyways, it looks like we're set up for the remainder of this term for a series of court battles over Congresses reviving it's powers of subpoena and arrest. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:19, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Congress's inherent arrest power could not extend beyond its Capitol Hill grounds, and probably not there either simply for defying a subpoena.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

The House dusted off inherent contempt to use against Treasury officials who refused to give up Trump's tax returns,etc. Looks like Nadler just fast-forwarded the strategy to use against Barr. Barr (and all cabinet secretaries) are compelled to testify every 30 days to the Senate. The CRS report is probably worth reading - it's a roadmap for some of the upcoming legal issues. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

In 2012, the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over documents related to Fast and Furious. The Dems didn't even brother to justify withholding these documents. They simply bashed the vote as "a transparently political stunt" (Pfeiffer) and "a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people" (Holder).[3] This wasn't "inherent contempt," so the sergeant-at-arms wasn't involved. The FBI was supposed to arrest Holder. If Nadler goes ahead with his scheme, Trump can dust off this old warrant and arrest Holder. Make the House vote to release this corrupt doofus or cancel his old citation. Holder is a poster boy for corruption in the Obama administration. He was attorney general during the banking bailout, arrested nobody, and then took a cushy job in the financial industry. PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

It would be refreshing if Trump talked about arresting liberal officials in response to their talk about arresting his advisers.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Point of fact: the money the government used to bail out the banks was, taken together, paid back in full. Except for one company, the crisis seemed to be a crisis of confidence among clients rather than real incompetence in lending practices. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 01:19, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Legitimate legislative purpose

To win in court, Nadler and House Democrats have to argue that the subpoenas of Barr and for Trump's tax returns are related to some pending legislation. Ultimately, it's likely to fail. But this will be the political theater in coming months - that Trump is defying Congress and therefore needs to be impeached, etc. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:36, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

IOWs, Congressional arrest powers must serve a "legislative purpose," as Asst. Attorney General Stephan Boyd relates here. This is the language used in the Supreme Court ruling cited in the CRS report linked above. Oversight is differentiated from "legislative purposes." RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:45, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Why Nadler will loose in court: the subpoena of Barr does not serve "legitimate legislative activities". RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:48, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Again, Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump tax returns because the request lacks a "legitimate legislative purpose." RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:43, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Another CRS report released today contains this language outlining some of the pitfalls facing Congress:

the provision can probably be viewed as a statutory delegation of Congress’ investigative and oversight powers to the tax committees, exercise of the authority granted by Section 6103(f) arguably is subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’use of other compulsory investigative tools. Notably, the inquiry must further a “legislative purpose” and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.

Its followed by a discussion on Legislative Purpose. The report is only six pages. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:03, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Black holes redux

I have to admit that I found the pictures of the woman who proudly displayed the first photographs that she took of what was presented as a black hole were just adorable.

But to me there are still some unanswered questions.

In Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, one of the chapters is entitled "Black holes ain't so black!", where he declares that black holes (this was back when he said they exist, not later when he said they didn't exist) were surrounded by what came to be called Hawking radiation. So why isn't the photographed black hole surrounded by Hawking radiation rather than appearing black?

It's good that you have read the Hawking book. A few other books I can recommend that give good layman's-level explanations of these topics are

• The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
• The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene
• The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
• Welcome to the Universe by Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Astrophysics for People in a Hurry by Neil deGrasse Tyson

The reason the "black hole" appears black is that the Hawking radiation is incredibly faint. You touched on that below.

Secondly, even if so, why are the hot gases surrounding the black hole only seen in two dimensions? If you have a two-dimensional vortex like in a pool drain, the water doesn't get sucked into it along a single one-dimensional line in front of it and behind it. So why should a three-dimensional vortex only swallow in matter and energy along a two-dimensional plane? I understand that there is two-dimensional motion in the case with Jupiter, where its rings fall along a plane. But the black hole vortex looks more turbulent than one would think the gravity well of Jupiter would be. So how did there get be what looks like a compromise between the two, and why isn't it unstable? It seems more likely that the matter and energy are either along a plane or they aren't because deviation from the plane would seem to quickly introduce turbulence that would quickly spread out the matter and energy away from one plane. But we don't see that.

The reason the image is in only two dimensions is that that's how pictures work. We take two-dimensional pictures of things. Claude Monet's hastacks were three-dimensional, but his paintings were two-dimensional. And your reference to the accretion disks and polar jets are pesumably inspired by the dozens of "artists impressions" of spinning black holes and vortices that one sees in the popular press. The recent image of the M87 black hole shows nowhere near enough detail. All it shows is that there is a central region that appears black.

Thirdly, if the existence of black holes is based on science, and we think they exist, and then suddenly we think they don't; and one time we think they're black, and then we think they're surrounded by light; and then one time we think there's an event horizon where matter never escapes, and then we think there's an apparent horizon where matter can escape, how is this called science, which means highly-supported knowledge, when the interpretations keep changing?

I don't think anyone said they don't exist, after the discovery of Cygnus X1 some time ago. The idea that the "don't exist" comes from the more recent (but still some time ago) theory that they aren't completely black, because of Hawhing radiation. But this is just a childishly rigid interpretation of language. I have a pair of "black" shoes that aren't completely black. People use "black" to refer to a color, characterized by nearly no reflection or radiation. People accept a significant amount of leeway in the way they use language. As another example, the active substance in a "lead pencil", or a replacement "lead" for a mechanical pencil, isn't lead. It's a clay/graphite mixture. Everyone accepts that imprecise language. It's the same with black holes. When people say (as they have been saying for over 200 years) that "no light can escape" they weren't saying that no advance in quantum mechanics could ever allow for a single photon ever to appear to be coming out of a black hole.

