Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnSelway (Talk | contribs) at 15:00, 6 January 2016. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive Index

Contents

Random sample study shows majority of psychology studies fails reproducibility test, a central tenet of the legitimacy of science

A recent front page item at Conservapedia linked to an article debunking the way so-called "science" is practiced. Here is another example published in a left-wing journal that tries to frame the evidence of corruption in a positive way. In case you're reading, Sam, this is an example of what I meant when I referred to "the pseudoscience that leavens science". If Conservapedia is going to attack science, it might be helpful to give an example like this to show that the word "science", meaning knowledge with a high degree of certainty, does not apply to knowledge that is only supported by the evidence of empirical testing, ignoring Scripture, common sense and even reason, especially when even that empirical testing is never corroborated. VargasMilan (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Liberal-run websites got you down? 7 Conservative Alternatives to the Internet's Most Popular sites.

What do they say about Conservapedia? "There is a lot about beastiality." Awesome. SaulJ (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Liberalism and bestiality Exposing the depravity known as liberalism is awesome.--Jpatt (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Jpatt, haven't you realised this website is having a joke at Christian right-wing extremists' expense? Just read the comments section. I'm afraid this is an example of Poe's Law in action. It's worrying you can't recognise the difference. EJamesW (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

You spelled realized and recognize wrong. I'm afraid that liberal writers are never kind to conservatives, have you figured that out yet? Should conservatives be embarrassed? I am not. I am glad it was published. The websites listed are uniquely conservative, I didn't even know about ritely.com and I will be sure to register there. I am not so concerned with how they frame the article. I noticed that the comments were unflattering, big deal. --Jpatt (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
EWJAMES, I believe, comes from a nation where Commonwealth English is standard. He spelled realised and recognise correctly.--ColeP (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
Except that we are an American website. I am sure it is correct and proper at Commonwealthapedia but no, not here at Conservapedia. You have about 10% left until you're in violation of the 90/10 rule, Cole. --Jpatt (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
I thought this had been settled way back in 2007. Phil Rayment, an Aussie sysop not known for being liberal, used to revert American changes to his edits saying: Replaced your correct spelling with my correct spelling. You may not remember, but it was decided back then that edits by British English writers on non-American subjects, or in talkpages, were okay. In other words; we're both right, mate. AlanE (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
Fair enough, I am ok with it. I was just being a smarty pants because I don't agree with the rightwing 'extremist' talk. --Jpatt (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
I generally have no problem with people being a "smarty pants"; I do it myself. A lot. But do you realise realize that this incident led to the blocking and defrocking of a longstanding (albeit annoying) user? I don't remember ever seeing anything spiral out of control this seriously and this quickly. We are all "smarty pantses" at times. But people should put away the banhammer when this is going on. SamHB (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Take a look at that user's last 20 edits, and then compare them to the 90/10 rule and to the substantive edits that most editors make here. Also, the block was relatively short compared to most.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Philip Rayment - good man indeed. Alan, please tell him I said "hi" if you speak with him. I recall that we disagreed about gun control, but he was rock solid in rejecting the theory of evolution.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Natural curiosity (What/whom are they talking about????) lead me to I was a Conservapedia Administrator. Interesting, sometimes disturbing read! It is nice to see that many things have changed over the last years (sometimes by change of the personal, I think), but it is annoying to recognize some patterns still in play... --AugustO (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
  • One lesson I learned from EJamesW's block and defrocking: don't undo vandalism to talk-pages, it won't count in your favor when the 90/10 ratio is calculated.
  • yes, EJamesW is annoying, as SamHB puts it. Andy, you may think that he is no loss. But every time you punish an editor under a pretext, it sends a chilling signal to the rest of us.

--AugustO (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

Hardly. No one is penalized for reverting vandalism. And the 90/10 rule has helped make Conservapedia such an edifying website.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
It's certainly edifying in that it presents an amazing picture of what America's top conservative minds are really thinking.
And the 90/10 rule itself, and specifically it's enforcement, are edifying into learning just what really gets Mr. Schlafly's proverbial goat.
For instance, I could be User:TerryH or User:Conservative, but if I asked, perhaps, "Hey, Andy! How's that FBI investigation going?" I'd be banned under the 90/10 rule. BernieS (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
BernieS, can you point out one factual error in the Conservapedia atheism article?
Second, as far as the initial post about Conservapedia's liberalism and bestiality article, unlike liberalism, conservativism doesn't have a bestiality problem. It is liberalism that has the bestiality problem. Unlike the liberal community, no leader of conservative political/religions organizations/movements have ever refused to condemn bestiality, no leading conservative entertainment networks promote bestiality, and there have been no bestiality chants at conservative events, etc. And the first bestiality rights organization was founded in liberal, secular Europe and not in the American Bible belt! And no atheist has ever pointed out a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism and bestiality article.
Liberals, I know your bestiality problem is quite embarrassing, but please do not endeavor to sweep it under the rug through censorship. Address your bestiality problem. The world's sheep, horses and pets will definitely benefit! Conservative (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
Conservative, before you accuse others of being embarrassing or cowardly consider this: A few years back a charity of your choice was offered $20 000 for you to debate. You refused because of your embarrassing cowardice and as a result, almost certainly, people are dead now who would still be alive if they received the money. Hang your head in shame.--ColeP (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
Did I say hang your head in shame? I meant block me and cover it up. Not as easy since the update is it? It would not suprise me if the recently lost data was due to you, Cowardservative, covering your tracks.--ColeP (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

ColeP, if memory serves and I think it does, I offered to have a mutually agreed upon third party do the charitable transaction in a verifiable manner, but some atheist claimed he was going to have some relative of his do the transaction and offered no reliable way to verify the prospective transaction. Needless to say that was unsatisfactory - especially since atheists are known to be tightfisted when it comes to charity (see: Atheism and uncharitableness).

Furthermore, the website editors of the website in question haven't been able to get a Wikipedia article on their website. And like yourself, they cannot find a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article.

By the way, consider using a browser with a spellchecker. You misspelled the word surprise. Conservative (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

One last thing, I didn't merely accuse the secular leftist community of having a problem with bestiality, I documented it using many reliable sources. If only the secular leftist community was not so perverse, then it would not have a problem with the sin of bestiality! Conservative (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

500 Internal Server Error

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.0 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.conservapedia.com Port 80

Am I the only one who frequently encounters the message above? --AugustO (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

Still getting lots of those (and according to http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/conservapedia.com it isn't my personal problem). I enjoyed yesterday's this site is down for scheduled maintenance, though the announced 20 min seemed to be a little bit optimistic.... --AugustO (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Use a faster browser and this will greatly mitigate the problem. Suggestions: Comodo Dragon is the fastest browser (faster version of Google Chrome). and this browsers is fast too: Comodo Icedragon (faster version of Firefox). Google chrome and Opera are pretty fast, but I think the Comodo browsers are faster. Conservative (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Also, HERE are 4 ways to make Comodo Icedragon and Firefox faster. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Using Safari here, but I get that message all the time. Bringreaganback (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Using a fast browser, I haven't received the message all day. I think the new version of MediaWiki is making the website faster too. And when I was getting the message, a faster browser greatly reduced the frequency of receiving that message. Even using Firefox, I am not getting the message. I think the new version of MediaWiki makes the website faster.
Also, consider this: Today's Safari flops on Apple's new browser speed tests. Maybe this will help: Speeding up safari. Conservative (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Another suggestion: Use Linux as your operating system (probably require you to get a new computer if you have an Apple). You will surf the web faster and you will probably never get computer malware. It may make your editing of Conservapedia easier. If you need to use Windows for your PC software programs, then use a dual boot machine with Linux/Windows. Conservative (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

  • Such an error suggests problems with the server, not with the clients
  • Even if I used a lame browser (which I don't) or an outdated operating system (which I haven't) I should be able to access Conservapedia!

--AugustO (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Andy using a quality hosting service. Perhaps something needs to be tweaked.
Second, is it a regular occurrence or does it usually happen at a certain time period/periods? Conservative (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Andy, "A Permissions Error. In most cases, a 500 Internal Server Error is due to an incorrect permission on one or more files or folders. In most of those cases, an incorrect permission on a PHP and CGI script is to blame. These should usually be set at 0775 (-rwxr-)."[1] Conservative (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

I received this message from Andy: "I think I found and corrected the occasional access problem that User:AugustO was having. The suggestions posted about using better browsers was helpful - thanks."

Hopefully, this solves or largely solves AugustO's 500 internal server error problem and solves the 500 internal server error problem for others as well. Conservative (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

Yes, this seems to have eliminated the problems. It didn't seem logical to me to blame Safari or an operating system, as the problem is server-side and I had been viewing the site for a while without difficulty. No problems now. Bringreaganback (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
I merely said an improved browser greatly mitigated/lessoned the 500 internal server error problem for me. So I was being entirely logical as I did not say it eliminated the problem for me. I also suggested using an improved operating system.
Furthermore, I subsequently suggested some possible causes/fixes to Andy as far as the 500 internal server error problem. Conservative (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

First, AugustO is not the only person to have gotten this error. I've gotten it many times, and I'm sure others have as well. I've gotten it on multiple browsers (Firefox and IE) and multiple operating systems (Windows, Fedora Linux, and Ubuntu Linux.) Significantly, I got it at about 8:30 this morning. This is troubling for Conservapedia.

The reason that is significant is that Cons stated, above, that he received this at 10:04 on 3 Sept:

I received this message from Andy: "I think I found and corrected the occasional access problem that User:AugustO was having. The suggestions posted about using better browsers was helpful - thanks."

There are a couple of peculiar things about that assertion. The obvious one is that, if Andy did in fact correct some problem, the errors are still occurring, which is bad news. But, more peculiarly:

  • Why did Andy communicate this privately to Cons rather than posting it publicly here for all to see? I've always known Andy to be completely open and straightforward in all his communications. Did he actually make some change and communicate that fact privately to Cons while leaving the rest of us in the dark?
  • If Andy did not make any such fix, or did not make the claimed private communication, why is Cons lying about this?
  • If Cons is in fact lying about the site owner's behavior, does Andy, as site owner, have any remedy?

