Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


a packed web conference room ... was totally silenced and became as timid as little bunnies when faced with the 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

I turned up, someone else was using my name, pretending to be me presumably (no worries), but the room was probably silenced because commenting was disabled. --DrDean 14:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I need proof and evidence of this before I believe this speculative report due to this: Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception. I can't go by "probably" when I have a credible eyewitness report. I have seen too many false reports concerning shockofgod like the supposed "phishing" to get YouTube account information, but for some mysterious reason no atheist YouTube accounts were ever shut down. Too much idiocy has gone on at YouTube as far as atheists for me to give them a blank check as far as believing them. The simple truth is that he advertised the URL redirect WWW.SHOCKAWENOW.NET which is perfectly legitimate. By the way, there is a lot of pathetic atheist behavior at YouTube (for example, I was told by a Christian that one popular atheists claimed he used to have "sexual relations" with a stuffed animal. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point). Conservative 15:02, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't know what you are talking about with youtube, I have nothing to do with that. I am an eye witness to, I can't imagine what you would want as proof, if you weren't there yourself then you don't know. You are welcome to go ahead and think that I'm a liar, but that will not change the fact that comments were disabled. Ironically I'd have responded more promptly but commenting seems to have been shut off here too. --DrDean 15:41, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
It is not hard at all for me to believe that a room full of atheists as timid as bunnies. See: Atheism and cowardice. Plus, the popular YouTube evolutionist/atheist DonExodus2 publicly agreed to a debate creation vs. evolution and then evolved into a chicken![1] I saw the video of him agreeing to the debate. Of course, this is not surprising given this: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Plus, Thunderf00t certainly did not give a stellar performance during his debate/dialogue with Ray Comfort and he reminded me of this: Don Knotts Nervous Speech Here is what the Bible says and its testimony is true: "The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Psalms 28:1 Conservative 15:54, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry but I fail to see what any of your last comment had to do with the issue of comments being disabled. --DrDean 16:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Dr. Dean, then tell me this: When is the atheist Penn Jillette going to debate a Bible believer? Conservative 16:09, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
A) Non sequitur, why does this matter? B)How am I supposed to know that? --DrDean 16:21, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

To get back to the point, this is a serious allegation easily cleared. Seeing as we are all highly principled people here, someone who knows ShockofGod can ask him if comments were disabled and report back. Simple. Rafael 16:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Shockofgod says atheists/evolutionist were asked to get on mic - that is the issue

Although you can do very short text comments in his web conference room, where the action is centers around the mic. Shockofgod says when the atheists/evolutionists were asked to get on mic, they were silent. There certainly could have been people putting swear words in text chat, trying to flood the room with spam, etc. etc. and gotten booted. I do believe shockofgod when it comes to the mic issue as I have seen a bunch of atheists in his room remain silent on the mic when asked to defend atheism. When atheists/evolutionists know they are going to face cross examination, they very often dodge debate. See: Atheism and cowardice. Conservative 21:13, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I wasn't there for the whole thing, I left after about half an hour.If that is truly the case then the wording should be "they remained silent after the presentation" --DrDean 22:38, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Do evolutionists have machismo?

Facebook, Google, Apple Censoring Religious Speech? Daniel1212 21:33, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

-points out that as private companies they can do so if they desire---SeanS 21:38, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
So can conservative press outlets, conservative consumers and conservative investors. Conservative 03:56, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
However, as an Apple user, I'm always on their forums, and I was delighted to note that they don't let you write a post containing the word "Hell", but they do let you write "God". So I think there's at least some decency to their moderation. JanW 15:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Out of curiosity

Why doesn't the news feed on the main page talk about the many suicides of teenagers around the country, such as the one most recent teen suicide in Buffalo: [2]. It is appalling that this happens and I'd like more of a union of adults and educators here to stand up to bullying. Thanks.

A good place to start is how Conservapedia describes the homosexual agenda.--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
So you're saying it's not your concern because they're homosexual?--Nosaj 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Your Homosexual agenda page spreads the hate that ultimately hurts young teenagers. PhillipF 11:14, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Steve Carell & Bob Hope

Firstly, I don't see why you think Steve Carell has been snubbed because of "The Office". The show has won a huge number of awards, including Emmys, and Carell used to be on The Daily Show, a favourite of these award shows. If they wanted to snub him they wouldn't have nominated him at all!

And as for citing Bob Hope as an exemplar of Christian values such as 'marriage', he was well known to have had numerous extramarital affairs. DavidZa 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

That logic doesn't follow, and it would be too obviously biased to deny Steve Carell a nomination. Rather, Carell was nominated and then snubbed six straight times.
I doubt your claim about Bob Hope, but it's irrelevant anyway: the headline is about his wife.--Andy Schlafly 17:06, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
The logic is fine on my end. It has been asserted that Carell has been snubbed because he has worked on "The Office". But "The Office" has one numerous awards, including Emmys, the awards you assert 'snubbed' him. If you believe they have snubbed him, it therefore makes no sense to suggest that his work on that show is to blame.
And the headline regarding Dolores Hope reads: "She and her late husband Bob Hope adhered to Christian principles of marriage..." As such it is clearly asserted that Bob Hope also adhered to these principles. And you can doubt the claim all you want, but it is well documented and was something of an open secret many decades ago. DavidZa 17:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Just throwing this out there; I'm a liberal that loves "the office". I don't see how you could say that it is conservative. The show's creator, Ricky Gervais, is far from anti-liberal, and Steve Carell seems pretty apolitical as well.--Nosaj 20:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Maybe reword the class warfare news item.

We should be looking at how not to fight a class war, not giving people instructions how! I know that's misinterpreting what is written, but that's based on apriori knowledge, not what is written. --DrDean 18:28, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Severe earthquakes double every 40 years?