No, this announcement that conditions weren't right for black holes to exist in the universe came long after the published ideas about Hawking radiation came out, I think sometime in the last 15 years. Hawking himself agreed, so it's not something you'd forget. And after that came the business of the "apparent horizon", and though the discussions came close together in time, I don't know if the two declarative descriptions were connected. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 23:55, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly linked to it further up on the page:

Stephen Hawking: "There Are No Black Holes. [4]

Yes, I've read the Scientific American article. It's actually been up there for quite some time. It's too bad that Andy seems to take that as evidence that the entities commonly called black holes simply do not exist, or, more broadly, that relativity is wrong. Please don't fall into that trap. It's unfortunate that things that seem to have been written to be provocative (the introductory paragraph even says "would probably be dismissed as cranks") are sometimes latched onto as precisely serious and correct.

The phenomenon of the "firewall" and the "apparent horizon" refer to quantum mechanical effects at a distance of the Planck length (10^-35 meters) above the "classical" Einstein/Schwarzschild radius. This is extremely tiny. But we already know that the conflict between gravity and quantum mechanics occurs over a distance of the Planck length. At anything resembling normal distances, there is no conflict, and General Relativity is correct.

I suggest that you read that article again, very carefully. Ask yourself a few questions: What is the difference between black holes not existing because relativity is wrong and "conditions [not being] right for black holes to exist in the universe"? Where did you get that latter statement? It isn't cited. Are you using language in a less-than-fanatically-rigid way? That's fine, but you need to think about where you are going when you do that. And, most importantly, if black holes can't, or don't, exist, why have Stephen Hawking and many others been doing so much research on the subject? What is the thing that the "firewall" surrounds? What are the "event horizon" and "apparent horizon" if neither one of them exists?

If you approached a black hole to within a few times the Planck length, what you would see is what Einstein and Schwarzschild predicted long ago. SamHB (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

John Selway said it was due to change of opinion. But isn't opinion the opposite of science: weakly-supported knowledge versus highly-supported knowledge? Someone might answer, they're disputed questions. But if so, why do we have to respect the answer to these questions as if they were settled science? And how are we to know whether they are settled or disputed? Obviously the prestige of Stephen Hawking and other famous 20th to 21st-century scientists isn't sufficient to determine the question. The climategate scandal, among others, which continues to this very day, show scientists have political or theological interests which cause them to selectively promote or conceal different ideas according to their convenience in pursuing those interests. Which goes to show that often what is presented as science is really just speculation and not honest speculation at that. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 01:10, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Perhaps "opinion" wasn't a good way to put it. In any case, what John Selway wrote, for better or worse, doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of these things. If you believe that people are changing their "opinions" and that that refutes science, you're welcome to hold that view. But most people take a more flexible and nuanced view of how language works, and how science works. SamHB (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

That discussion of the "pictured" black hole's size further up on this page helped answer one of my questions. Hawking says:

[A] black hole ought to emit particles and radiation as if it were a hot body with temperature that depends only on the black hole's mass: the higher the mass, the lower the temperature. (p. 105)

So evidently high mass = low glow. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 07:48, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Yes. Just a rough guess would be that it's like 10^-33 (for Planck's constant in reasonable units) times 10^-10 (for size of the M87 black hole relative to the Sun) times 10^-30 (for size of the Sun in reasonable units). Not being an expert in this, I could be way off, but it's still incredibly small. Observing a single photon or particle from Hawking radiation is a fairly futile exercise. It's completely theoretical at this time. (But remember that detecting gravitational waves was completely theoretical until recently.) SamHB (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Einstein's hangup on black holes

Einstein had his problems with a black hole, and he wrote this paper [5] in part to discount the idea of one. But he also helped to write this one [6] because he thought there was something wrong with his ideas of quantum mechanics, which to physicists mean entanglements between two bodies, which led to this 2013 paper [7] linking wormholes to black holes. I'm speculating here, but I believe that Einstein probably was concerned about the science fiction aspect of the subject rather than the science. You can "prove" a wormhole tunnel with a black hole at either end via physics, but to have such a thing out there in reality is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, the Einstein papers are there, and they are very interesting reads. Karajou (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

More bad news for militant atheists in 2019. 2019 will be the worst year in the history of atheism

Many Amish have large families and in 2012 the Amish were named the fastest growing faith group in the United States and the Amish population is projected to grow to 1 million people by 2050.[1] In the above picture, Amish residents are waving to President George W. Bush (Lancaster, Pa., August 2006)

The Amish population explosion and what it says about a more conservative future.[8] In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the Amish population is doubling every 20 years despite urban sprawl.[9] See also: Desecularization

Many Amish have large families and in 2012 the Amish were named the fastest growing faith group in the United States and the Amish population is projected to grow to 1 million people by 2050.[10]

Eric Kaufmann is entirely correct. Religious fundamentalism will grow in the Western World and world at large in the 21st century. See: Growth of religious fundamentalism

2019 will be the worst year in the history of atheism.Conservative (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Don't think they're not feeling it—each December the Atheist Yearbook listing their accomplishments just keeps getting smaller and smaller. And yet they still insist on using the "C.E." year nomenclature, like Atheist Yearbook, 2018 C.E. I mean why tempt fate by making everybody mad when you don't need to? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:06, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Appeal for justice

What is justice? In a human being, it is that equable temper from which all fitting actions flow. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:32, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Justice is raising the minimum wage so white privileged kids get pay raises and black kids get unemployed. That's an easy question that everybody knows the answer to. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:01, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

What about illegal aliens who get free medical care in emergency rooms, a driver's license, [aren't loyal citizens, don't cost the expense of OSHA training or equipment,] don't pay taxes and don't return their wages to the local economy? They can out-compete blacks and teens regardless of the minimum wage. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:00, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Or Congressional support for human trafficking and drug smuggling. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:17, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

What we need is a bit of the old Robert Mueller who runs sting operations against customers of sex-trafficking like Eliot Spitzer. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 21:21, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Looks like John Brennan, Sally Yates and John Carlin need to start looking over their shoulders for the SWAT team. And I wanna see Nellie Ohr's mugshot so we can upload it for her bio. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 08:46, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Article/Essay idea

Hey all - I read the Greatest Conservative movies essay yesterday and if gave me an idea. I play video games but the only ones I like and play are the ones that don't glorify violence (like the GTA series for example) and there are games out there that push a different message. I would like to create an essay detailing games with a more conservative theme because they do exist and some are quite popular. Would that be something of interest? JohnSelway (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Actually, something like that already exists. You can contribute to it, however. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Oh great - thanks! I'll add a few. JohnSelway (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

New chant for Elizabeth Warren student loan amnesty rally

[speaks through bullhorn] We didn't mean for the poor Obama economy to hit those most likely to have been undergoing liberal indoctrination...So thanks to the U.S. government...