There are also some technical shortcomings in what Cons said above:

  • If the problem shows up on Windows but not Linux, that would probably make Conservapedia unique among web sites powered by MediaWiki software, or, for that matter, among all the world's web sites. It would be very sad if Conservapedia could only be viewed reliably under Linux. Windows, whatever one may think of it, is a much more common operating system.
  • People who know what "browser speed" means know that it will not affect these Internal Server Errors.
  • People who know how the TCP/IP transport layer handshake protocol works know that these errors cannot be provoked by minor timing glitches on either the client side or the server side.
  • People who know how Unix file attributes work know that "-rwxr-" is not a real attribute word, and that the word "0775" actually stands for "rwxrwxr-x". The cited web page does not contain any instance of "-rwxr-". This kind of "word salad" calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well.
  • Sporadic instances of these errors, which this one clearly is (unless Andy has been sporadically issuing chmod commands), are not caused by incorrect permission on PHP or CGI scripts.

SamHB (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Those repeated invidious suppositions serve no purpose in solving a problem but only in harassing the parties involved. I will respond with action I feel is appropriate. VargasMilan (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, if the server errors happen at certain intervals and a faster browser reduces the time to access the website, then a faster browser could reduce the amount of 500 errors that occur for a person. I do know that I had a much easier time accessing CP with a faster browser and had fewer 500 errors as well. SamHB, that you dare to question this matter shows you may not be reliable in other matters as well!!!!! Conservative (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, but the way, a person with multiple experiences to confirm a matter is never at the mercy of someone with a feeble argument! Conservative (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

From the popular tech website Ask Leo about 500 errors: "Try a different browser".[2] Ask Leo's Alexa ranking is 24,534 which means his website is one of the top 24,534 websites in the world in terms of web traffic according to Alexa. SamHB, anytime you want to offer an apology, I will graciously accept it. :)Conservative (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

There is no correlation between browser and intermittent 500 errors, such as we all get on this site. The site you cite is talking about the remote possibility that a bad client request is causing the problem. If that were the case, it would be consistent. It's also why the section is titled "There are some straws to grasp at" and finishes with "While it’s more than likely that these won’t work, there’s always a chance that they might." An intermittent 500 is purely a server problem, almost almost caused by insufficient resource causing an Apache thread to timeout before its caller is serviced. MelH (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
  • The 500's are getting more sporadic, so there is progress of sort.
  • I'm constantly irritated by the lack of technical competence on this site:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

—Arthur C. Clarke

We should be aware that we are working with advanced technology (albeit on a very basic level), and therefore neither confuse it with - nor depend on - magic or miracles!
  • We lost a week of edits this time, we lost a week of edits the time before. Why has nobody learned from the first time? Why weren't the back-up cycles shortened? There isn't much traffic here, it shouldn't be a problem.
  • The first time, the management was pleased to be given unexpected ways to recover some edits. This time, the management relied on these ways! What should only be a crutch, became the real thing. Any engineer should be repelled by such a procedure!

Just my 2 cents, I hope that I'm wrong, that back-ups became more frequent, etc.... --AugustO (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2015 (EDT)

August, I haven't lived up to your high standard of excellence, and I'm sick to my stomach about it. Can you find it in your heart to forgive?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for your kind words!

  • You haven't actually sinned against me, so, no need for forgiveness!
  • My "standard of excellence" isn't especially high, I just ask that an improvised patch isn't seen as an actual repair!

--AugustO (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

An Idea

Hey, If it is possible for the Site Admin/Andy to somehow enable videos embedding in articles then I think the content and quality of those articles could be greatly increased through the use of multimedia. This could help increase veiwership of articles, which would in turn increase editorship and help get the site to grow even greater than it already is. Those at wikipedia are already losing their editors to a vast array of more specialist wikis as we speak. FFAF (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Andy wants users to earn the right to upload pictures and the wikimedia software has permission levels in relation to this. This is so no salacious pictures are uploaded.
I looked into the embedding video and they don't have permission levels as far as embedding videos. So unfortunately, I don't think the video embedding is a doable idea. Conservative (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Sid Blumenthal/Texas

The MPR stories regarding Sid Blumenthal's Tea Party memo and the Texas counties currently both link to the same story on Tea Party Crusaders. Does someone have the correct link to the Texas one? ChrisBaker (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

I don't have that link, but Breitbart and The Blaze have stories on the same topic.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Have homosexual activists overplayed their hand??

Hard to see how holding accountable a publicly-elected official who is undeniably in contempt of a ruling from the highest court in the land is "overplaying" anything. What blowback has there been that has at all worked against the people demanding that a public official do the job she is legally mandated to do? SaulJ (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

The "blowback" is clear from nearly all the Republican candidates for president. Too early for polling, perhaps, but it's easy to predict how public opinion will feel about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
They're just playing politics. A few months from now, most of them will have long since shuttered their campaigns and moved back into political obscurity. Also the claim that this is the "First time in history that an American has been jailed for believing in their conscience," overlooks, for instance, the incarceration of people who refused to serve in the military because to do so violated their conscience. SaulJ (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
The highest court in the land is not the Supreme Court, occupied by mere human beings, perhaps even by atheists, but is, as from the beginning of the world, the court of the judgment seat of God. The actions by this official in obedience to God in the face of her Supreme-Court-sanctioned imprisonment and the broadcasting of her personal life about the internet renews my faith that the innocent soul will remain unharmed by the malice of human agents and by the examination to the division of spirit and soul at the Last Judgment. VargasMilan (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, unfortunately, that's not what the Constitution says. I wonder: Would you give the same support to a Quaker who refused the draft, or a Christian pacifist who denied to give out gun permits? SaulJ (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
"Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, October 11, 1798. The Supreme Court decision is why John Locke said atheists should be regarded as second-class citizens. When they make affirmations to testify in a court of law or to serve in political office, without an oath and without the golden rule there's no way to bind them to an allegiance any higher than their or their party's self interest. VargasMilan (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

If the U.S. Constitution was pro-homosexual rights, then why were there sodomy laws in the 1600s/1700s/1800s/1900s in the USA? Thomas Jefferson said sodomy should be punished with castration.[3] When a homosexual soldier was discovered in the military, George Washington discharged him.[4] Washington did not advocate homosexuals in the military. Why weren't there homosexual marriages in the 1700s in the USA? Conservative (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

So we should have the same laws we had in the 1600s? Including legalized slavery and the disenfranchsement of women and non-whites? Is that the country you want to live in? SaulJ (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

SaulJ, you are intentionally sidestepping my remarks. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution promoting the notion of homosexual marriage as can be readily seen by the beliefs/attitudes of the founding fathers and the laws/practices of the time. The U.S. Constitution would have to be amended if homosexual marriages were to be made legal, but given the rejection of homosexuality by a large segment of the USA populace, this is not doable. Instead liberal judges are legislating from the bench and acting unlawfully. Conservative (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

Where, exactly, does the Constitution specifically address marriage? Also, while the Constitution doesn't specifically address marriage, it DID specifically condone slavery by relegating the enslaved to the status of 3/5 of a human being. But the country changed that when such an idea was no longer politically and morally tenable -- much like the idea of preventing marriage equality. SaulJ (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Wow, we went from "the Constitution is above God" to the slanderous "the Constitution measures out human nature in fractional units" in eleven hours flat. You have exhibited the very problem with human law—it changes as the selfish interests of the moment change. God's law is different.
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
VargasMilan (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
So you don't eat shrimp or wear a nice cotton-poly blend ever? SaulJ (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Ha-ha Saul, you're one of a kind. One minute a pious constitutional absolutist, the next a voracious anti-constitutional moral situationalist. One minute you insist you know nothing about the sphere of divine authority, the next you argue from the standpoint of a Hebrew scholar. You're all over the map and don't deserve a reply to your trolling, you deserve an award: blocked for five months. VargasMilan (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

flawed question, flawed challenge

"Using the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use, does Kulinski have proof and evidence that atheism is true?"

First, I'd like to point out that many of the encyclopedias' definitions of Atheism stray from the actual meaning of the word (I've already explained why, on the talk page of the article, Atheism is a religion). Instead of challenging Kyle Kulinski using the encyclopedias' definitions, how about challenging him, using the legitimate definition of the word? (It only has 1 accurate definition: "without a god".)

Second, "atheism" (or "godlessness") cannot be proven "true" or "false", because it is simply a label, as to whether or not a person believes in a god. It can be stated that: "It is true that Kyle is an atheist. It is false that Andrew Schlafly is an atheist. These types of statements can be proven either "true" or "false". Similarly, "Christianity" cannot be proven "true" or "false". Christianity is a belief that Jesus is the only begotten son of god, and that the Bible is true. Some things within the Bible have been determined to be true, and some things have been determined to be false. However, "Christianity" as a label, cannot be proven "true" or "false".

The challenge, instead, should have been: "Can Kyle Kulinski prove that there definitely is not a god?" To which, Kyle would say, "No", of course (because he's honest). He would probably counter-challenge with, "Can anyone prove that there definitely is a god?" (to which, the honest answer is also "No".)

"Can you prove atheism is true?" is a flawed question. Atheism doesn't make any assertions (it's just "not believing in a god"), so it cannot be proven true or false. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are atheistic, as well. There are, of course, "theistic Buddhists" (et al), but those philosophies are not religions, because they are not theistic, by nature.