Sorry, that's just wrong. My cousin's a geologist for BP and he's always studying earthquake zones. Anyway I just checked the USGS website and they say the number's been pretty stable since they started keeping records in 1900. --Mike Cook 22:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Whoever put that on the main page should take it down immediately. It is difficult to express in words quite how bizarre and wrong an assertion it is. Dare I ask for the scientific paper reporting this 'fact'? DavidZa 22:47, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Suppose a list of earthquakes could be drawn up, tabled, and placed within a new article. Severe earthquakes since 1906 (San Francisco), including magnitude, number of deaths, cost estimates, dates, and so on. Every earthquake since 1906 greater than 7.0 Richter. Karajou 22:54, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
please be aware the story was added by the sites founder who I am sure has a good reason. That said though the public generally are advised of the danger of earthquakes. MaxFletcher 22:55, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
The Counterexamples to an Old Earth now has the citation, in the first entry under "Geology".--Andy Schlafly 22:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
I've found a US geological survey datafile with every 7.0 or greater earthquake since 1900. I can probably put it into Excel and make a graph, if anyone's interested. --StevenLi 23:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Andy - no it's not. I had a look at the page, and couldn't find anywhere where it claimed the doubling every 40 years. And I looked at the first links under geology. Steven - I found the USGS datafile with those 8.0 or greater since 1900, and plotted a graph. The number of years since 1900 on the x-axis, and the number of earthquakes between 1900 and that year on the y-axis. The trend is quite linear, and gives an R-squared value of 0.9946. If the number of earthquakes was doubling every forty years, then the line would not be linear (or close to being linear). The website I got the data from is: - JamesCA 21:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)


Have to disagree with you, DavidZa, but someone else to the time to look, and yes, severe earthquakes are doubling as per the headline[3]. The references used in this page are valid. Karajou 23:37, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Please note what I wrote earlier, specifically the bit about a ‘scientific paper’. The website you refer to is most certainly not a peer-reviewed scientific article. Indeed, anyone who would take just a few minutes to check up on the claims made by this website would soon discover them to be false.
The website claims to list the number of earthquakes with a magnitude over 6.99 from 1863. Even though that is a completely arbitrary cut-off point, (and ignores the increasing coverage and accuracy of the equipment used) he/she still fails to include all of the earthquakes in question. To illustrate this let’s take just one year as an example:
The website lists just 1 earthquake in 1901 with a magnitude over 6.99, (31/12/1901, Cook Inlet, Alaska, 7.1). While they claim they have used the US Geological Survey Data for this list, if anyone were to actually take a look at that data for themselves they would find that there were actually 14 recorded earthquakes over 6.99 in 1901! That fact alone already distorts the claimed ‘doubling’, even before considering that the same mistake has been made for all other years!
The referenced website is wrong, either through incompetence or deliberate distortion. DavidZa 08:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
The writer of that website takes his information from the USGS; he counted the number of quakes over the years, and I'm sure anyone here can do the same thing, without having to go through a peer review process. Karajou 10:30, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
I've just counted myself and DavidZa's link, if does show UCGS data, would seem to show 14 earthquakes of that magnitude in 1901. I wonder what the reason for the discrepancy is? Perhaps this covers the whole world, and the other source only covers the US?--CPalmer 10:39, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
In response to Karajou, and just to reiterate my previous post and that of CPalmer, I did count the number of quakes, and I found that the person who wrote that article has counted incorrectly, deliberately or otherwise. A peer-review is regarded as being fundamental to science, and it's not at all surprising that no peer-review journal has ever published anything that supports what this article says. The author of the cited article would have been laughed out the room within seconds, since he/she appears unable to even count, let alone conduct anything resembling a scientific study. The whole purpose of peer-review is to test the findings and ensure they stand up to scrutiny; the claims made in that article do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. DavidZa 10:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
David, I think you are jumping to conclusions a bit with your suggestions of incompetence - there could be many explanations. I wonder where those numbers did come from.--CPalmer 11:01, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
There does seem to be a discrepancy between the referenced website and the actual data, for whatever reason. For example the reference says that between 1986 and 1996 there were 15 earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater. However I searched the NOAA database (which uses USGS data) for 7.0+ quakes between those dates and it came back with 84 results. The data is here if anyone wants to check: [4] I'm not going to speculate on why, but the reference is definitely wrong, and not just a little bit wrong. --FindlayT 11:17, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Is it possible that the sources are using different scales? There's the Richter scale, the Mercalli scale and the Moment Magnitude scale. JoshuaZ 11:32, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
It's possible I suppose, but the reference gives 99 quakes in that magnitude bracket between 1997 and 2007, while the NOAA data gives 103. It looks like the reference is showing a dramatic increase but the raw data shows numbers as pretty much stable. --FindlayT 11:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
OK, I just checked the database for 7.0+ quakes between 1901 and 1911 (I know it should be 1901-1910, but I'm sticking with the 11-year periods used by the reference.) I got 131 results. This doesn't seem to indicate an increase. I also think I've found the discrepancy: the reference appears to be using a list of historically significant earthquakes found at the USGS site and counting from that, not searching a database of ALL earthquakes. --FindlayT 11:52, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

In order to try and put this to rest at last, I have used the USGS data and created graphs for the total number of recorded earthquakes above 6.99 from 1900-2007. I have done this for each individual year and for each decade. There is no significant trend at all; the values fluctuate significantly. Indeed, if for some reason one were to try and plot a trend line, based on this set of data it would actually show a decrease over the last century. The cited website is wrong. End of story. DavidZa 12:05, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

OK David, I'm going to assume that you're correct here. Can you create a table of all of these earthquakes and place it within a separate article, listing each by date, magnitude, number of deaths, etc? Karajou 17:30, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
That would be a fairly large table; between 1900 and 2010 there were 1047 severe earthquakes. If I did a graph showing the number of severe quakes per year could you upload it for me? --SamCoulter 13:37, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
I've now produced a graph showing the number of severe earthquakes (7.0 and above) per year from 1900 to 2010. What's the best way to upload it? --SamCoulter 15:37, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Is there any chance that we can have the (incorrect) claim about severe earthquakes doubling every 40 years removed from the main page now? I hate to say this, but people out on the wider internet are laughing at us because of it. --SamCoulter 21:10, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
This source says "scientists will not correctly diagnose the pulse of earthchanges taking place on the planet because their science has no yardstick to quantify these changes" [5]

"Are you an evolutionists?"