All:
The more you squandered...the more you get.
Let's all pay off student debt!

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:42, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

In 1992, Paul Tsongas attacked Bill Clinton as "Pander Bear" and carried around a stuffed Panda bear to his primary rallies. It didn't work. Being anti-pander does not hit home in the Democratic party. Warren is trying to lock down the student vote (pity the poor students, torn between Warren and Buttigieg, student debt vs gay rights). RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:57, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Restraint of trade, and Facebook hides it

Leftists are making their move to criminalize conservatism according to ally to conservatives Paul Joseph Watson. Watson reported a news story that found a leftist group pressuring MasterCard to set up a board, the members of which would define political extremism and direct MasterCard in denying their services to them. This is a certain step towards restraint of trade, an action illegally applied to anyone but criminal enterprises; so with two jumps, the leftists think they can control and move the board leftwardly, and the leftist media can call organizations they are already falsely calling extreme, dangerous and in this way restrain the trade of conservatives and their allies as leverage to suppress conservatism and conservative voices.

Shortly afterwards, Watson's account was removed from Facebook as well as conservative Laura Loomer's and ally to conservatives Milo Yiannopoulos's as they simultaneously removed Louis Farrakhan's account, leftist media cynically labeling him right-wing as well to attempt to fool potential black supporters while smearing conservatives with Farrahkan's extremism, topping a series of abuses by social media that began against Watson's patron Infowars a few months ago.

The situation has degenerated to the point where it has managed to annoy our President, who has expressed it on Twitter, and whom I would imagine is not without sharing some of our own incredulity.

Let this be a lesson to trust Andy's judgment in the political realm—he foresaw Facebook's ill potential, which has now devolved the social media site into the petty tyranny in which we now see it to be sunk.

In the meantime I would advise you to keep an eye out for the restraint of trade issues so you are not blindsided by events into a shocked silence. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:39, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

We need articles on restraint of trade and Inherent contempt. It's better to be ahead of the curve rather than always playing catch-up. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:43, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

White nationalist category

Why would anyone interested in finding solutions to political issues that make use of a conceptual category unless it were to help understand the issue being discussed? Because they weren't arguing in good faith to begin with.

"White nationalism" is being shown to have bamboozled even more well-meaning conservatives at the end of last week than you'd like to have expected:

You’re calling P[aul] J[oseph] W[atson], [Alex] Jones, Milo [Yiannopoulos] and [Laura] Loomer white nationalists?

Please stop clogging my mentions with low-IQ stupidity. Thanks.

—Brittany Pettibone

"Trump News" (that is President Trump's Twitter account) has an audience of 60 million, while CNN has a viewing audience that stays much of the time less than 2 million, and Trump has shown that he is able to pressure CNN (as recorded on Conservapedia's Main Page Right) and those like it to indirectly signal to the social media giants to back off their attempts at a conservative purge. CNN folded their campaign of negativity against Trump and broadcast editorially at the end of last week that Trump deserves credit for a healthy U.S. economy.

But for a brief time there was a swell of misinformation being directed at conservatives, some of which was along the lines of "white nationalism".

This was a category that no one cared about, and then one week it was a category that news broadcasters insisted was something dangerous that everybody needed to care about.

They were correct—but the only danger was to left-wing political success.

In American politics, there emerged different "identity groups"; ethnic and special interest minority groups that gathered to support each other in places like universities, large businesses and neighborhoods, and I think it's familiar to lot of people that they promoted policies to shield themselves from being marginalized. These policies were maybe a little aggressive, but again, I think most would say that they were promoted because they wanted to direct positive attention to themselves.

This turned out to be a slippery slope, however and the "shields" turned and are turning into a "sword". And even groups that, by interest, were non-political, had members, because they favored liberal views, made a point of introducing liberal themes, or if not that, themes that would make it easier for them to be compatible with other "identity" groups with liberal themes should some tangentially liberal (often hoped for) common interest arise.

This didn't pass unobserved by conservatives even from the beginning, and ideas like a "white students union" at universities were floated, and while a few whites and other majoritarian groups experienced disadvantage by these types of groups' activities, the ideas were more of a kind of commentary in jest of commonly-held suspicions of cynical favoritism held by many of the groups' members, especially in the context of liberals' simultaneous fervent professions of cherishing ideals of broad and consistent egalitarianism.

Am I treading well-travelled paths for you so far? Or have I just observed this alone? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 09:38, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

How long do you think it will be before Bill Barr wants to castrate gays, stone feminists and abortion activists, ship blacks back to Africa, and make transgenders pee outside by the dumpster? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:04, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Demonizing Barr has made Ocasio-Cortez a team player again. He's gotta be a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. Democrat unity in 2020 depends on it. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:37, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for taking an interest. Bill Barr fortunately seems to have resources at his disposal, not the least of which is "Trump News" which, through the person and writings of Trump himself, immediately went right to the top of media food chain to question their value to America.