Will the voice of reason be heard, here? Humanperson (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

See Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism, and I would suggest some more substantive edits. VargasMilan (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
First, I challenged him to find one factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article. He obviously cannot do it just like the rest of the atheist/agnostic community.
Second, I said encyclopedias of philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is arguably the most preeminent encyclopedia in the Western World and the world at large. And it defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. Attempting to water down the definition of atheism is a tactic of agnostic pantywaists who want to appear tough, but are merely faux atheists. Watering down the definition of atheism makes it largely indistinguishable from agnosticism and that is why quality encyclopedias of philosophy do not attempt to blur the difference between atheism/agnosticism.
Atheists/agnostics are often cowardly and I expect Kyle to chicken out just like Hen Jillete (see: Atheism and cowardice). But even if he was not cowardly (and I very much suspect he is), he cannot find a single error in the Conservapedia atheism article nor can he provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. Conservative (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

By the way, the question is not flawed. Atheism is flawed. Conservative (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

One other matter. The two strongholds of atheism are Europe and China. Evangelical Christianity is growing in Europe (see: Evangelicalism growing in Europe) and Europe is presently being overrun with Muslim refugees in crisis proportions. And in China, biblical Christianity is growing very rapidly. Atheism is doomed in the 21st century.Conservative (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Answer to everyone. It doesn't matter how other atheists are defining atheism. Christians define Christianity in a multitude of ways. The actual meaning of Christianity is "Christ-like". The actual meaning of Atheism is "godless". I don't need to repeat the post - I've already broken it down for everyone on the Talk Page of Atheism is a religion. And I'm correct. Often, people don't like to know that you're correct, and will attack you for being correct, if you show them that they're wrong. Such is the case when I explain what atheism actually is, to someone who believes otherwise. It's not my fault that I'm correct - it's other people's fault that they're wrong. The full explanation is already available on the Talk Page. Feel free to read it and learn. Humanperson (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

See: Atheism - etymology. You don't have a very complete understanding of the etymology of atheism. Conservative (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

A bit of a side topic, but Buddhism is definitely a religion, since it actually DOES feature supernatural elements, which is a huge requirement of religion. In fact, Buddha's trials even featured a demon he had to confront. Now, I can't speak for Taoism or Confucianism, but I'm pretty sure that at the very least, Buddhism does have trappings of religion and is not atheistic. Atheism doesn't even believe in the supernatural or the afterlife. They in fact believe that once you're dead, that's it, you're worm food, and humans don't have supernatural abilities. Sure, Buddhism doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but it does believe in various supernatural elements. That aside, I do agree that atheism is flawed. However, I'm not one to advocate against wiping them out despite my being Christian. We showed the atheists mercy, and it resulted in us being killed or worse, so I see no reason to spare atheists. They even infiltrated the church thanks to the likes of Gramsci's march through the institutions. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
I don't believe I'm reading this. You're actually sympathizing with the mass murder of atheists?! VargasMilan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

"It's all but official: Tim Tebow to become a Philadelphia Eagle."

It looks like the headline may already be out of date. GregG (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Curses, the enemies of Tebow rejoice.--Jpatt (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

New Species?

I'm on the fence with creation and evolution (I do tend toward old earth creationism however) so I found this interesting. What does the community think? At first I would have thought it was merely a form of ape however there were interesting characteristics. JohnSelway (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (EDT)

Are you similarly on the fence about God and the devil? The Lord created man in his own image on the sixth day. The Bible says nothing about another species of human. Any "evidence" to the contrary is nothing but lies and distortions by liberals and atheists. ChrisBaker (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
I'm a Christian old earth creationist. So no, not on the fence. Do you have anything else to say about this topic rather than about me? JohnSelway (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
Secularists need evolution to have existed in order to give natural sanction to their proposed sinful "evolutions" beyond divine law.VargasMilan (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
JohnSelway, read these resources: Paleoanthropology and Evolution and 15 questions for evolutionists. If you read those resources and are fair-minded, you will remain a creationist.
In addition, read the resources at Age of the earth. Conservative (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
Thank you, Conservative. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist but I agree there are some very valid questions and issues to be raised with the idea of Evolution, I just haven't given it much thought until recently (on this site as well as following the references). I'll let you know if I have further questions about this. It is an interesting debate and I approach it fairmindedly. Thanks. JohnSelway (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (EDT)

Mohamed and his "cool clock"

Isn't this story just too perfect from the point of view of Obama and the Allah-loving media?[5] It reminds me of the rash of post-9/11 "anti-Muslim" attacks that turned out to be a hoax. What do you want to bet it was dreamed up by an Obamunist in the school administration? Sorry, liberal media. You've pulled this nonsense too many times to take your word for it. PeterKa (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

It is a bizarre story. The media and the White House exploited the story remarkably quickly for their own agenda. Bobby Jindal had some good comments about this episode at the debate.
It's looking more like a hoax bomb than a cool clock.[6] It wasn't a science project either. It was a mass-produced clock sold commercially at Radio Shack. PeterKa (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2015 (EDT)
User:Joshmowe has written a Conservapedia article on the story under the title Ahmed Mohamed. VargasMilan (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

Carly Carson

I think your headline is inaccurate. Shifting support would mean away from Trump and to Carly Carson. No indication he's lost any momentum. I classify it as new found support.--Jpatt (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

I think Trump dropped by 8 points, and Carson dropped by 5 points, while Carly gained 3 points in this poll (and gained more compared with other polls). The overall support for these mavericks seems to remain roughly constant, within 10 points.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Donald Trump to avoid Fox News "for the foreseeable future"

I guess The Donald can't see very far in to the future. Six whole days. W.Sidney (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

Pro Aborts in Australia lead to Troy Newman being stopped on domestic US flight and stopped from entering Australia

Something has to be done to bring this hate crime to the attention of the general population. LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/australia-blocks-travel-pro-lifer-helped-produce-baby-parts-videos/). I think Obama might be ultimately behind this

He was banned from entering Australia because he advocates violence towards abortion providers, even calling on them to be executed. On the other hand it is hard to get a visa to enter the USA if convicted of a minor misdemeanor deep in their past. In my opinion someone convicted of shoplifting in the 1990s is less dangerous than someone who advocates murder. How exactly is Obama behind this?--ColeP (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2015 (EDT)
You have no evidence for that.VargasMilan (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

The Pope and Kim Davis

The Vatican is denying any support for Davis. Should the story on the front page be updated? W.Sidney (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2015 (EDT)

Kim Davis is an evangelical Christian and the pope hugged her, told her to stay strong and then they made a mutual pact to pray for each other.[7] The horse is out of the barn and in the next township. It's too late to retract now! Conservative (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2015 (EDT)
The Fox News Channel is pro-homosexual agenda, but no amount of its spin can change the basic facts of the story: the Vatican arranged for the meeting, and the Pope was supportive of Kim Davis.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (EDT)

Donald Trump prayer meeting and "Speaking in tongues" -- not so much.

If you're talking about the video of the prayer session, that wasn't "tongues." It was HEBREW, spoken/prayed by a rabbi. The kippa might have tipped you off. W.Sidney (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

Australia and gun control: Let's do the math

The media has been trumpeting the lack of mass shootings in Australia since a strict gun control law was passed in 1996, nineteen years ago. Is this really anything to get excited about? According to this article, the U.S. had six mass shootings in 1990-2009. The U.S. has 13 times (321.6/23.9) the population of Australia. So over a 19-year-period, we would expect 6/13 or 0.46 of a mass shooting in Australia. If only the SAT had problems this simple..... PeterKa (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

The United States has had more than those six as a result of a more crime-prone population. A better comparison is Australia vs. New Zealand:
"New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rates before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.
"The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth—including with many guns that were completely banned in Australia.
"While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.
"The only thing Australia's strict gun control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns. Of course, Times reporters don't have to worry about violent crime because they live in doorman buildings. For those who can't afford to live in fancy buildings in ritzy neighborhoods, bad journalism kills." — Ann Coulter, "Doing the research the New York Times won't do.", January 9, 2013. VargasMilan (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

They will probably never ban guns in NZ. If memory serves, they have many more sheep in NZ than people. So they want rifles to kill the wolves that kill the sheep. :) Conservative (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

Using Ann Coulter as a reference on Australasian gun laws is a bit like quoting User:Conservative on the prevalence of wolves in NZ.
Sorry Cons.
NZ has a gun ownership rate of about double Australia's but that does not make it "armed to the teeth". I may have mocked Cons' comment before, but he is, to a point, correct. NZ is a largely agrarian society, and if you have beasts you need firearms. To shoot the sheep - for dinner. To shoot the sheep - to put it out of its misery. Apart from the odd feral dog and those villains from The Wind in the Willows, weasels and stoats and the like, NZ has no predatory mammals.
If we are going to do the maths on Oz v US mass shootings since Howard's laws in 1996/7, lets multiply Australia's incidents by the population difference with America by 13 or 14 and see what we get. None Nilch Nada.
And let us check similar incidents elsewhere....schools, colleges, universities. Australia has had TWO deaths in one incident on campus since 1996. Multiply that by 14. (I have put two offspring through highschool, one of them through university (including a post graduate degree) without ever seeing an armed "security" official.) Why does America need armed security on campuses when we don't?
AlanE (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
  • I eagerly read Coulter's full article, which is here. As always, I defer to her superior knowledge of these matters. It sounds like Australia is a U.S. liberal's dream come true: A society that was once heavily armed, suddenly disarmed. If that didn't have any measurable effect on the murder rate, liberals have been barking up the wrong tree for a very long time. In answer to AlanE's question, I recommend this article. The big difference between crime in the U.S. and in Europe is drug-related violence. That means crack dealers shooting each other. As the LAPD puts it, "NHI" -- no humans involved. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Your "eagerness" to read and agree with Coulter shows a complete disregard for academic rigor. What the hell does the LAPD have to do with what we're talking about? Maybe the next Harry Bosch will tell me. What bearing has Europe on the subject. We are supposed to be talking about Australia. The fact remains that since 1997 not one multiple shooting has occured. Yes or no?
AlanE (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Peter, see Conservapedia's article Sudden Jihad Syndrome for mass killings and attempted mass killings by Muslim immigrants to the United States and elsewhere. VargasMilan (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

AlanE: The point you keep evading is that comparing crime trends in Australia in NZ suggests that even the most radical form of gun control has no measurable effect on crime. The number of mass murders since 1997 is of no significance. Why not? "Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category," as you would know if you had read the Coulter link. PeterKa (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

  • Here is a great idea: A "gun-free zone" around each candidate who supports gun control. See how long they can last without armed security and Secret Service agents. PeterKa (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Good one, Peter. I would just add the only academic rigor Coulter is lacking is the rigor of the academy in pursuing liberal causes at the detriment to the reputation of the "science" they profess and to understanding at large. See Liberal hoax. VargasMilan (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

AlanE, your academic rigor comment was a genetic fallacy.