The front page has a story with a superfluous "s" on the word "evolutionist" BrentH 11:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 17:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Federal disaster funding

Federal disaster funding has got to be one of the worst things to call wasteful. I mean, really- you want to say politicians are payed too much, you want to talk about Solyndra, you want to complain that lazy people are touching too much welfare, fine. But can you in good faith say that aid for victims of natural disasters is wasteful?--CamilleT 02:22, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Uploading photos

I'm interested in obtaining the ability to upload photos. If there's anything else I can do to receive the ability to do this, I would thoroughly enjoy this privilege and will not abuse it. Please consider me for this! DerekE 13:33, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Faster than light neutrinos

This may be a good item for the news section: Scientists detect neutrinos that travel faster than light [6]--AlejandroH 22:36, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

The final nail in the coffin of relativity?

Particle detected travelling faster than light.

Another Blow to Relativity

This paper, showing particles traveling faster than the speed of light, is a clear sign that Einstein's theories are incorrect.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The scientists involved are still looking into their results and are asking others to verify them. Though I must admit, the implications of the results, if verified, are fascinating. DavidZa 14:42, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

RINO headline

It should be conservative candidates, not conservatives candidates.--James Wilson 13:19, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Did George Soros convince someone here that prediction markets actually matter?

George Soros manipulated the prediction markets to show on the eve of the 2004 election that John Kerry had a 66% chance of beating George W Bush. Looks like he was wrong, at least according to the University of North Carolina HP 10:38, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

My only comment on this may sound painfully obvious, but I state it for the record nonetheless. Even if John Kerry correctly had a 66% of beating George Bush, that means that he had a 34% chance of losing. This means that Bush still had a significant chance of winning the election, and it is this reasoning that makes prediction markets interesting. If John Kerry had a 66% chance of winning, that certainly does not imply that he was guaranteed the win; it simply means that the outcome of the election (Bush winning) fell in the set of possibilities with a 34% chance of occurrence. As another example, imagine you have a standard deck of playing cards. You have a 51/52 chance of drawing a card from a deck that is not the Ace of Spades, but this certainly does not mean that drawing the Ace of Spades is impossible. If you do draw the Ace of Spades, it does not mean that the probabilities were wrong; it simply means that your observed outcome fell within one specific set of outcomes, with a given probability. Kevin Davis Talk 13:53, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Thank you to HP for the correction. I had incorrectly calculated 100% - 66% as 44%. Kevin Davis Talk 20:27, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm sure you meant 34%, and not 44%. HP 16:50, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

My apologies for the mistake. I hope that you move past the minor mathematical error and understand that my point is still perfectly valid, correct? Kevin Davis Talk 19:51, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I disagree that was a minor mathematical error, as you misstated the lower probability by 10%, but I do agree with your overall point. You make a valid point that a 34% implied probability is not trivial and, without getting into wonkish finance and statistics topics, Bush winning election was not some extreme tail event.

However, I would assert that most reasonable political observers would have believed that the President had a better than 50% on the eve of the 2004 election. Neglecting the prediciton markets, the general belief was not that Kerry was the odds on favorite on Election Day. HP 01:58, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I believe the error was minor to my overall point, but your point is certainly well taken. Prediction markets are a highly useful tool, but as with almost any forecasting instrument, the originator of the claim must be taken into account, and I don't believe George Soros would qualify as unbiased. Perhaps that is why prediction markets that he influenced did not directly reflect the truth. Thanks for the discussion! Kevin Davis Talk 08:19, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Main page items and grammar mistakes

Folks, I don't want to sound like a nitpicker here, but could we please make sure that main page news items are checked for grammar before they go up? When people come to the main page and see significant errors, it looks sloppy.

For instance, take the following news item:

"Ex-atheist Stephen Glover ask if the next leader of the Church of England is going to be the type of person to stand up to militant atheist such as Richard Dawkins.[1]"

We have both a subject-verb agreement error (Stephen Glover asks) and a plural noun error (militant atheists). Since I know that the sitemembers responsible for main page news items are capable writers, and well aware of the rules of English grammar, it's hard to interpret these as anything other than careless errors.