I would like to continue a description of the way the ideas, which were picked up and are used by the hysterical today, were introduced. I hope we can be of help today in the current developments, even if it's just verbally in an article, and the source of the progress of them to show where the forward pressure is directed. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 13:43, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

RobS, why didn't you tell me Nancy Pelosi intimated Bill Barr might have perjured himself after he wouldn't show up to Congress to explain why he wouldn't start a second investigation into Trump on obstruction and debate it on the merits? That's not news?! Those 20 pages Mueller wrote in Mueller Report Volume II dedicated to defending his interpretation of statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1512 subsection (c)(2) were already bloody epic, and his legal perspectives were sure to prevail! I disavow Bill Barr! I disavow! I also relinquish and renounce! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 00:27, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

"For two years, people denied the electability of @realdonaldtrump and then for two years people denied the election of Donald Trump." – @KellyannePolls VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:07, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Comey, John Brennan, McCabe, Sally Yates, John Carlin and Nellie Ohr - all white people - are all going to jail. Maybe Clapper, Strzok and a dozen other people. That's the story. We're being fed more B.S. race baiting stories again now by the same cabal of hucksters and their media allies that we've been fed for three years already to divert attention. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:25, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for realizing the problem. We need a grand unified theory of SJW patter including "white nationalism" smears to repel waves of distractions, which sometimes break forth in major ways like at MasterCard. I've identified two large clusters: The freaks who can't survive in social conditions regarded as normal twelve years ago and are able to box the political compass with a free pass to change the rules of whatever political group they like for the alleged purpose of accommodating their sensitivity. And the slackers who will be defined next in a like manner. I've found people on Twitter who have devoted much of their free time identifying these persons and their deceptions on Twitter; because of their selfless efforts, we owe them to make good use and application of their behavioral studies of how some create chaos and avoid interception of their abuse if we possibly can. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:38, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Racial demographic/political shifts and the future of white identity politics

• STUDIES: Whites (not strictly defined) Projected to Become Dominant Supermajority in U.S
• Interview with Eric Kaufmann: race on a professor’s whiteboard
• Eric Kaufmann on Nationalism, White Identity & Immigration
• Harvard: Diversity + Proximity = Republican Voters

These are excellent resources on future racial demographic/political shifts and the future of white identity politics. I especially like the material by Eric Kaufmann.Conservative (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

I thought you were RobS and was about to tell you "Conservative reads a lot of Eric Kaufmann too!" Thank you for the info. [And for keeping an eye on these ideas.] What I'm getting at, once I get through the sinister word choices, is that "nationalism" is also a dog-whistle for socialists because "national" socialism, and that includes China, is blamed for thwarting international socialism.

In order to change the "shields" into "swords" to marshal the politically naive and justify the continuation of political aspects of the group that a liberal might like to make use of, even if conditions had really improved (though perhaps still short of full success) it became helpful to increase the sense of a threat to do so. Over time, this eventually came in the form of the alleged presence of "hate speech" and "hate groups" for the purposes of silencing and then more easily defeating their opposition. This spread outside the political groups and poisoned conversation in general, introducing animosity between many social groups where time had allowed it to nearly disappear before.

It's probably the case that some young conservatives and other non-liberals were able to witness this transformation of liberal defensiveness from beginning to end and found that it offended their sense of fair play in the political contests of persuading others to their points of view as well as in disapproval at the deception. And so around 2016 a practice on Twitter and Reddit congealed around the idea of overloading the liberal groups' newly-institutionalized sensitivity to any free speech that was negative about them. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 13:43, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

I have not read a lot of Eric Kaufmann material. I am merely good at doing research and quickly finding material relevant to issues. So it was not hard for me to find information related to various points Kaufmann has made.Conservative (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Vargas. Can't you see? The whole Deep State effort to overthrow the President and violate American citizen's rights is blowing up in their face. The Democrats' response is (a) to demonize Barr, and (b) rally support by playing the race card and changing the subject. I'm not buying it. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:50, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

All I see is that this thread is in utter shambles after inviting you two to briefly tell me how awesome my new thinkpiece was while I was in the middle of composing it. And if you think I'm starting over now because that wasn't a good idea, you can forget it.

Conservative, I apologize. Your awesome Eric Kaufmann statistics became so seared in my memory they crowded out everything else. I remember this guy by name on three to four different occasions in your tremendous recent dissertations/tutorials-slapbacks if necessary directed at Ace et. al. on the ["]skeptic["] outlook as it stands in 2019, which is saying something.

RobS Yes and where there's explosions, there's cowards like me to hit the sidelines and foreswear any connection to whatever conservative is taking the heat, however feckless the Democrats' efforts at any kind of recovery of a silver lining on the effort that ended up so frustratingly unfruitful may be, because they're really just mad at Robert Mueller.

These weren't ever really supposed to be "funny" topics, but when your digging a hole for yourself, go with what you know, I guess. And now I don't know when I'll be able to get back to answering SamHB about Neil DeGrasse Tyson not being a conservative. And I don't envy my task tomorrow to figure out how to segué back to dignifying "white nationalism" with the serious look and a steady gaze I started with.

As for getting lost in these discussions, sometimes I even get occasionally worried that I'm being listened in on just because of the conservative viewpoint, the socialist attitudes among journalists and the intelligent equipment, but Siri laughed and said not to worry about it. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:23, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Stop trying to change the subject to white nationalism. Focus on the coup plot and the globalist attempt to destroy American democracy. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 04:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

You want to stop the coup plot and globalist actions against America? Do yourself and us a favor and stop calling America's form of government a democracy. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Want an actual Democracy? Look at France during the French Revolution, whether it be the September Massacres or the Reign of Terror. Look at Athens in Hellenistic Greece, even. In fact, our founding fathers specifically wanted to AVOID a democracy. By stating it as "American democracy", you're only helping the globalists and the Deep State. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Our elected officials are democratically elected. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:55, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Still doesn't make us a democracy. A real democracy entails mob rule, like with the French Revolution, or, heck, various Communist revolutions (or even Southern Somalia in the episode "Collapse" of SEAL Team on CBS). The founding fathers specifically envisioned us as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and in fact, what happened in the French Revolution is precisely why they did NOT want a democracy, that as well as how Athens fell. Sure, thanks to Woodrow Wilson and a certain Constitutional Amendment, we're closer to a democracy, but we still have checks and balances, and thus are NOT a democracy. Even the Communists believed in democracy, as Jan Zovak made clear in "Not a Shot was Fired", heck, Lenin for that matter, and the communists are a big part of the Deep State. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Pokeria, did you see my reading collections User:VargasMilan/Mob rule in democracy? That seems to be topic of interest here at Conservapedia, and you might like them. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:06, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

I've yet to do it in full, but I've gotten a start. You might want to also add in excerpts from "Not a Shot is Fired", and maybe also Lenin's "What Must be Done", since they also spoke glowingly of democracy in a manner that can only be best described as "mob rule" in favor of Communism and Socialism. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