Second, academia actively discriminates against conservatives.[8]

Third, "An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during their first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt."[9] Conservative (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

I am a New Zealand citizen (not by birth but have lived here for most of my life) and can tell you NZ has strict gun laws, it is very very difficult to buy anything other than rifles and shotguns and even then those guns are only sold to people who have a gun license. Gun licenses are granted by A) taking a gun safety test B) having a clean criminal record (outside of non-violent crime) and C) having character witnesses sign on your good character. All guns must be kept locked up, cannot be carried in public and to get a handgun or automatic rifle one needs special licenses. NZ is not "massively armed" by any stretch of the imagination. Not even the NZ Police carry weapons! You'll never see an armed police officer on regular duty. JohnSelway (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
If NZ's gun ownership rate today is higher than Australia's was in 1996, Coulter's argument is still valid. NZ's gun ownership rate has always been higher than Australia's, as you can see here. PeterKa (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
Time magazine is also skeptical of the Australian law. When confronted with the evidence, Howard explains that it's not about crime. It's about differentiating Australia from the United States. So if the U.S. was to adopted a similar law, Australia might well abandon it. PeterKa (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Election by endorsement tracker

Nate Silver is all over it.. W.Sidney (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Hillary and TPP

Is the real Hillary the one championed TPP as secretary of state, or the one who is now against it?[10] I'm going with Matt Drudge's line: "She's a head on a stick at this point." PeterKa (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Hillary would never base her opinion on what would best offer candidate Hillary a "product differentiation" from President Obama's policy stance. I'm sure that she is being entirely and completely sincere, and that she was as surprised as we were about the negative qualities of the trade pact, qualities that she is too busy to specify what they are right now. And as surprised (as she described in her autobiography) as she was about the existence of Bill's White House affairs. VargasMilan (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
I don't know how much Obama has influence over the FBI email investigation and whether or not he is wanting to influence the investigation, but the more Hillary says she disagrees with Obama, the less inclined he will be to try to influence the investigation. I have my doubts that Obama cares about the Clintons given that he is to the left of them and the bad feelings caused by the Obama/Clinton Democratic nomination battle. In addition, Obama cares about his legacy and if he tries a cover up of the email scandal, it could come back to bite him.
This past week Hillary's poll numbers plunged again.[11] And if she is indicted, she can kiss her campaign goodbye. In the meantime, she has the drip, drip, drip of bad news relating to the email scandal.Conservative (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
I assume Obama prefers Biden to "likeable enough" Hillary. Coming out against TPP suggests Hillary has given up on getting the Obama nod. Biden has run for president several times and never won any primaries or even created significant buzz outside Washington, where he was a senate committee chair. Perhaps Obama just can't resist a guy who notices how "clean and articulate" he really is.[12] But more likely, he sees himself as the future leader of the opposition. He certainly isn't planning to retire from public life the way previous presidents have. Another Democrat in the White House would cramp his style. As an Alinskyite, his heart is with Black Lives Matter. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Paul Ryan and the "EDNA [ENDA] Bill".

Do you mean the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? 'Cause people usually refer to that as ENDA, not EDNA. W.Sidney (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the correction!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

image upload request

Hi, I have asked a couple of people to upload this image for me: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/images/john-key.jpg?itok=Z7xin1nk so I can add it to the John Key page that I wrote but so far no one has helped me. Can someone please assist? Thanks! JohnSelway (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

Cancel that - I see Aschlafly added a pic. JohnSelway (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

Democratic debate

It seems that Hillary "won" the debate by lying her a** off about TPP.[13] What was once the "gold standard of trade treaties" no longer measures up.

So the Democrats are hot for ending tuition. Cross country economic comparisons show no connection between a country's economic performance and its level of education. Almost everyone in college would much prefer to be married and/or have a job. But the Democrats have no idea how to create jobs. The best they dare to hope for is a country full people who never leave school. A generation of men who never become heads of families leaves us without a next generation, which, I suppose, is where illegal immigration fits in.

This was Bernie's time to shine, and it turns out he can't even beat Hillary in a debate. When your best line is something about how your opponent has been treated unfairly, that's not a good sign. I wonder if he was a ringer all along. PeterKa (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

Top weatherman blows the lid off global warming hoax

France's foreign minister came by and told the country's weatherman how do their jobs and help him with "climate diplomacy”. One man had enough.[14] PeterKa (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

"The Drone Papers"

The leak is credited to an anonymous whistleblower, not to Snowden. W.Sidney (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

The leak is still inaccurately credited on the front page. W.Sidney (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (EDT)
Revised, thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Blair and Iraq

If I understand this article correctly, the Daily Mail thinks it's a scandal that Blair knew about Bush's invasion of Iraq a year before it happened. I think pretty much everyone did. Bob Woodward published Bush At War in 2002, which is same time period this article is talking about. The book explains in detail how Bush made the decision to go war with Iraq within days of 9/11. The media has created a fictional version of events centered on WMD and so forth. American Sniper shows a better understanding of what actually happened. PeterKa (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

That's not fair. If Saddam Hussein had renounced his violations of the no-fly zone as well as his harboring terrorists with a change of heart like Gaddafi's, might not Bush have given Saddam another chance unlike the way Hillary treated Gaddafi? VargasMilan (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (EDT)
This was around same time Bush said, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."[15] I'm sure he still had an opened mind, though. PeterKa (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
So you think Bush plunged the nation into war to exact a personal revenge? VargasMilan (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
It was more than likely that Saddam would have developed WMDs had his regime been allowed to continue. Unfortunately some of the evidence used to justify (in what i think was a correct decision to invade iraq) was a little suspect. Unfortunately Barack Hussein Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gave rise to ISIS, which has undone much of the work that the initial invasion did. Obama should be impeached for wasting the lives of American servicemen. FFAF2 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

According to Woodward's account, Bush concluded immediately after 9/11 that Saddam was involved in the attack. This is what triggered the decision to go to war. The WMD argument was deployed primarily to get French support. The CIA was convinced that the French had a psychological complex about poison gas as result of WWI. Perhaps they do, but it turned out not to be as serious as their anti-American complex. Bush's big mistake was leaving Tenet, Clinton's CIA director, in place. At one point, Tenet proclaimed that WMD was a "slam dunk."[16] But later he decided, not so much. Obviously, he was hugely wrong on one of those occasions. (It doesn't really matter which one.) He and the whole top level of the CIA should have been purged, which is what Tenet had done to Bush 42 appointees. PeterKa (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Something is amiss here. You say according to Woodward Bush believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack, and that triggered the decision to go to war. You also say Woodward's book came out in 2002. But the Iraqi Freedom attack didn't happen until 2003. How could Woodward be describing decisions to go to war in Iraq months before it occurred? If Woodward had shown these decisions had already been made, the book would have been used by opponents of the war at the time to discredit the diplomatic interplay involving the U.S., Iraq and the U.N. as being all for show. And that didn't happen. I just looked up the book, and it appears to be about Afghanistan. You should be careful about how your various claims work together to characterize the Iraq war. VargasMilan (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
The Saudis would not let the U.S. use the bases that had been used in 1991. So the U.S. had to build new bases in Kuwait, and that took some time. The drumbeat for war started soon after Tora Bora in December 2001. This was the news every day, day after day. By the time, Woodward's book came out, everyone had already heard it, and most people were sick of hearing about it. Congress approved the Iraq War in October 2002. So logically Bush had to have made his decision sometime earlier. PeterKa (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
I knew it. You are confusing Bush at War about the Afghan war which came out in 2002 with Plan of Attack about the Iraq war which came out in 2004. I don't agree with you about the "drumbeat of war" at all. It was instance after instance of the Bush Administration proving there was no rush to judgment. VargasMilan (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Another contradiction: You say "Bush concluded immediately after 9/11 that Saddam was involved in the [9/11] attack, and that triggered the decision to go to war." But Bush at War on page 99 has Bush saying "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now. I don't have the evidence at this point." VargasMilan (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
I guess Woodward has put out more books on this subject than I realized. Does it matter which one it was? The point remains that Bush made this decision well before the time period the Daily Mail article is discussing, and for reasons that had nothing to do with WMD or the UN. Of course, one wonders what would have happened if Saddam had complied with Blix's demands. Fortunately, he was too delusional by that time to try anything clever. PeterKa (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Which book it is suggests what the timeline was. So without digging further into the timeline, I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush made the decision to go to war barring a reversal of a delusional Saddam. It doesn't portray America's interests well to say that our country's decision to go to war and risk the lives of Americans was dependent on the arbitrary will of a murderous dictator, but I think it portrays America's interests less well to say that Bush's slow, meticulous, plodding consensus-building was just a sham. VargasMilan (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Mitt

I wouldn't have thought Mitt Romney would have a shot of winning at all! JohnSelway (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Beggars can't be choosers, and right now the Establishment is in a desperate search for someone, anyone, who could be their candidate and win the nomination.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
But Romney is such a faux Conservative. He lost last time so don't know how anyone could think he'd win this time! Who would you like to win Andy? I quite like Huckabee myself but can't see him winning. JohnSelway (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Unfortunately, Jeb Bush is still the candidate most likely to win the nomination, due to the strength of the Establishment. I'd prefer several of the other candidates to win instead.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Agreed. I'm picking Bush vs. Clinton....Establishment vs. Establishment. JohnSelway (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
You figure people who are now supporting Trump or Carson will switch to Bush? That's not obvious to me. Both Rubio and Cruz are ahead of Bush at this point.[17] PeterKa (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

I think Establishment Republicans are in denial. And they are unwilling to do the one thing that would deflate Trump - build a more serious wall between Mexico/USA. In short, secure the border. That is because they want cheap labor and it is because they have no backbone.