I know that enthusiasm can cause people to make haste, but let's make haste a little more slowly, and make sure the site has the professional polish and quality it deserves. --Benp 11:20, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Excellent points. Thank you, and the errors have been corrected.
On your edit, perhaps "site members" rather than "sitemembers"?? (Just kidding.)--Andy Schlafly 11:52, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
And while we're at it, it's a shame that we're highlighting the appalling grammar of the 'Amanada2324' YouTube user - "Like I'm in Physical Geography class...etc". Beginning a written comment with 'like' - she needs to be in English class! I really detest the young generation's use of words like 'totally' and 'like' throughout every sentence. JanW 13:50, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
What's funny is, I went trough High School and the only time I ever heard people talking like that was when me and my friends were mocking the "super popular kids!", who didn't talk like that at all.--SeanS 13:51, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
I hear the older generation talking like this. So, JanW, you can't just blame everything on "the young generation". ~ JonG ~ 13:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Hoist by my own petard! Touche, Mr. Schlafly, touche.  ;) --Benp 15:01, 24 September 2011 (EDT)


This page desperately needs archiving, but I wasn't allowed to create a page on the index page. Would someone who has the appropriate rights please archive the older conversations? Thanks. --SharonW 12:13, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Putin to again become Russian President

After being forced to not run thanks to term limits, hes going to again become president (The chances of him losing are far to small to make it a fair race), returning a man who's already spent 8 years as president, 4 as PM and is only vaguely interested in democracy. --SeanS 14:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Although minor criticism of Mr. Putin is possible, no one can argue with the results. The prosperity and security that his tenure brought to Russia, and more than likely will continue to bring, is significant. Not only has the Russian ruble stabilized during his time in office, but real incomes among the Russian population rose thanks to resource exploration, and the war in Chechnya has been significantly reduced in scope since it's heyday in the nineties. Although he may favor a firmer approach to democracy than other European nations, what has been reduced (massive bureaucracies and generalized government inefficiency) doesn't appear to be a problem. In my experience, having visited Russia twice, accusations of civil rights abuses and attacks on journalists are virtually unfounded, and rather stem from problems of corruption in local officials and their unwillingness to field effective police presences at the local level. That is a far cry from organized abuses such as those of the Soviet Union, and local corruption is a minor problem in every industrialized country, even our own. Kevin Davis Talk 13:47, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
My main point was he already spent 8 years as president, only leaving because he had to, and baring death or something terrible happening he'll be president til 2024. That isnt really democracy, popularity or not, especially when he's basically been president the last 4 years as well.--SeanS 13:54, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
His popularity is a key factor, though. Virtually all accusations of electoral fraud in Russia have been proven to be unfounded, so I see no problem with a popular leader holding the highest office for an extended period. In democracy, people vote for who they feel will support them most (in an ideal democracy) and there is not a problem with one person continually supporting the interests of the people, as Putin has done. I see no reason to argue about it, however; the Russian people will speak for themselves in the upcoming elections. Kevin Davis Talk 20:17, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Speed of light

I think the post concerning the speed of light needs to be clarified. The speed of light is NOT constant, it is well known that it can vary according to the medium it is travelling through. When it is referred to as 'a constant' (c) it is the speed of light 'in a vacuum'. DavidZa 16:34, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. (A rather good joke that's going around) DavidZa 18:25, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
In response to your first edit, "in a vacuum" is implicit. It does not need to be spelled out.
In response to your second edit, that's a joke for a relativist. If relativity is false as long shown here by the Counterexamples to Relativity, then the joke isn't funny.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think you need to be a relativist to either understand or appreciate it. DavidZa 10:25, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I understand the joke, but i don't exactly find it that amusing. --SeanS 10:48, 25 September 2011 (EDT)


They haven't jettisoned BC and AD in favour of BCE and CE. The Daily Mail is notoriously anti-BBC and this story is one more example of that. Note the way in which the actual statement from the BBC, which contradicts the rest of the article, is stuck right at the bottom. RobertE 13:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

California fish

The fish in question are the pacific salmon stocks in California, the ones that the salmon fisherman depend on to make their livelihood. The blog post makes it seem like it's a fight between environmentalists and farmers but really it's a fight between fisherman and farmers. If you run the water down the river you keep the salmon industry alive but the farmers have a few lean years. If you run the water on to farm field you keep some farmers afloat for a couple years until rainfall picks back up, but ruin the salmon fisherman forever. You've got good hardworking blue collar families on either side of this issue, It's not as simple as a few scientists against a community of farmers. --DrDean 22:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

It is worse than that, DrDean. Half the country isn't eating salmon; if it was, there would be no salmon left to eat. By contrast, California's Central Valley supplies the half the country with the food we need, and a lot of that is grown year-round[7]. Now, here we have a situation where the water for that valley has been cut off on the word of a bunch of idiots who have proven beyond all doubt that their PHd's should be stripped from their silly hides. They didn't just affect the livelihoods of a few farmers; they disrupted a major food source that cannot be replaced by a few boatloads of fish. Karajou 23:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
The central valley isn't being stripped of all of it's water for the salmon industry, and it doesn't provide half the nations food it provides half of the nations domestic fruits and vegetables. We import most of our fruits and vegetables. Salmon may not be the most abundant and widespread source of food in the country but it is an important one, and if you destroy your salmon stocks then you haven't got salmon for a very very long time. It's very easy to replant lettuce 2 years after you don't grow a crop of lettuce. If you assume that the rain will return in a few years then the value of food not produced will be larger if the salmon stocks are lost for good than if the lettuce stocks aren't maintained for a couple of years. here is a link --DrDean 23:10, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
I live in the Central Valley, and am intimately familiar with the situation. The issue has been going on for at least 2 decades and Judge Wanger (who retires this week) has been the sitting judge for the bulk of the rulings on this issue. And this is not the first time one of his opinions was critical of the science presented by various federal agencies. He made almost identical critiques of the science presented by the Bush administration as well. Cutting to the chase, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims they lack the resources to conduct field experiments on the life cycle and population of the effected species. This being the case they have been relying on computer models and projections, which the judge didn't find too convincing. Like DrDean pointed out, this is not a simple case of Feds vs The People. It's a multi-front battle between farmers, fishermen, real estate developers, and environmentalist. Each with their own case to make.--SteveK 23:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Obama to focus like a laser on jobs officially over

No offence, but is that meant to be in English or something? --LeonardS 23:43, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