Have you noticed, since a certain Amendment got passed, we don't have any short, bald, fat guys get elected president? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 09:34, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

Ha-ha, you mean like the future Joe Biden? You're going to end up eating your words; dashing Beto is holding Hillary-sized crowds, and women are throwing themselves at electable Biden, saying he can rub their necks anytime! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 08:11, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

Commie agit-prop. It's gonna be a Harris/Buttigieg ticket, the first LGBT ticket, top and bottom. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:52, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I don't think most Americans are onboard with the Democrats plan for ending abortion by making everybody gay. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:59, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

Breitbart reported that one of the main perpetrators of the "White Nationalist" smears, fake news CNN, announced yesterday that they have been holding job buyout offerings to employees that have laid off a hundred people. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 09:45, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

Colorado shooter -- anti-Christian Democrat

The Colorado shooter apparently was a registered Democrat who praised Obama, criticized Trump, and mocked Christians for believing that homosexuality is a sinful practice: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

Students refuse to be useful idiots for gun control

Many students walked out of a "vigil" (aka. gun control rally) when its speakers began advocating for far-left agenda items. This caused at least one group (Brady Campaign, which shows how politicized this event was in the first place) to apologize: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Serious question for the conservative hive mind

Illegal leaks by career civil service system employees and Democrats spiked during the Deep State coup attempt against President Trump.

What's the story with Senate Intel's subpoena for Junior? It seems completely at odds with current White House / GOP tactics. Cheers, JohnZ (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

In case it isn't obvious to you yet (despite a ton of different stories in the past three -- and more -- years showing this) at least half of the GOP's officials oppose and/or are working against President Trump and his conservative agenda. We've seen this with ObamaCare, the border crisis, opposing certain conservative nominees, Republican politicians' support for mass amnesty and low-wage migrant workers, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I get that a good chunk of GOP senators despise Trump, but they've generally been so passive / transactional in their dealings with him, that I'm struggling with the idea of this as a deliberate grenade. JohnZ (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

They're only passive in the pages of The New York Times, CNN, and other MSM/left-wing sites. The only reason why they aren't waging outright war against Trump is because they know he has a >90% approval rating among Republican voters (think primary elections). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

This deserves consideration: "there’s something a little, well, ‘off’ about how the story is being presented…. zero official verification. Without any verification, and with only vague references to anonymous sourcing, CTH would advise to wait-and-see on this one. DJT-jr has been used more than once for leak hunting."

Here are several examples of fake news leak hunting. The Senate Intel Committee director of security was indicted for leaking Carter Pages' FISA app. Brian Ross was fired from ABC. Ali Watkins was reassigned at the NYT. Inspector Horowitz found a culture of leaking under Comey at the FBI. Barr and Wray have both testified about ongoing leak investigations, of which there is a record number. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:58, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Brexit/Trump were the first major splashes of ice cold water upon the faces of globalists/liberals/leftists. In terms of the stages of grief, globalists/liberals/leftists are still in the denial/anger stages. Once the European Union breaks up, globalists/ liberals/leftists will go into the bargaining stage of grief. Then once the religious right begin to have very significant power, as the scholar Eric Kaufmann predicts will happen by 2050 or as early as 2021, liberals/leftists/globalists will go into depression (some already have. See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness). And remember, the pace of events will quicken as time progresses (see: Acceleration of 21st century desecularization). Conservative (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Framing Barr

The Attorney General has offered to let Democrats view a version of the Mueller Report that is 98.5% unredacted

The only redactions are ones that are required by law

Not a single Democrat has viewed the report, yet they are holding AG Barr in contempt for following the law?

—Charlie Kirk

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 10:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

The plan here is to hold Barr, Mnuchin, McGahn, et al in contempt and rally pubic support for impeachment of a corrupt administration, or at least lose the 2020 elections. House Democrats have the support of maintsream fake news media and their social media Gestapo disrupters of like-minded conservative groups and users. Never mind if it is legal to demand that the Attorney General violate the law. They'll get months and months of publicity demonizing Barr as crook, and by the time they loose in court the news will be buried on the back page.

All this is motivated by an effort to cover up the criminal activities of Comey, Brennan, Sally Yates, John Carlin etal, dominating the fake news cycle in coming weeks and years, as much as their hatred of Trump. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:16, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

This is all about Spygate. The Democrats went to tar Barr so his Spygate investigations/prosecutions have less political fallout. It probably will not work. Barr is a tough cookie and so is Trump. The only question is: How far does Trump want to go? I know Ford pardoned Nixon. The logical conclusion of justice would be to put Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Obama behind bars if everything were proven in a court of law. I am not sure how far Trump is willing to go though.

Equal justice under the law is very important. On the other hand, there is the "triage" issue. The USA is bleeding in a lot of ways (large national debt, trade deficits, poor schools, crumbling infrastructure, poor immigration policy, etc.).

In short, President Donald Trump has a lot on his plate. Most of the stuff on Trump's plate should have been handled by his predecessors, but unfortunately it was not.Conservative (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

First up: James Comey. And Comey has to implicate Brennan, which then implicates UK GCHQ. Comey also will implicate the DOJ, accross the street from the FBI. That is Sally Yates and John Carlin. Carlin and Yates will have to implicate the AG Lynch and the White House - Susan Rice, Obama, McDonough, Rhodes, Monaco etal.

The way this breaks down is, a fight between Obama appointees and Clintonistas in the DOJ, FBI and White House. The Clintonistas are guilty, the Obama appointees need to be pressed to sing and finger them. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:07, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Comey's kinda stupid, and he only since getting fired started to realize how Brennan set him up to be the fall guy. He'll be singing like a canary soon enough. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:23, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Steve Bannon predicts Trump will go "full animal" on his opponents now that the Mueller investigation is over. And Trump says his favorite Bible verse is "An eye for an eye". We will see what happens.Conservative (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

I hope Trump's rabid shark fans will chomp down on the three chunks of raw meat he's tossing to them (if Trump doesn't back down), and he sics them on the Democrats until the next election. It's like illegal immigration has morphed into a black market. It's not as if the Democrats didn't start it. You can count on Biden issuing a few choice complex political lies in the meantime ("they want to put you-all in chains").