Everything points to Trump winning the nomination at this point. He has name recognition, he is media savvy and gets free media, he has a lot of money to fund a campaign, he is a fast learner who is adapting to being a politician, and his developer background gave him insight into politics. And if Trump makes a flub, big donors will not abandon him (since he doesn't have any) nor will his supporters abandon him. The "McCain not a war hero" and "ugly Fiorina" comments prove this. In addition, the RINOs seem slow to politically adapt. Conservative (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

Trump will pull out of the race as soon as there is a chance he might lose, because Trump cares most about his image. So I doubt Trump will stay in the race after the NH primary, and he may even pull out before.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
I wrote: "Everything points to Trump winning the nomination at this point." Looks like I was ignoring Ben Carson picking up steam. :) If Trump wants to peel off Carson's supporters, he is going to have to start being nicer and being more humble. Pride appears to be Trump's achilles' heel. And going to church and daily Bible reading with sincere intent to make them a habit wouldn't hurt either. Carson is probably dominating the religious voters. Conservative (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

The world is ending, and I feel fine

Well, isn't Obama in an odd mood these days? “[The Republicans] are like Grumpy Cat,” Mr. Obama said, referring to a popular meme and making a frowning face. “Everything is terrible according to them. ‘We’re doomed!’” [18] Let's see if I have the liberal line straight. The percentage of Americans at work keeps dropping; despite enormous U.S. investment, Afghanistan and Iraq are now falling apart; and even the "JV team" is kicking our ass around. But, hey America, Obama is president! So be happy! If you literally believed that global warming is fixing to kill us all, as Obama claims he does, shouldn't your mind be on something bigger than yourself? PeterKa (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Just trust and follow the liberal elites, and they will tell you which threats are real because blamable on conservatives (however slender the link), and which threats conflict with today's liberal leadership doctrines and therefore must be fake and bravely lead you through them both. VargasMilan (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
On what basis does Obama justify being so full of himself? If we go by the article I linked to above, it's that America eventually recovered from 2008-2009 recession. America has had many recessions and recovered from each one. Economists call it the "business cycle." Next up: Obama takes credit for the sun rising. PeterKa (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
The yearly real GDP per capita growths were (starting in October 1, 2010 for the prior twelve months): 2010: 1.0%, 2011: 1.2%, 2012: 1.7%, 2013: 0.4%, 2014: 1.8%, 2015: about 1.6%. (Compare with 3.2% and 2.4% real GDP per capita growth in 2004 and 2005). I would go further and say that Obama dampened the business cycle by causing the market to always wonder what economy-interfering liberal policy he was going to enact next (like what happened under Franklin Roosevelt) and that the market recovered (anemically) almost immediately but since then has been simply waiting for him to leave. VargasMilan (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
What FDR got right was to let the insolvent banks go under. A recovery of historic proportions followed. Bush/Obama gave us "too big to fail," leave no bank behind, and the most anemic recovery in American history. Paulson modeled the 2008 bailout on Japan's 1998 banking bailout,[19] which led to the "lost decade." So economic recovery was never even part of the plan. PeterKa (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
There was more to the lost decade than the bailout. There was also the accumulation of debt, worse than the U.S. in proportion of it to the size of their economy. VargasMilan (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2015 (EDT)
When we were the richer country, Japan could copy us, as China is doing now. So growth slowed when they moved up to our level. The lame duck period meant that FDR could blame the collapse of the banks on Hoover. If he had been president at the time, it would not have been political possible to let nature take its course. Reagan and the S&Ls is a better model for how to deal with a banking crisis. It is a unique case of a banking crisis that did not lead to a recession. PeterKa (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Facebook

Does Conservapedia have an official Facebook page? Probably not, but I just asked because there seem to be many Facebook pages named "Conservapedia". --Joona(talk) 11:15, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

Actually, there doesn't! VargasMilan (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

Vetting time for Carson

Reporters are questioning incidents recorded in Carson's memoirs and The Washington Post says that's legit since he's the frontrunner.[20] The liberal media certainly didn't sing that tune back when Obama was frontrunner. In those days, if you questioned any claim Obama made about his background, you were some kind of crazy "birther." The first time Obama received anything resembling a vetting was when the Maraniss biograghy came out in 2012. But that time, he'd been president for three years and the astonishing story of his youth no longer seemed to matter. According to Maraniss, Obama did nothing but smoke pot and play basketball. Next thing you know, he was in Harvard Law School. How does that work, anyway?

When CNN asked him about the attempted knifing incident, Carson asked, "Is that what you did with this current President?" They responded by pointing out that a "girlfriend" Obama mentioned in his memoir was later exposed as a "composite."[21] Ha ha! That tidbit is not from from CNN, but from the Maraniss book. Who cares if Obama has made up girlfriends anyway? The interesting thing about the incident is that Obama falsely accuses her of racism. In other words, she was a trial run of a technique he would later perfect in the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson cases. So it sure would have been nice if CNN had asked him about this before he was elected president. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (EST)

There are stories on how Obama got into Harvard here and here. Back in 2008, Percy Sutton revealed that a Saudi billioniare got Obama into Harvard. Sutton's revelation was shot down soon afterward by a “spokesman for Sutton’s family." Now it appears that this "spokesman" was just a self-appointed blowhard. PeterKa (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Trump and the TPP

It has been big news on this side of the world and am surprised by the response from Trump in the US. Here the left are falling over themselves to deride it but the free market right are all in support. Perhaps it is because Trump is such an anti-establishment candidate it is hard to put him in a "left-Right" context? JohnSelway (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Trump is a reality TV star and entertainer. Who knows what his politics are? He thinks of himself as America's No. 1 dealmaker. So when a really big deal gets made, and he's not part of it, he's jealous. He complains about Mexico and China on the campaign trail quite a bit. Those trade deals were made many years ago, but he still he's still miffed about them. PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2015 (EST)

International survey on ISIS

The whole world hates ISIS, according to this Pew survey. When Obama and Kerry are softer on terrorism than the Pakistani public is, it may be time for a course adjustment. PeterKa (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Conservative victory in Argentina

Macri is not a conservative in the US sense. He is only slightly to the right of Obama and is seen as someone who will open up Argentinian markets to the global economy - new investment means closer links with China - without the social protections his predecessor had in place. Tackling crime and corruption sound good but he needs to start with his own party and backers - not a good idea with a slim majority. All in all, nothing to shout about. Rafael (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (EST)

Christianity is growing quickly in communist China and in areas where this is especially happening they are seeing greater prosperity (which has been attributed to the Protestant work ethic). In addition, an aging Europe (where socialism is very prevalent) is expected to shrink the 21st century. Furthermore, politics is shifting to the right in Europe. In addition, as far as the secular left, global atheism continues to shrink while the global religious with their higher fertility rates are quickly growing in numbers.
I am guessing a larger audience of religious conservatives, will eventually foster a greater audience for conservative news outlets.
It appears as if the secular left will be slowly ground down in the 21st century in a "war of attrition". Conservative (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2015 (EST)
Meanwhile, in Argentina... Rafael (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (EST)
As far as secular leftism in the world today, which of course includes Argentina, Professor Eric Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[22] Global communication, many students studying abroad in the USA and other Christianized countries increased the rapid growth of Christianity in China, immigration, foreign missionaries, foreign movies/music, tourists, business people engage in foreign travel, etc. etc. Conservative (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (EST)
"Violent Feminists Attack Argentinian Cathedral - many of them topless"[23] Feminism and secular leftism often lowers the fertility rate of the secular leftist population and the country it resides in. The fertility rate of Argentina is dropping.[24] If Christianity does not grow in Argentina quickly, the business leaders and other influential Argentinians may eventually have to lobby to bring in religious immigrants like secular Europe is doing.
Although the fertility rate of Guatemala is dropping, it is significantly more religious and evangelical Christianity has made some inroads and it has a fertility rate which is almost double that of Argentina.[25] Will Argentina eventually see a growth of religious immigrants? Conservative (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (EST)

"In the last 20 years, large immigrants crowds arrived to Argentina from Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Central America, the Caribbean, Korea, China, Taiwan, Africa, and from Central and Eastern Europe."[26] Seeing that the fertility rate of Argentina is getting close to a below replacement level, the pace of religious immigrants to Argentina could accelerate - especially given the fact that the world is expected to see global desecularization in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2015 (EST)

The trend of global desecularization, the growth of fundamentalism within Abrahamic faiths and the trend of migration from religious immigrants does not bode well for Darwinism. Eventually, we may see Moses, Henry Morris and Duane Gish appear on the world's leading currencies. :) Conservative (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (EST)

Thanksgiving

Turkey thanksgiving symbol.jpg

Enjoy your holiday! Best wishes from Germany, AugustO (talk).

Thanks for your kind words. I will put your Thanksgiving graphic on the main page. Conservative (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2015 (EST)

Commercialization of Thanksgiving and "black friday"

An MPR item (currently #5) says that sales at retail stores dropped 10% on Black Friday and Thanksgiving. It says that "One mentioned reason is a backlash against the commercialization of the religious holiday", and cites an abcnews.go.com article. Now I deplore the commercialization as much as the next person; the commercialization of Christmas has been going on for decades, having been the subject of a Tom Lehrer song in 1954, and mentioned in the movie Miracle on 34th Street in 1947. And it has been leaking into Thanksgiving for several years. Hallowe'en is already happening, and before long we will be hearing about discounts for our Columbus Day shopping.

But the MPR item says "one mentioned reason", and cites the ABC News article. It cites no other article or source, so the place where the reason—backlash against the commercialization—is mentioned must be the article, right? But the ABC News article makes no mention of this in any way. In fact, it is quite explicit in giving what it sees as the reasons. It makes a clear and concise statement of the two reasons:

"A big reason for the declines is increased online shopping, as Americans hunt down deals on their smartphones, tablets and computers."
"Another key factor: Many retailers are offering bargains long before Thanksgiving, limiting the impact of Black Friday specials."

The word "commercialization" does not appear anywhere in the article.

I looked for another article on the topic, and found one linked from the Fox News web site here. The two articles in fact have the exact same text.

The trustworthiness and integrity of Conservapedia are harmed by making claims that sources say things that are obviously not what they say.