London's mayor on the BCE/BC debate

Interesting. MaxFletcher 17:30, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

The problem, as has already been pointed out on this page, is that it's a non-story. The decision to use BC/BCE lies with the individual programme makers, not the corporation as a whole; there has been no 'edict'. DavidZa 17:42, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Kidney failure

US kidney patients receive on average 3-4 hours of hemodialysis per treatment, three times a week. This is the minimum required to keep the patient alive, but does not allow the majority of them to feel well enough to continue to work, or to do much of anything, actually. (I don't remember the exact percentage, but I believe it's about 80% of patients are forced to quit work and go on disability. I was one of the 20 percent who managed to hold onto my job, in spite of how horrible I felt. I also was lucky that after 1-1/2 years on dialysis in a center, my husband and I were able to train for home hemodialysis. I received better care from my husband and regained a bit of health, enough that I received a transplant in 2010.) Slower, longer treatments are optimal, and would greatly benefit patients, but this is not easily available here in this country. Canada's hemodialysis treatments average 4-5 hours, with better results. Also, from personal experience, the not-for-profit centers here are cleaner and much more pleasant in which to be a patient than the for-profit centers. --SharonW 01:17, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Not to mention that at least "socialist" hospitals are affordable--CamilleT 01:30, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Obama weak comment misleading

I checked the Google hits, 'Obama weak' gets 84 million hits.... but 'Obama strong' gets 424 million hits. Hence, as the 'strong' search gets more hits than the 'weak' search, it is misleading to suggest that he is a laughingstock because of the number of hits for 'Obama weak'. On a different note, the link sends you to Google search 'Obama and weaj' (autocorrect search to 'weak'). Could someone fix that? It should only take a minute. - JamesCA 09:19, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

This is the first result returned for "Obama weak". Anyways, I imagine that googling just about anyone or anything with an adjective will return millions of results. It's a big internet--CamilleT 09:30, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Input on the trial of a Christian pastor

Before I comment on the headline, I must give my initial disclaimer that obviously, I do not know this man, his character, or his denomination. That being said, I'm skeptical about the non-religious charges against him; I do not for a minute believe that they are authentic. This is solely based on my experience with the Iranian people (I have covered the Middle East for various organizations of which I was a part, years ago) but as I said, I am skeptical. This is the story in question; is this the sort of story to publish in the headlines? Kevin Davis Talk 14:32, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Also, are other users having issues with the ReCaptcha boxes when posting external links? I know this is a standard feature of Mediawiki security extensions, but occasionally the text does not show up for me and I'm required to refresh for it to work. As a nuisance, it is nothing more than minor, but I thought I would report it for administrators to possibly check. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 14:32, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
Does America and the world believe Obama is a strong president? If so, why? Note to Obama supporters: Please, do not make a weak argument. Conservative 14:19, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Hi Conservative. I don't know how the world views Obama; maybe that does relate to how the Iranians treat a Christian pastor. Could you elaborate, please? Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 17:30, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Spelling of "homeschooler"

A lot of liberals are making fun of a sign that was photographed at a Perry rally (which Palin also attended) - the sign says "Homescholers for Perry." [8]. It's quite likely that the person holding the sign was a liberal plant, intentionally misspelling the word, but I wonder what people's general thoughts on the spelling are. Wouldn't "homescholers" be a more efficient spelling than "homeschoolers" anyway (kind of like "color" is a more efficient spelling of the British "colour")? What do Conservapedians think? --JKeeting 20:00, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Maybe it was a play on words? They meant home-scholars?--CamilleT 00:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
But then shouldn't it have been "homescholars" instead of "homescholers"? And "home scholar" isn't really a common term (although perhaps it should be!) --JKeeting 09:33, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Greenland Ice

The news item posted on this subject is incorrect. It was the publishers of the Atlas who made the mistake by over-stating the loss of Greenland's permanent ice cover (15% when the actual figure is near 1%). It was climate scientists who actually pointed the mistake out to the publishers. DavidZa 00:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)


News item: "Rejection of Genesis history opened a Pandora's box of many religious heresies spilling into Western society and opened to the door to individuals trying to legitimize homosexuality."

There might be a sentence in there somewhere. DavidZa 09:50, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I can add some constructive criticism to that phrase; the word "to" needs to be removed in "opened to the door." Apart from that, I have no problem with the phrase. Minor grammatical errors are just that: minor. Kevin Davis Talk 09:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the correction; the headline looks good! Kevin Davis Talk 09:46, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Proposed policy changes

I dropped a few users from the project for trolling. They had raised some issues about how the project was run, but when asked for specifics were vague or elusive. In some cases, others chimed in to defend policy violations.

I don't think we should change policy to accommodate contributors who undermine the project. If anyone wants to debate policy, we have Debate Topics. If we're convinced, Andy and/or senior admins will make a policy change.

Until then, if you want to change policy don't engage in acts of civil disobedience like the Occupy Wall Street clowns. (Hint: Asking, "What do we want?" and saying, "We'll keep protesting till you meet our demands" are not effective ways of improving an existing system.) --Ed Poor Talk 11:09, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Has it been documented exactly what rules were violated by the offending editors? When presented with information that is contentious or that makes one uncomfortable, it is sometimes easier to simply label it "trolling" and dismiss it rather than address it for its merits, especially if it was not presented in the most respectful way. --JohnA7 13:16, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Poor, You may find that users are both more specific and learn to stay within the rules more rapidly when they are not blocked forever for minor infraction, or for reasons that the rules specifically single out as acceptable. --NicholasF 19:32, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Nobel prize

"According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, work produced by a person since deceased shall not be given an award. However, the statutes specify that if a person has been awarded a prize and has died before receiving it, the prize may be presented." [9]