Conservative, if someone told you that the National Debt is a growing problem, they were probably fooled by a liberal. Due to the economy Trump inspired and his savings in Federal spending, Trump's tenure in office (1st two full years) has halted the growth of Debt in proportion to the yearly Gross Domestic Product (the best estimate to how quickly it can be paid back) essentially to zero, while still growing millions of jobs. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:40, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

And Trump has jawboned for months and months about a proposed infrastructure bill. If, God forbid, there is an engineering failure that endangers people's lives, the public can't blame Trump for not trying. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

As for that, there are other reasons why failure to pass infrastructure wouldn't stick to Trump, but shh... the walls have ears.

Rob, do you really think the public's going to be shocked at accusations they throw at Barr if Trump's base is reasonably well-informed? All they have to say is that the Democrats are "Trumping" Barr by attacking him the moment he sets foot in office. Eventually Democrat supporters are going to get fatigued at having to defend series of arguments growing further and further detached from the truth and will need either a retreat or a distracting disturbance to prevent themselves from being persistently laughed at. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:28, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Comey's going to jail, it looks like. Too bad. It should be Brennan. But opening the Brennan Pandora's box opens a re-examination of the US-UK "special relationship" which allowed UK intelligence to interfere in American elections. That then threatens the future of the whole NATO alliance. Somebody has to swing, and unless Comey is wiling to convert to Trumpism to save himself and rat out Brennan, he's the designated fall guy as of this moment. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 08:16, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

Mark my words: Comey's going to look as disheveled as Michael Cohen or anybody else who endured a North Korean interrogation before this over. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 08:24, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

My cryptic remark about Trump giving out three chunks of raw meat, turned out, alas, another time where Trump backed down. We were told that Jared Kushner was finally going to redeem himself and rally conservatives around Trump by composing an immigration policy bill that gave conservatives THREE-fourths of what they have been asking for in immigration law.

Today, Ann Coulter reported that the bill had no provisions for the wall or decreasing the number of legal immigrants. How are Trump's sharks supposed to feed on that? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 23:26, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

John Durham

John Durham has already investigated both Robert Mueller and John Brennan, Mueller in the Whitey Bulger case when Mueller was US Attorney in Boston. Bulger named Mueller as a defense witness before going on the lam. Mueller was promoted to FBI director for his role in the Boston field office coverup. An FBI agent did go to jail, and four innocent men who were framed by prosecutors for a 1965 murder won a $100 million lawsuit against the FBI. Bulger, an informant for the FBI and the Boston US Attorney's office, spent Mueller's entire 10 year term as director as a fugitive. Durham's case ended before Bulger was finally captured as Mueller's term ended, and convicted of 19 murders (he was suspected of 52).

Bulger, who was sentenced to life, was murdered six months ago while in US custody.

Bill Weld also figures into the Bulger/Mueller case.

Brennan was investigated by Durham in relation to the CIA torture program. The case ended without any prosecutions, and before Brennan was appointed CIA director and hacked into the Senate Intel Committees servers to tamper with evidence in the Senate Committee's Torture Report. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:59, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

This is all messed up

Andy and DavidB4,

We have an article titled First sale doctrine, one titled Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine, DMCA, but no article that is just dedicated to Digital Millennium Copyright Act by its full proper name.

What do you think would be the best way to proceed in cleaning all of this up? This will take a series of merges and content copies, but what should they be? That the DMCA long title article has a section about first sale is a good thing, but does that really need to be an 8 word title? As long as the articles are properly linked, wouldn't that be more encyclopedic? Progressingamerica (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

1. Copypaste Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine into Digital Millennium Copyright Act;
2. Switch the ==First sale doctrine== subsection of Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine with First sale doctrine, leaving a main article link to First sale doctrine;
3. Merge DMCA into Digital Millennium Copyright Act;
4. Make redirects from DMCA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine to Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:23, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Great suggestions. Thanks for identifying this, Progressingamerica!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey

See #Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:15, 12 May 2019 (EDT)

Even Laura Loomer's Twitter fan club page removed from Twitter after she takes her protest #StoptheBias to front of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's house

Laura Loomer was removed from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Paypal. Wikipedia calls her a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede of her Wikipedia entry. Imagine if that could have happened to a female reporter from a liberal media outlet, even in prolonged full-throated falsely-sourced reporting on anticipated legal actions against Trump that presupposed a Trump-Russia collusion theory. Loomer's only outlet left is YouTube, the stagnant Gab and the unknown Telegram. All for asking tough questions and discovering and reporting on corruption, and because she's an independent journalist, these corrupt organizations think they can isolate her.

But let's focus on Twitter. Reportedly Dorsey makes over a billion dollars from President Trump's account. Loomer was banned from Twitter for posting this question based on undisputedly correct information:

Isn't it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate "women, LGBTQ, and minorities" is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish. https://[...]

calling it "hateful conduct".

Now it appears that Google may be suppressing her website, just as they suppress some news stories by "piling on" information presenting false pictures of the stories from preferred outlets.

Only one person contributed to her legal defense fund Freeloomer.com within the last eighteen hours (for ten dollars), and her website hasn't been updated in the last sixteen hours. Maybe she got a big contributor. But maybe not.