SamHB (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (EST)

I wonder how long retail stores like Best Buy will stay open. Even now, a lot of people just look at the merchandise and find a better deal for it online. (unsigned contribution by TBarnes)

San Bernardino

The attack in San Bernardino certainly looks suspiciously like terrorism at this point. So what's the Democratic response? To immediately unleash an offensive across both the social media and the old media demanding gun control and bashing Christianity.[27] Not only was there no pause to mourn the dead; The left was systematically politicizing the incident even while it was underway. Thank goodness France has wonderful gun control laws that prevent "these things" from happening there! Party strategists must have asked themselves how to take advantage of the next terrorism attack and worked this all out in advance. It's the equivalent of responding to 9/11 by demanding box-cutter control. PeterKa (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Appreciate your insights. As usual, Christianity is the victim and yet liberal denial is in full force.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2015 (EST)
All of Obama's gun control proposals are already the law in California.[28] The only kind of gun control that liberals like is the kind that doesn't do anything about crime. Taking guns from criminals via stop-and-frisk or some other means -- that's racist. PeterKa (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2015 (EST)

London tube stabbing

Actually knives are effectively banned in the UK. it is illegal to carry any bladed item with a blade longer than 3 inches which is why the UK has so few incidents of this kind. UK government site explaining UK knife laws. It was also nice to see Muslims who were there helping to take him down and decrying his alleged justification.Davidspencer (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2015 (EST)

I'm not entirely convinced that restricting gun ownership reduces gun deaths, but in the UK shooting death rate is 2.6 per million population per year (as opposed to 105 in the USA) so they must be doing something right. Any ideas what? --DHouser (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2015 (EST)

Some perspective. One person with non=life threatening injuries. Two with minor injuries. One terrorist in custody with the implications for intel gathering. All round, much better outcome than San Bernardino - meaning the comparison in the MPR item is inane. Rafael (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (EST)
Agree with the above. The important thing for people in the States to note is that this lunatic hurt 3 people, but not seriously. If he'd been in the USA, how many guns would he have had and how many people would he have killed? The comparison between Leytonstone and San Bernadino should make law-abiding conservatives vote for very strong gun control and find ways of collecting and destroying the guns that would then be illegal. Do any of our conservative politicians have the guts to stand up to the NRA and speak up for public safety and law & order? StaceyT (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (EST)
Has everyone already forgotten Paris? 140 people were killed just a couple of weeks ago. Will someone blame lax gun control? California has been a one-party state for a long time. Liberal Democrats have had time to rewrite all the state's laws -- on guns and otherwise. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (EST)
You're missing the point, Peter. Paris was an organised terrorist attack. Leytonstone didn't show much evidence of planning. Would UK style gun laws stop another Paris style attack? No, just like it didn't stop the IRA. Did the UK gun avert a bloodbath on Saturday? Probably. We didn't force the clumsy, inane equivalence on the two events - the person who posted the MPR item did. Rafael (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2015 (EST)
Armed citizens and security could have shot back at the perpetrators in Paris who conducted the massacre and stopped it. The perpetrator in the U.K. saw little risk of being subdued with deadly force due to U.K. gun laws. A concealed-carry policy in the U.K. might have deterred him from carrying out the act that placed the lives of three U.K. citizens at deadly risk. VargasMilan (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2015 (EST)
There's the movie version and there's the reality. Did armed citizens and security deter the San Bernardino killers? Or any of the mass shooters over the last few years?
If you've been to Israel, you'll know how weird it feels to see kids in bars with M16s and Uzis. Has that stopped or deterred Palestinian terorrists?
I was in Paris in the Summer and my wife was in Paris the week before the attack. The army were on the streets, in combat fatigues, with automatic weapons, as well as the armed gendarmerie and had been since the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Did it deter the attackers and stop the massacre?
As for the Leytonstone attacker, I doubt the fear of getting shot would stop someone seeking martyrdom - remember the killers of Lee Rigby, who wanted to be shot? And let's not forget the injuries - one serious but non-life threatening and three minor. Could we say the same if someone started shooting in that confined space?
This case raises some intriguing and serious questions. DHouser has touched on the most obvious. Dismissing it with TV movie rhetoric won't bring greater clarity or understanding. Rafael (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2015 (EST)
You couldn't be more accurate. There is the movie version, the falsified media movie presented by the left-wing media and reality:
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter. Their study looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped by an armed civilian or anything else.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer only managed to kill one or two people? It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any products that killed the weeds.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:
—Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
—Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
—Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
—Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
—Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
—Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, where there was no armed citizen to stop the attack. As a result, lots of people got killed — and these killings were the only ones included in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving innocent lives by reducing the carnage from mass shooting, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, keep trying the other policies. — Ann Coulter, "We know how to stop school shootings", December 19, 2012.
I can think of two other examples in the past few years off the top of my head recently where a concealed-carry possessor stopped a would-be mass murderer: One at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, and another perpetrator who tried to shoot up an office. VargasMilan (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2015 (EST)

An interesting and ironic diversion from the original point. Ironic because your cherry picking yielded only a handful of cases from the last eighteen years, representing maybe less than 1% of mass shootings - and that's conflating terrorism with everyday criminality. Again, there's reality and there's TV movies.

As DHouser pointed out, there is no connection between gun crime and gun ownership and gun control. We in the UK have had three mass shootings in the last twenty years. Three. The army on the streets didn't prevent the Paris attacks, any more than they prevented attacks in Ulster in the 1970s. Every adult male in Saddam's Iraq was required to keep a weapon at home....and any number of other, contradictory, examples from around the world.

So what causes the third world level of gun crime in the US? It's not guns in and of themselves. It's guns plus something else. What?

Which is where we came in. You have a problem. A huge problem. Gun control is not the answer. The answer calls for some real introspection, analysis, debate.

Knee jerk reaction, wishful thinking, the kind of rhetorical flim flammery of the original MPR post and a dogmatic insistence on failed policies will not help.

Conservatism is about being open minded and seeking the truth, no matter how painful or inconvenient. Rafael (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (EST)

According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 66 mass public shootings between 1999 and 2013 in the United States (this includes those in a public location not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance such as armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle). I named six that were foiled at least in part, plus two from two years before. That makes about eleven percent, not one, genius. And the point of the article is the deterrence factor so think of how many more mass public shootings were deterred.
You also ignore the excessive policies championed by liberals mentioned in the article resulting in gun-free zones and states with no concealed-carry (San Bernardino is a perfect example). With no concealed-carry there can be no deterrence. Another point of excess was the emptying of the mental hospitals under the crackpot liberal theory that untreated schizophrenia was just an alternate way of thinking (see Thomas Szasz) championed by the ACLU, affecting all fifty states and resulting in many mass shootings.
A disproportional number of these mass public shootings were by Muslims (See Sudden Jihad Syndrome). Yet when Donald Trump proposes the solution is Muslim control, not gun control, you are the first to demonize him when someone brings it up on this very page. All this points to someone, namely you, who ignores the facts at his disposal and is not worth participating with in further discussion. VargasMilan (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Obama speech on San Bernardino

Fighting terrorism is all about gun control, cracking down on Islamophobia, and rejecting "tough talk.” No pause in the Syrian refugee program, no pause in releasing Gitmo terrorists, and no ramp up of military action in the Middle East. I wish that was an Onion joke. But no, that is the honest-to-God gist of Obama's latest speech, given in response to the tragedy in San Bernardino. All I can say is, thank goodness he didn't go back to Paris and deliver another "powerful rebuke" to ISIS by talking about the weather some more. PeterKa (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Very well put, Peter! I enjoy your insights.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (EST)
Peter, the perpetrators weren't children and are thus expected to express their grievances about the non-acceptance of their presumed superiority, however profound, with words or the words of a legal advocate rather than violent acts, much less murderous ones. Such acts are an expression of the moral bankruptcy of their beliefs, not the expression of a tragic failure of restraint in the championing of a set of morally elevated beliefs. So I don't see a tragedy but an atrocity that stains the religion of which they were adherents. VargasMilan (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2015 (EST)
  • In Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that, "I will stand with [the immigrant communities] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."[29] The context here is a discussion of Arab and Pakistani nationals detained by the FBI after 9/11. If we go by this latest speech, this is Obama's political core, who he is. He sees Jihadist Americans as just another "immigrant community" to "stand with." Carter snapped out of it after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But Obama retains the mentality of a memoir writer anxious to display his left-wing bona fides. PeterKa (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Obama cracks down on hate speech

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is planning a crackdown on anti-Muslim rhetoric on the grounds that, "When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American."[30] Where does that leave the Koran? "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful" (2:191-193). PeterKa (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (EST)

Trump suggests blocking Moslems

Trump suggested that we ought to ban Moslems from the US. I think it's a pretty good idea, but like the wall he claims he can build, I'm not clear how he would implement it. And would that mean removing those who are Moslem from the US - gathering them up like the illegals? I mean, how would you even identify someone by their religion at a border point, given that there are white caucasian Westerners who have converted to Moslem? It seems like a good idea but I think Mr. Trump has bitten off more than he can chew - I just don't think it's practical, no matter how desirable. Bringreaganback (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2015 (EST)

Maybe Trump can settle for having "Moslem" stamped on their driving licence and making them wear green triangles. Rafael (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2015 (EST)
Enable much? VargasMilan (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2015 (EST)
  • Trump's empty grandstanding on this issue has certainly provoked quite a cloudburst in the liberal media. I don't think we should view the hysteria as a reaction to the merits of this particular proposal: It's the liberal id surfacing. Liberals think all Republicans are Nazis, bigots, and any other insulting characterization you can think of. That includes liberal Republican sellouts like McCain. In their minds, they had been exercising incredible restraint up to this point. Finally, they just could take it any longer. PeterKa (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2015 (EST)
Funny they should think the Republicans were Nazis, since the Nazis politically were closer to the current Democrats (left-wing in other words). Pokeria1 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2015 (EST)
The immigration law as written allows the president to exclude "any aliens or any class of aliens."[31] No one called Carter a Nazi when he used this provision to exclude Iranians during the hostage crisis. PeterKa (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2015 (EST)


Trump is talking how to protect Americans. His detractors are calling it bigotry. 9/11 terrorists came though on work or education visa's. San Bernadino terrorist came through on a fiance visa. The government is supposed to protect us but they don't have a clue. How many Americans must die before we get our policies right? What Trump suggest is common sense, sorely lacking in the 21st century. --Jpatt (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2015 (EST)

Venezuela setback

Socialist Venezuelan president: "The people have spoken! They want me to be president for life!" VargasMilan (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Humor, right? With a socialist politician it's hard to know sometimes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (EST)
There was a headline at Drudge Report, Venezuela turmoil as president remains defiant after defeat... linking to the Independent. It was a little exaggerated.
A defiant President Nicolas Maduro said he would give no quarter to the Venezuelan opposition in spite of his own party’s crushing defeat in last weekend’s mid-term parliamentary elections.
Mr Maduro vowed to block “the counter-revolutionary right” from taking over the country. “We won’t let it,” he said.
The outburst came as electoral authorities gave final confirmation that the coalition of opposition parties had not only pushed the ruling party into the minority in the national assembly for the first time since 1999 but had, after final results came in, secured a two-thirds majority that, in theory, will allow it to pass laws without the President’s support, replace his ministers and potentially move to replace him.
VargasMilan (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2015 (EST)

The secular left had a lot of power in the world in the 20th century. In the next 40 to 50 years or so should the Lord tarry, there is going to be a lot of defiance, tantrums and desperation on their part (see: Decline of the secular left and Desecularization and Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline and American atheism). Conservative (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2015 (EST)

Trump Vader!