Not against the rules. --SharonW 14:30, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

But he died before "awarded a prize," as that phrase would presumably refer to announcing the prize or informing him of it.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
According to the article cited, the Nobel committee was unaware that Steinman had very recently died. The article also says that the committee was meeting to decide what to do about the situation. The main page headline deceptively implies that there was intent to break the rules.--Elbow 14:49, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Ive never seen a "professed Christian" delight in schadenfreude more than Andy does. Instead of just saying, "Well stuff happens, the guy died a few days before and the committee wasn't informed, honest mistake", he turns it into the Nobel Committee is run by a bunch of buffoons, not to mention that red herring about not giving the prize to non-evolutionists etc. which has nothing to do with anything. Andy, with your education and background you could have been a lot more than you are, quit hating on the people who have done things in their lives. Godspeed. ameda 14:57, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
The statement seems to imply that the award was given to a dead man rather than someone who opposed the theory of evolution. I was wondering who the passed up scientist might be? I suppose you can make a case for Damadian, but you can make a much better case against him. Is there anyone else ?

--PeterNant 15:22, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

The headline expresses a truism: liberals would rather give the Nobel Prize to a dead man than to someone who has criticized a liberal theory, such as the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. Yes, there are examples of the bias in addition to the outrageous snub of Damadian. See Nobel Prize.--Andy Schlafly 17:49, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Didn't Milton Friedman win a Nobel Prize?--CamilleT 19:35, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Yes, but Friedman did not criticize the liberal theories. He also said he wasn't a conservative.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Yes, you're right. I jumped to that conclusion--CamilleT 20:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Obama admits problems

Obama admits his battle for 2012 will be hard and that Americans aren't really better off from 4 years ago.--SeanS 15:23, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Yes, the country was in a recession for a while and the recovery has been slow. Obama will have an uphill battle but unless the Republicans get their (collective) act together and select someone electable it'll be a mole hill not a mountain that needs to be scaled. AsherL 17:09, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Atheism/Agnosticism rates are on the rise...

So says a recent study. MaxFletcher 16:56, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

I question the authenticity of any story from The Guardian. In the industry, they are not viewed in a positive light for various reasons. Although their reputation may exceed that of the News of the World in light of recent events, but nevertheless, it is not normally positive in the eyes of their peers. Kevin Davis Talk 17:34, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
I want to make another point about the article as well; if you notice, many of the figures they quote come from either a) secular organizations themselves, which are most likely inflated to PR purposes, or b) university departments that study secularism. In the latter case, imagine if you were studying something and found evidence that it was either declining in number or stabilizing? Would you publish it? Funding, especially among university departments, is a contentious issue, and I firmly believe that some departments would overstate the numbers in their field of study instead of risk facing budget cuts. Kevin Davis Talk 17:39, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
That sounds like baseless paranoia to me. MaxFletcher 17:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Money, in many facets of life, is an incentive for competition. That's not paranoia; it's merely a part of life. In this case, it may be unfortunate, but the world is not a perfect place. Universities and secular organizations do not live on a pedestal as perfect beings; they are not immune from flaws, just as none of us are. Kevin Davis Talk 17:58, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
If the article instead said Christianity on the rise would you still question the authenticity? MaxFletcher 18:03, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Please read my comments again; as I said, I question the conclusion because I question the sources of said conclusion. If an article said that Christianity was on the rise, yet drew its conclusions from equally questionable sources, then yes, I would question the authenticity of those claims. Let me point out, though, that the implicit comparison you are drawing between Christianity and secularist ideologies is a faulty one. If an organization affiliated with Christianity publicizes information that religious observance is on the rise, I may question those results less so than I would if an atheist organization published information stating the atheism is on the rise. This is not a contradiction from my earlier statement, however, although it may appear to be at first glance. Christian organizations have not, historically, given me a reason to question their motives, but this does not hold true for secular groups. It's the same logic as terrorist groups in the Middle East that overstate their membership to bolster their publicity. Do you question those results as a result of their questionable motives or beliefs? Certainly. Does that clarify my point? Kevin Davis Talk 18:11, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

You're way off the mark with your assessment of the Guardian's reputation, Kevin. It may be a liberal newspaper that very openly shows its ideology but it has a long and respectable history. It is on a par with any other serious British newspaper and is well regarded internationally. It runs articles from everyone from Noam Chomsky to Charles Krauthammer. A comparison with the sordid, mucky News of the World is laughable. Rafael 14:45, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

The American Religious Identification Survey[1] says that the number of atheists doubled between 2001 and 2008. That's a faster rise than the general "not religious" category, which didn't quite double between 1990 and 2008. I got to say that I don't think the Question Evolution campaign is going to half the number of atheists in the USA, never mind worldwide. The best we can hope for is that it slows their growth. --BernardC 18:21, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Rafael - any newspaper that openly shows its ideology is questionable; speaking from experience, I would question any media source that openly defies journalistic standards at fairly reporting what happens in the world. My comparison with the News of the World was a positive one, however, in that The Guardian is more respected than that publication. I would strongly advise you to differentiate between articles, which are written by journalists and other staff, and editorials/op-eds, which are written by non-affiliated authors and published in journalistic works strictly in order to attract readership. The latter are not always indicative of a publication's political affiliations.