But let me ask this, since we're talking about Twitter and since Laura can't: How long do have to watch Jack Dorsey stand on the mound, before we finally admit he (and by extension his enormous institution) has irretrievably balked on his commitment to the American value of free speech? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 17:52, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

The commies are taking over the world. Proof enough. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:05, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

As right-wing populism and conservative religion becomes more common and competition develops for Twitter/Facebook, etc., corporate America will be forced to be more conservative/moderate. The EU and European governments are putting pressure on Facebook/Twitter in terms of trying to shut down anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant speech.[11] Right-wing populism and anti-Muslim/immigrant is growing quickly in Europe though and the social media companies are not going to stop this.Conservative (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (EDT)

Papadopoulos and Mifsud

According to James Comey and The New York Times, the FBI's Russia/Trump investigation was triggered when low-level Trump adviser George Papadopoulos talked to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London in May 2016. Papadopoulos told Downer that the Russians had thousands of emails that detailed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
But this wasn't information Papadopoulos knew as a campaign insider. He was relaying what he had been told earlier by FBI informant Joseph Mifsud. The FBI used an extraordinary multinational ring to set Papadopoulos up. They even arranged for him to meet British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. See Mark Steyn's interview of Papadopoulos.
Trump won the New York primary on April 19, 2016. This was when the pundits realized he could win the nomination and stopped laughing at him. Yet the Papadopoulos story shows that FBI plotting was already at an advanced stage. PeterKa (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

So, are you saying Comey and the New York Times have lied to the American people? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:11, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

Mueller indicted Papadopoulos on account of his meeting with Mifsud, as if this proved he was somehow a Russian asset.[12] This is the last known picture of Mifsud. It shows him with Boris Johnson. "London professor" Mifsud also met with Obama Secretary of Defense Ashe Carter. Mifsud fooled these two cabinet members, but Papadopoulos was supposed to know better? IMO, Mueller was desperate for at least one conviction that he could connect to his Trump-Russia mandate. I certainly hope Trump gives Papadopoulos a pardon. PeterKa (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

News addition

Hi.

I have a suggestion for the news section due to a famous, or rather, infamous moment for one of PBS's flagship children's series. Another reason why PBS needs to be defunded has appeared: The longest-running children's series Arthur has Mr. Ratburn coming out as homosexual and entering a homosexual "marriage" in a celebratory manner. [13] [14] Pokeria1 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

That figures. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, pretty disgusting. So, are we going to add it to the news section? Pokeria1 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

It looks like bait. probably should go into the PBS article with some discreet wording. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:45, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Not sure what you mean by bait. We really should note it somewhere. Besides, they've advocated for defunding NPR after it brazenly pushed several left-wing messages in their broadcasts in some of the news sections, so I see no reason not to exempt it. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

"Alabama Public Television refused to air an episode of Arthur featuring same-sex marriage" (May 20, 2019). Twitter Moments.

By bait I mean, the homosexual agenda to "normalize" homosexuality is to brainwash young people into believing any criticism of homosexuality are efforts to stigmatize the practice by neanderthal bigots. Their mind becomes closed to any alternative views. The truth is, many gays are not comfortable or happy with their lifestyle choices. We should chronicle these efforts to politicize homosexual practices by extremists who have infiltrated government-funded programs and civil service, but not treat each event as some outrage on MPR, and marginalize what is really a mainstream view. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:07, 25 May 2019 (EDT)

China will lose the trade war and will experience economic pain. Very bad news for militant atheists

It appears China is going to be stubborn as far as the USA/China trade war and make the pain they will experience be even worse. Evangelical Christianity, which is the predominant form of Christianity in China, often grows quickly in times of political/economic turmoil.[15] Since most atheists in the world are East Asian (see: Asian atheism), these recent economic developments are terrible news for militant atheists - especially since evangelical Christianity is already experiencing explosive growth in China (see: Growth of Christianity in China).Conservative (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Another article relating to the speed of light changing

"There is something amiss with the expansion of the Universe; the space between galaxies is stretching – scientists are sure about that – but just how fast is it expanding? New research shows that what scientists predict and what they observe are two different things and measurements calculated of today’s expansion rate do not match the rate that was expected based on how the Universe appeared...

Indeed, this new research uses the same type of object but utilises a different method to calculate the Hubble Constant. Instead of observing one Cepheid at a time with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope as it makes its 90-minute orbit around Earth, a team of scientists including Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland has used Hubble as a "point-and-shoot" camera to snap quick images of the extremely bright pulsating stars...

But says Reiss, this disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This is not just two experiments disagreeing. We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding,” explained Reiss.

“If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras,” he said...

'The ‘tension’ between measurements of the Hubble-Lemaire constant, H₀, (which is known to be changing over time) shows that old theories of the Universe are missing something. If H₀ was the lower value of 67 km/sec/Mpc, much or all of the so-called acceleration would vanish. The differing values may be explained if the speed of light has changed between the early and late universe,' said Louise Riofrio, an author and scientist who now works at an observatory association in Hawaii." - source: As mystery of the Universe’s expansion rate widens, a simple solution is offered.Conservative (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right, again!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

The article that all this is taken from is the room.eu.com article, which mentions "dark energy", a scientific mystery that has been known about for a few years. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out.

I assume the "Conservapedia proven right" item being referred to is the one from May 7, 2007. Note that the change in "C" referred to in that item involves a time span of 2 billion years. That must be comforting to Young Earth Creationists. SamHB (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

You said it yourself: c² is equal to the reciprocal of the product of the fundamental constants μ₀, the permeability of free space and ε₀ the permittivity of free space. (c² = 1 / (μ₀ * ε₀))

Except how do we know those two "fundamental" constants aren't really variables and change as different places and times in the visible universe change? If we could detect it, we would be able to solve for c and get the changed speed of light. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:31, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

My relativity sycophancy alarm is ringing very loudly. You have correctly identified the formula relating ε₀, μ₀, and c. You say that I said it myself. I don't think I did, but the formula is nevertheless correct. Since you are claiming that measurement of ε₀ and μ₀ in deep cosmological time might be easier than measuring the speed of light, why don't you demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of these constants by addressing these issues for me:

• What do the constants ε₀ and μ₀ actually mean?
• What are the very simple units in which they are calibrated?
• How does one measure them in the laboratory?

An aside: I measured them in a physics lab course as an undergraduate, getting 2.5x10^8 m/s for the speed of light. Not good, but the point of the experiment was not to make accurate measurements, but to show that, with very clever tricks, one can actually measure the speed of light in a laboratory, using a meter stick (well, we used a micrometer too) and a stopwatch.

• Approximately when were the first laboratory measurements of these two constants made?
• How does one derive the equation relating the speed of light to these two constants?
• Who first derived that formula, and when did this happen?
• Why is that formula so important?
• How would one measure these two constants in deep (billions of years back) cosmological time?
• Why is that better than just measuring the speed of light in deep cosmological time?