All those preening, slimy hypocrites denouncing Trump's latest grandstanding almost made me want vote for the guy. Fortunately, Trump Vader has arrived. It is truly the most fantastic political send up video ever! Princess Leia's speaks for us all when she reacts to Trump's bizarre blast against Carson. Even better is the scene where Luke solemnly chooses to plunge to certain death rather than listen to more inane Trump prattle. I haven't laughed this hard since I watched SNL's "more cowbell" video. PeterKa (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2015 (EST)

Syrian refugee "setback"

Speaking of SNL, today I was reminded of the Buckwheat assassination sketch where the TV news reporters interviewed those who knew the assassin (John David Stutts) of Buckwheat, and instead of expressing a sense of being shocked (for the typical reaction video spots used in these kinds of news features), all of his acquaintances afterward agreed that he was the classical assassin type.

NYT today: Tashfeen Malik [the San Bernadino terrorist] "talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad." She "passed 3 background checks" by fed govt.

Meanwhile not having read the immediate conservative take on the Paris atrocities' relevance to Syrian refugees repeated at Conservapedia's Community Portal, Syrian refugee groups and their facilitators in the media were still running at the mouth how well the Syrian refugees were going to have their backgrounds checked (despite the absence of a Syrian intelligence infrastructure such as a computerized intelligence record system for its citizens).

To make another comparison to a comic type, they looked like Iraq information minister "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali" from the times of the Iraq War who was insisting to U.S. interviewers how Saddam had the American troops on the run while directly behind him American forces were pouring into Baghdad, just as the Syrian refugee facilitators vowed renewed undaunted courage against the showy ignorance of the "refugees-are-safe" skeptics as the facts poured in on the non-reliability of the vetting of the two San Bernardino terrorists, facts even presented by the leadership of the leftist media that were the refugee facilitators' former champions.

It made whoever got caught crying "bigots" or "phobics" while standing at the spigot trying to flood the U.S. with Syrian immigrants populated throughout with dangerous jihadists (together with Barack "100,000 a year" Obama) look like the cretinous would-be future dealers in political goodies in exchange for terror-fighting cooperation (or even treasonous pressurers to policy weakness) as Syrian sleeper-cells are bursting during a scapegoated future administration, that they were.

Fortunately Trump's "grandstanding", as Peter puts it, has riveted America's attention on the issue and hopefully loyal Americans will get to enjoy the would-be flooders' disgraceful disorderly exit from the political stage resulting from the trumpet blast of retreat the New York Times (along with their friends at the Atlantic) is trying to telegraph to its media followers and their extortionist-facilitator buddies.

Apparently, Hillary's suggestion may offer a solution though: If we "love" more, we may learn to see the value in the future extortion.

Two parting shots from Twitter—media analysis we'll never see:

  • The lying media doesn't realize that the more desperate they get the more people realize Trump is a Godsend.
  • [Trying to grasp Trump's surging popularity in the wake of his Muslim immigration curb announcement] Almost as if Trump had some idea what the people really wanted from the gov't but were constantly ignored...

VargasMilan (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Since his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., Trump has slipped from -1.2 points against Hillary to -5.8.[32] I wouldn't call that "surging popularity." In fact, it's a significantly bigger drop than Cruz experienced in the same period. Cruz went from -1.5 to -3.2.[33] I assume Trump knew his proposal was political poison when he made it. He can regain popularity by making other proposals, but he can't win if won't play the game. I certainly hope we can cut the current level of immigration without introducing religious prejudice. In short, the Trump campaign is all about keeping Trump the center of national attention, not winning the White House. PeterKa (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2015 (EST)
You may have uncovered a large rift in opinion (it's new to me at least) among voters regarding Trump's Muslim immigration pause proposal. CNN reported 31 state governors don't want Syrian refugees so he's not alone even if many voters disapprove. You should also consider the loyalty (= long run support) among Republicans (your chart showed his support stable, but Hillary's went up) who think he sacrificed popularity to voice concerns that unapologetically supported the essential interest of America. I won't try to sketch further in these off the cuff remarks why they think Trump's proposal on Muslim immigration applies to that interest, but Larry Kudlow for one has found the recent Muslim attacks a turning point in his opinion on immigration. VargasMilan (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2015 (EST)
One of Conservapedia's administrators gave a good summary Wednesday describing the national interests involved in Trump's proposal:
Trump’s profanity [proposing to stop Muslim immigration "until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on"] was justified by the revelation that the Muslim wife who helped her Muslim husband massacre 14 people in San Bernardino received a visa from our government, which gave her official permission to enter the United States last year. With that visa and her Pakistani passport, she legally traveled from Saudi Arabia to San Bernardino and married her U.S.-born Pakistani fiancé, with whom she jointly plotted jihad against Americans.
Before Tafsheen Malik received that valuable visa from our government, she was supposed to be screened for terrorist sympathies. A week after the massacre, FBI Director James Comey told Congress he still didn’t know if she was given the required personal interview or what questions she was asked.
Now that it’s too late to keep her out, we’re learning that Tafsheen left a long trail of jihadist rants on social media which were overlooked by the U.S. consular officials who granted her visa. We learn from the New York Times that “anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was particularly high” following the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and that “it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States” — in other words, anti-American attitudes were not enough to keep a Pakistani Muslim out of the United States.
Other presidential candidates rushed to disavow Trump’s proposal, which they claimed was illegal, unconstitutional, or “not who we are,” echoing a sanctimonious phrase that President Obama has used 46 times.
Unconstitutional? On the contrary, the Supreme Court has never dared to limit Congress’ “plenary power” over immigration, even when it was based on race, religion or national origin. In a 1977 case, for example, the Supreme Court observed that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
That plenary power is best expressed in this federal law: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens, or of any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants."
VargasMilan (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2015 (EST)

Cruz could undo Obama' s proudest acheivement

This is my idea of great news: "Under President Cruz, the United States could simply walk away from the landmark Paris climate deal". It's a Washington Post story played straight for a change. It must have been painful for liberal copy editors write a headline like that. PeterKa (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Can Obama find America on a map?

It appears that Obamaland is a nation where citizens are so politically correct and worshipful of Obama that they don't express concerns about terrorism. In Obamaland, there isn't much need to fret about what Americans think. But every now and then, Obama does feel a certain curiosity regarding what might be on our minds. For this purpose, the president retains access to a distasteful device he refers to as "cable news." Or so says CNN: "President Obama said in a private meeting this week that he initially failed to understand the level of national anxiety in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks, in part, because he didn’t watch enough cable news."[34]. PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2015 (EST)

My proposed translation: "I expected the usual 'bigots' and 'phobics' argument to work like clockwork so since it failed, now I have to pretend I wasn't paying attention". VargasMilan (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2015 (EST)
Perhaps the answer is in this article: "President Obama: 'I spend mornings watching ESPN'". Sadly, this is not a commercial endorsement, but the simple truth. Obama is a busy man. It's gonna take a lot more than fourteen dead to take him away from ESPN Sportscenter. PeterKa (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2015 (EST)

If Trump's not enough, ISIS also has clips of Lewinsky, Jones, and Starr

Uh oh. Hillary has opened her yap again and it's not pretty: "[Trump] is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."[35] Huma, please keep the "confused" lady in the attic when she is overmedicated. PeterKa (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2015 (EST) l

Given Huma Abedin's links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Huma probably gave Hillary the idea. One man noticed that those who are always saying they know what ISIS wants us to do never find the time to spell out what ISIS doesn't want us to do. To them that answer is: "the more Muslims commit atrocities, the more we should admit unvetted Muslims to soothe Muslim grievances by offering even more proof to ISIS how tolerant we are and to compensate for the (phantom) backlash against Muslims!" VargasMilan (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2015 (EST)
Not only is there no ISIS video with Trump in it, but RedState came up with one that includes images of both Bill Clinton (who is labeled a "fornicator") and Obama (who is labeled a "liar").[36] Given the debate about what to call the organization, I note that what they call themselves appears to be "Kilafah." ("Its territory is already greater than Britain," as the video boasts.) PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2015 (EST)
With Hillary doubling down on her ISIS/Trump comments,[37] it's clear that she sees ISIS as a species of liberal, albeit a really, really angry kind. The ISIS video I linked to above is informative on this point. It condemns America for "protecting the freedoms of sodomites." It also uses the word "deviant" quite freely. I take it someone involved has listened to Trump and dug what he had to say. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2015 (EST)
Do you say that because you think Trump insults homosexuals, or you think ISIS liked Trump then you think they discovered Republicans in general insult homosexuals? Here's what Trump said:
Trump took a different tack on the Kentucky battle over gay marriage. Some Republicans loudly backed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who opted for jail time rather than issue any marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in support of gay marriage, which goes against her religious beliefs.
"We are a nation of laws," Trump said. "You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that's the law of the land." (September 4, 2015).
It's not Trump, so let's avoid fostering false stereotypes about Republicans treating people coarsely. VargasMilan (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (EST)
  • I just meant that liberals don't use words like "fornicator," "sodomite," and "deviant," so the language of the ISIS video is striking. But Trump has certainly used "deviant." Hillary is projecting her own liberal views onto ISIS. She sees the massacres in San Bernardino and Paris and thinks, "I understand where those people are coming from. They're mad at those terrible Republicans!" PeterKa (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (EST)
  • What do you know? It turns out that Hillary wasn't lying after all. No, no. She was "predicting" and "may have been right," or so says ABC's Good Morning America.[38] PeterKa (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Predictions for 2016: Cruz defeats Sanders