That's not what you said earlier. We may not like it but the trade does. Also, the Guardian knows its not in the same circulation league as the likes of The Sun - another rag - so it trades on reputation and editorial position, not on fudging the difference between editorial and reportage. The idea that it has an inclusive policy on op-ed pieces "strictly in order to attract readership" comes from and belongs in the same place that you found your first assertion.Rafael 14:12, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Bernard - My hesitation with the link you posted is the same as my previous comments; the study comes from a secular department at Trinity College. Please read my previous comments before commenting further. I am not necessarily questioning the legitimacy of the results. However, I am hesitating to immediately accept them as fact without further review. Although there are a few things in my life that I have no reason to question, the writings of journalistic publications are not among them. Kevin Davis Talk 20:04, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
"Rafael - any newspaper that openly shows its ideology is questionable." Does the same criterion apply to online encyclopedias? ScottDG 20:06, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
OK, would you accept a study[2] by the Barna Group, which is an Evangelical Christian research agency? They put the number of atheists at three times what the "secular" ARIS survey does. The fact is that atheism and other forms of Godlessness are increasing in the USA and pretending otherwise helps nobody. --BernardC 20:24, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Scott - Perhaps I wasn't clear. I question any source that so plainly displays its ideology while claiming a sense of neutrality. My apologies. I felt that was clear from my statement about journalistic standards (the sentence immediately following the sentence you quoted from my last post). As for your implication about this project (and it's quite clear that you're implicating this project) I am a new user here, so I suggest you voice your complaints with other users. As of now, I have none, and regardless, I am not the person to discuss such matters with.
Bernard - Please read my comments again; I stated my hesitation to accept the study because of the questionable nature of its source. However, a second source, one which comes from a different ideological perspective that has no stake in the matter, adds much merit to the conclusion. Also, please do not accuse me of "pretending otherwise." I stated my hesitations clearly and on the record, and your attempt to defame my comments is unwarranted. Please read my comments again and cite exactly where I "pretended otherwise." You can plainly see how I voiced my hesitations and did not draw a complete conclusion about the survey. Thank you. Kevin Davis Talk 21:32, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Once again, Max messes up. Non-religious does not equal atheists. Also, no-religion/U.S slower than previously reported Plus, if the economy gets a lot tougher which it will probably do in the USA[10], a significant portion of those unchurched theists will probably start going to church again. Conservative 22:22, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

One problem, Conservative. Your report about no-religion slowing is from 2009. Max's is from 2011. --SharonW 00:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Non-religious are still not atheists although they have similarities. Second, I lost whatever respect I had for the Guardian when they recently alluded to "romances" between a man and member of another species. I don't see Harlequin getting into these so called "romances" anytime soon. Conservative 00:54, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
It would be better to say that the non religious aren't ALL atheists. Many of them are. I don't understand your point about the Guardian at all. --BrenC 08:35, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Bren, are you referring to my comments about The Guardian or Conservative's points? Both appear clear enough to me; however, I can clarify my points if necessary. Kevin Davis Talk 13:44, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Max didn't mess up. the article never mentions the word "non-religious" so I don't know what you are talking about. All I said said was what the what the article said so how did I mess up? MaxFletcher 16:29, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Max, I don't mean to nitpick your point to an extreme, but the article clearly uses the terms "faithless," "secular Americans," Americans with "no specific faith," etc. These are all obviously synonyms for non-religious. Whether or not the study is accurate is another point entirely, but you cannot refute a point by stating that the article in question does not use the term "non-religious" when it uses several accepted synonyms for that concept. I realize that the headline uses the term "atheist/agnostic," but merely because The Guardian does not distinguish between these terms does not grant us permission to make that mistake. Kevin Davis Talk 17:03, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Excuse me, I made no mistake. I all I did was quote what the paper said - I made no commentary of my own so it is impossible for me to mess up. MaxFletcher 17:09, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
I am not attacking you, Max; this isn't personal. I'm hesitating to immediately embrace the article's conclusion, based on my comments and Conservative's points together. The major mistake you made was implicitly embracing the article's conclusion without more careful study, as we did. As I said, I'm not attacking you; I'm merely trying to analyze the article and it's conclusions to the fullest extent. Kevin Davis Talk 19:38, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Someone just did a good piece on that Guardian silly piece on atheism. [11]Conservative 07:54, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the link; I'll take a look at that. Kevin Davis Talk 17:14, 14 October 2011 (EDT)


I think it is low to attack the Nobel Prize winner in Medicine. Medicine is not the same as the Peace Prize and does not have the same political basis. The guy was a really good and important doctor, and he was voted to receive the award before he even died - the process takes quite a long time to go through the selection, and I find it odd that you rely on a faulty CNN report. It is just that the official announcement came afterwards. And the Theory of Relativity is not Liberal in any manner. Ottava (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

That's true. There aren't conservative and liberal discoveries in medicine (abortion excluded, I suppose). This guy was an immunologist, and we don't even know of his political affiliation.--CamilleT 22:28, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Fox News said it would be "distasteful" to have to strip him of the award. They definitely don't think it is a conservative/liberal issue. Ottava (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) What do you think was faulty about the CNN Report? Also, see Counterexamples to Relativity if you don't think the theory is liberal.--Andy Schlafly 22:52, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
Fact of the matter is, Ralph Steinman was worthy of a Nobel Prize in medicine. His research will save a lot of lives (it very nearly saved his own!). Were there other (conservative) nominees you felt should have won the award?--CamilleT 23:05, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
The person who is most anti-relativity and the one that is being proclaimed as a great person on Conservapedia was an atheist who was violently atheistic. It sickens me as a true Conservative to see such a person propped up as decent and his theories that have been debunked treated as truth. All I can think is that it has to be trolling of the worst kind. Ottava (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Wall street protests

I believe in capitalism, but the fact that there are protestors on Wall Street doesn't bring me tears. Wall Street firms and banks were among Obama's biggest supporters in 2008 and they were subsequently thanked via bailouts (Obama continued Bush's policy of bailing out banks): and and and and When Wall Street banks start suffering bigger consequences for their folly which capitalism would mandate, I might be more concerned about the protests. In short, America has too much crony capitalism and needs more real capitalism. Conservative 01:31, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