SamHB (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Let's back up for a minute. You have a habit of calling information you don't agree with "ridiculous" or "preposterous". So why do you introduce "scientific" information, like the equation above concerning "fundamental constants" in my opinion you wrote, into Conservapedia articles under a pseudonym? Is it because you want to avoid acquiring a reputation for contradicting yourself or misdirecting others and thus risk appearing to be lacking in the very science, or high-quality knowledge, you profess to have? And wouldn't that evasion be a bit "ridiculous" on your part? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 02:08, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

Are you accusing me of writing under a pseudonym? Are you accusing me of evasion? We need to back up a little farther. You wrote at the outset of this section "You said it yourself: c² is equal to the reciprocal of the product ...." And now you say again "the equation above concerning 'fundamental constants' in my opinion you wrote ..." I don't believe I wrote that, though I could have written it if I had felt moved to do so, since it's true.

I had not intended the authorship to be the focus of the discussion. But let's go through the evidence carefully. When I first saw your "You said it yourself" comment, I did a search for the word "permittivity". It's an obscure word, so that search would have eliminated a lot of chaff. The hits are

• Constants
• Gauss's_Law (It's an interesting article; I would like to have contributed, but I didn't)
• https://www.conservapedia.comDebate:If_the_universe_is_young_and_it_takes_light_millions_of_years_to_reach_us_from_far_off_stars,_how_can_we_see_them%3F
• Balmer_series
• Bohr_atom

I do not appear anywhere in the edit histories for any of those articles.

Now, about your claim that I have a "habit of calling information you don't agree with 'ridiculous' or 'preposterous'", I only use strong terms like that for egregious cases. Andy's sudden discovery, below, that the second law of thermodynamics causes light to slow down, after having written a lot of material on the subject that, while I thought it was misguided, showed some serious understanding of entropy and thermodynamics, was such a case.

SamHB (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

You can do better than that; the word "permittivity" isn't found in the Conservapedia article I cited to begin with. In addition to the other signs of "tells" found in that "2nd User", it's already well-established that you've used pseudonyms, SamCoulter, and those who've used them in the past are not unlikely to do so afterwards as well.

But you'd never know it from your shocked reaction; it was as if you'd never heard of such a thing. Is that how an innocent person acts? See what I mean by "a few steps away from common sense"? Apparently that carries with a certain professed scientist in casual encounters, not just materialist scientists engaging in cover-ups. Or was this a kind of cover-up as well? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 01:40, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

In reply to SamHB, an invariant speed of light would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a law that no one disputes. Virtually all recognize that the universe wears out as a garment does (see Hebrews 1:11), and that requires a change in the speed of light too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

That is utterly preposterous. Are you saying that slow-moving photons have more microstates than fast-moving ones? I don't know of anyone, other than you, who would give a scientific explanation of the Second Law in terms of Hebrews 1:11, and claim that that applied to the speed of light. Can you cite some scientific papers or articles in support of this? SamHB (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, a constant speed of light for the life of the universe is impossible for the same reason a perpetual motion machine is: both would defy the uncertainty described in quantum mechanics, and the corresponding increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

Scientists tend to maintain silence about new information that contradicts a materialist worldview, even if the information is just a few steps away from common sense. An example of the rejection of this kind of information might be the big-bang theory or Louis Pasteur's disproval of spontaneous generation. It's not preposterous at all, much less utterly, to think that scientists would seek to embargo information pertaining to the corruption of the visible universe. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 02:27, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

You're not generalizing about scientists, are you? I assume that, by "materialist worldview", you mean "view that the author disagrees with"? Yes, that happens, whether the view that the person disagrees with is materialist, or acceptance of evolution, or openmindedness about global climate change, or many other things. And it's not just scientists. What you said about the big bang theory and spontaneous generation wasn't very clear, but I think I know what you are getting at. They were both scientific controversies at the time. If you believe that relativity is a controversy of that scale, I'd suggest you write up your views at a serious scientific forum. SamHB (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

Others have already done it for me, but like your questioning about generalizations, which was followed by your own substitute generalizations found nowhere in my reply, you can't seem to find "clarity" in my simple remarks after doing so, probably for the same reason why a thief succeeds in convincing you he can't find a policeman after pretending to look hard, or even perhaps why another one cries "stop thief" at an innocent party so the police arrest the wrong person.

There was nothing "scientific" about the embargoing of results of others by the materialist scientists, especially in Louis Pasteur's case, the abuse of whom became quite vicious, and that you dismiss Pasteur, whose achievements were tremendous and not just theoretical, so casually, strikes me as sad though not surprising. By the way, as Andy once said, open-mindedness can be quantified, and I can only see that you don't aspire to rank too highly with regard to it, even during the very act of complaining about open-mindedness—specifically within the brief subject matter that surrounded it! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 01:40, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

"According to a 2017 survey, only 35 percent of respondents have “a lot” of trust in scientists; the number of people who do “not at all” trust scientists increased by over 50 percent from a similar poll conducted in December 2013.

This crumbling of trust in science and academia forms part of a broader pattern, what Tom Nichols called The Death of Expertise in his 2017 book. Growing numbers of people claim their personal opinions hold equal weight to the opinions of experts."[16]

The amount of scientific fraud and politicization of science has put a major dent in people's trust in science. Frankly, many scientists have: poor research/statistics skills, lackluster morals and have oversized egos and fail to understand the limitations of science. Once the global warming hoax is fully exposed for the farce it is, expect people's trust in scientists to further erode.

Consider the information in these articles:

• 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing

• The present scientific community and character issues

• The business of progressive science

• Scientific fraud problem in science community

• Peer review problems in science

• Scientific replication problems and current published science articles

• 60 percent of "important" social science studies could not be replicated

My trust in the work of scientists has definitely taken a hit in recent years.Conservative (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

If you haven't already, check out this one, Conservative: Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method". Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. Breitbart/Radio website. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:31, 24 May 2019 (EDT)