Cruz already tops the polls in Iowa and the pundits are predicting a win for him there.[39] Elsewhere, Trump's support rarely goes above 30 percent. The other 70 percent of Republicans say they would "never" for him. That suggests the majority of Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere are prepared to support an "anti-Trump" once such a candidate emerges. As for the Democrats, Hillary is not nearly as "inevitable" this time around as she was in 2008. Sanders is already ahead in New Hampshire -- and the FBI still hasn't decided what to do about Hillary's email server. In the general election, I doubt personalities will matter much. At this point, the Republicans have a slight edge in the generic ballot.[40] PeterKa (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (EST)

National Review is predicting Rubio vs Hillary. The psychics at Astrochicks may be on to something.[41] They say Scorpios like Hillary tend to be overconfident and that this may cost her the nomination. Paddypower gives the betting odds on the Democratic nomination as Hillary 1/12 and Sanders 6/1.[42] For the Republicans, it's Rubio 7/4, Cruz 9/4, and Trump 5/2.[43] For the general election, it's Democrats 4/6, Republicans 6/5.[44]. So the betters are assuming that the chance of a Democrat getting elected next year is 60 percent. (Or more precisely 57 percent, after I took the house cut into account.) PeterKa (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (EST)
Trump supporters appear to be very loyal and he currently has the lead in the Republican nomination process thus far by a wide margin on a nearly national scale. And Trump's gaffes never appear to hurt him. His political teflon is very thick.
And many Republicans feel betrayed by establishment Republicans and existing Republican politicians after both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans and they still did not stand up to Obama.
And nationalism, anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim sentiment is sweeping through Europe and America. And Trump has a simple and memorable campaign slogan/theme, "I am going to make America great again". Rubio (who has a history of being pro-immigration) is a non-starter despite the fact that he is very articulate and charismatic.
For these reasons, I think a lot of anti-Trump sentiment is wishful thinking. Post Reagan/Gingrich, liberals and establishment Republicans have been in power to a large degree and I think that they are in a state of denial.
Next, constitutionalists may like Ted Cruz as a Senator, but they don't believe he is a natural born citizen and thus he is disqualified to become president of the United States (see: Ted Cruz: Eligible to be president?).
Cruz could win Iowa and then gain momentum, but I think he will have a difficult time on a national scale given Trump's national lead and the apparent loyalty of his supporters. And Cruz faces an uphill battle in New Hampshire (and the Northeast). On the other hand, Cruz is a evangelical and an Iowa win could ignite momentum in the South.
Lastly, I realize that current FBI director is a diligent public servant and that Obama may have low loyalty to Hillary, but I am skeptical that the Obama Administration will indict Hillary given the current culture of corruption of the Democratic Party and the fact that she leads Sanders by a wide margin in the vast majority of states. Conservative (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2015 (EST)
  • According to the Naturalization Act of 1790, "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens. Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." Cruz's mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth, and his father had lived in Texas. This article in Harvard Law Review explains the legal issue in erudite terms and exhaustive detail. PeterKa (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2015 (EST)
  • As for Trump, six out of ten likely Republican primary voters say they would never vote for him.[45] Once the field narrows, he won't be the leader. In a three-candidate field, he needs at least a third of the vote to win. By Super Tuesday, it will be a two-candidate field -- and I don't see Trump ever getting 50 percent of the Republican vote. PeterKa (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2015 (EST)

PeterKa, you made some excellent points about Trump/Cruz. Thanks for the info. Conservative (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2015 (EST)

As the field narrows, Trump might gain support. But he may have a ceiling that is below 50%. As to the Naturalization Act of 1790, it appears to be referring to when BOTH parents are citizens.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2015 (EST)
Trump's polls are driven by the astonishing amount of media coverage he gets. I assume that at some point the media will get bored with him. Of course, I had assumed we'd be way passed the point of Trump-saturation by now. Yet he is now bigger than ever. At this rate, the cable news networks will be interrupting their reports of a Cruz win in Iowa with breaking news on how Trump has proposed separated drinking fountains, greater use of Muslim-face, or a trip to the World Trade Center Mosque, where he will roast some pork and pop open some beers. PeterKa (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2015 (EST)
I looked at this article again and it does appear as if BOTH parents have to be citizens in order for a person to be a "natural born citizen". So Cruz cannot legally be president.
On the other hand, in the last 50 years of so it seems as if political might trumps the Constitution and the law so maybe Cruz or Hillary will be the president of the USA. Conservative (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (EST)
  • Look the quote I gave above. It's "children of citizens." "Citizens" is plural to be grammatically consistent with "children." You should look at the HLR article I linked to. It explains these things much better that I can, and certainly better than the Less Gov is the Best blog can. In statutory terms, the 1790 act has been repealed. But as an act of the first Congress, it can be considered a reflection of the Framer's intent. No court in modern times would follow Vattel or make a distinction between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" for reasons the HLR article explains. PeterKa (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (EST)
The 1790 was quickly "corrected" by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which changed "natural born citizens" to merely "citizens", which comports better with the rest of the law. After all, the issue of whether someone's father ever resided in the United States surely cannot affect whether someone is a "natural born citizen" at birth.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2015 (EST)

Why is our president out of his mind?

Being a world leader isn't easy. And no one knows that better than Obama. He appeared on Seinfeld's show Thursday to explain how it works:

Obama further revealed that he believes “a pretty sizable percentage” of world leaders are out of their minds.

“Part of what happens with these guys is the longer they stay in office, the more likely that is to happen,” he said.[46]

Well, I assume the suggestion that he has been in office too long himself is unintentional. But the most charitable spin I can put on this is that he is telling Seinfeld how nice it is to be back in the real world chatting with Hollywood celebrities as opposed to dealing with those crazy world leaders. Obama became a world leader so he could to have access to film, music, and sports celebrities. The other world leaders keep bringing up boring stuff about politics and international affairs -- they just don't seem to understand. PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2016 (EST)

My thoughts

I read Conservapedia quite often but I still don't understand the true purpose, or agenda? Articles are filled with religious bias, without scientific proof, conjecture and right out lies. You continue to say there's a liberal bias in media but this site has a Christian and conservative bias that you don't even come close to in the mainstream media. Why does conservatism have to equal lying about scientific evidence?

The atheist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was the father of Lysenkoism.
See: Atheism and the suppression of science. The universe not being eternal was one of the many crushing defeats for atheism. See also: Global decline of atheism
See also:List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences and Atheism and historical revisionism
I hope that clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2016 (EST)
You have to "roll with the punches". I'd say that Conservapedia's purpose, at present, is largely to provide a safe place for people to express ideas that are far to the right of the mainstream; so much so that they would be laughed at in most fora. Or, in the case of wikis like Wikipedia, reverted. A number of high-ranking people here, past and present, were "refugees" from Wikipedia, where their writings were not considered acceptable.
Of course, the other, very big, part of CP's purpose, has been to provide a general-purpose encyclopedia, especially aimed at home-school children (though I'm not sure about that preference—when used as supplementary reading, I'd think one wouldn't care who read it), though that part of the mission has decreased a lot in recent years. But you still see it in various articles about "ordinary" topics like math and science. (You'll see a lot of recent work on the chemical elements. An important part of an encyclopedia? No, but you have to start somewhere. And it's nice to be able to look up Tellurium and get something that doesn't go on for page after page after page. Now everyone (that is, everyone who looks around, or who clicks on "Random page") knows that all this is overshadowed by a lot of nonsense (atheism and XYZ, bestiality and XYZ) contributed by a small number of people. That's what I called the "safe place for people to express ..." above. If you can't stand to read about Tellurium on the same web site that has that stuff, well, you're not rolling with the punches.
Now, about lying about science. Yes, that phenomenon is well known here. It's unfortunate. Though, with great care, it is possible for really experienced people (like myself and AugustO, for example) to make progress. Is it worth the effort? Hard to say. But I find the endeavor interesting. Now I write a lot about a lot of topics elsewhere, so what goes on here doesn't particularly bother me.
Roll with the punches. SamHB (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2016 (EST)
Explain exactly where the scientific "lying" is taking place. Karajou (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2016 (EST)
Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg
Nikolai Yezhov walking with Joseph Stalin in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors. See also: Atheism and historical revisionism
SamHB, a few points:
Most people in the United States (and in most countries of the world) are theists - not atheists. Your complaint related to "non-mainstreamness" certainly does not apply to Conservapedia's stance on atheism. And I/we chose many excellent sources to document my/our atheism related material. You have yet to point out one factual error in any of my/our atheism articles (You have not done so because you cannot do so).
And after all is said and done, ideas ultimately have to stand on their veracity and/or evidence supporting them. So your emphasis on "mainstreamness" is rather sophmoric. What is right is often not popular and what is popular is often not right. For example, there are a lot more fast food establishments than diet clinics! Conservative (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (EST)

Hillary: Smart enough to find her own pockets?

Trotsky once accused a tsarist favorite Anna Vyrubova of having "just enough brains not to forget about her own pockets."[47] Hillary may not be much smarter. "[Bill Clinton] has made me personally pledge we are going to get the information out [about UFOs]," Clinton said. "One way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51."[48] Let's see if I have this straight. Bill Clinton. Former president. Guy who had access to all our secrets for eight years. This is the guy who wonders if there are space aliens in Area 51. And Hillary didn't laugh at him. On top of that, Obama declassified pre-1974 records on Area 51 back in 2013. Remember this the next time a Democrat claims conservatives are anti-science. PeterKa (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Trump, the UK and free speech

This issue hasn't anything to do with Trump or Free Speech within the UK. It is only being debated as UK parliamentary law states that any petition to parliament which garners more than 10000 signatories must be debated. I'd wager this motion to be over in 5 minutes with few to no votes on banning Trump. JohnSelway (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2016 (EST)