It's sad that when liberals finally try to get into capitalism they just turn to crony capitalism. But hey, what can you expect? RSnelik 01:56, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Obama's presidency is Jimmy Carter 2.0. When it comes to bailing out banks, he is G.W. Bush 2.0 as he continued Bush's policy of bailing out banks.[12] In addition, Obama not only continued Bush's war policy and expanded the war effort in Afghanistan, but he added a third war to the mix. Democrats might not want to admit it, but the two wars that Obama inherited are now "Obama's wars" as Bob Woodward correctly notes. Conservative 15:19, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Now here are some things we can agree on, Conservative! There needs to be more responsible capitalism. MaxFletcher 16:25, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Max - First, let me say that I agree that capitalism needs to be responsible in its action; although you and I might differ on what that statement means or how it is to be implemented, how would you suggest we implement responsible capitalism? Please do not view my question as an attack; I am genuinely curious. If you're willing to discuss it, perhaps my talk page (just so we're not cluttering up this page with a tangential discussion)? Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 21:37, 4 October 2011 (EDT)


Occupy Wall Street

The socialists and anarchists reveal themselves, looking incredibly moronic. Wow... DerekE 22:34, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Obama and the democrats are in lock-step formation with the Socialist protests - Obama, Democrats Plan to Tie GOP to Wall Street. DerekE 12:16, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
ACORN linked to Occupy Wall Street protest, says DC watchdog - It keeps getting clearer what these protests are really about... DerekE 14:43, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
- Video Exposing How 'Occupy Wall Street' Was Organized From Day One By SEIU/ACORN Front - The Working Family Party, And How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democrat Socialists Of America, Tides And George Soros
- Anti-Capitalist Protestors Face Dilemma: Should They Buy Stuff?
- George Soros Spends 'Big Money' to Occupy Wall Street - DerekE 11:24, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
OccupySesameStreet, Democrats and the liberal media cannot be more excited by their faux grassroots movement.--Jpatt 11:36, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
I wonder if they realize how moronic it looks to publicly back or applaud this 'movement'? Honestly, if we were to imagine for a moment what the exact opposite of the TEA Party Movement would look like, the answer is the Occupy Wall Street crowd. (see link: Top image, above 'Sanitation Becoming Concern...') DerekE 22:20, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
@Jpatt I just stumbled upon this article and now get why you said 'OccupySesameStreet'. I thought that was a joke, thinking the Obama Union Democrats wouldn't go that far after getting caught funding the beginnings of an embarrassing anti-American socialist movement. But you weren't kidding at all. This is the weirdest organized propaganda event I've ever sort-of read about. They tried to have an OccupySeattle protest, which resulted in 25 arrests and perhaps the most ridiculous comment by one of the anarchists. DerekE 02:41, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
"I think it’s completely illegal to arrest people," said Emma Kaplan, 26. "All charges need to be dropped."

Au revoir or goodbye?

Dear Andy, I wish to respectfully take leave of absence from this project. To tell you the truth, I am really embarrassed to read the pages created by Conservative. Whenever a family member walks past my computer, I have to quickly switch away from CP because I don't like them to see I am reading something that features bestiality so prominently. His surge of editing of pages about bestiality for most of last night (US time) is really the last straw for me.

It has been a pleasure joining in here and having some friendly debates with your good self. I hope we have learned some things from each other. Maybe when you have shown the door to badmashes that disturb and embarrass readers of CP, I will feel brave enough to re-enter. So I hope this is au revoir, not goodbye. May Allah bless you and your enterprises. Khalid. KhalidM 14:19, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

I am sorry to to see you go Khalid. I have the same problem actually, being on a shared network means I have had to be very careful on Conservapedia as of late due to terms and articles that are being created. Good luck to you and I'll email you if things change around here :-) MaxFletcher 16:27, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Best of luck, Khalid. I'm beginning to wonder who's left. Roll call, anyone? --SharonW 16:39, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Present. --SpenserL 21:54, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
There aren't many left. SeanS is gone too. --Coults 19:05, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs, the former CEO of Apple, Inc. just passed away from cancer. It's extremely recent news, so I have not been able to find a specific news article that describes it yet, but many major news sites have listed the story in their respective "breaking news" sections. Kevin Davis Talk 19:50, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks - I posted a tribute along with a link to a Wired summary of his career.--Andy Schlafly 21:18, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for being neutral. I disagree with many of Jobs liberal politics but I think it would be in bad taste to attack him after he struggled with cancer for a long time, etc. Ottava (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
I did not know that Steve Jobs was adopted; it is certainly an interesting piece of his life story. Thank you for posting about it; my apologies that I couldn't find a news article immediately. Kevin Davis Talk 19:16, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
He may have been wise in technological aspect, seemed rather selfish morally. [13] It does not mention that he also refused to give to charity, which i read in Time. Daniel1212 22:32, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
I think Jobs "grew" into more conservative views as he got older.--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Rutgers Debate

Andy (I hope that's not too personal; it seems to be the norm around here), how did today's debate go? I think it's a really difficult issue to resolve and I would love to have heard two conservative voices battling it out. --JustinD 23:28, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

The debate went well, which was between the conservative and libertarian viewpoints. If and when I learn of where it is posted, then I'll provide the link.--Andy Schlafly 19:43, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
That would be fantastic. I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks!--JustinD 22:57, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Obesity rates

America is the 9th fattest country in the world; France is the 128th fattest country in the world. Sorry, I'm still not seeing the connection between Christianity, atheism and obesity, other than a fun perjorative to use against fat people. --SharonW 14:05, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

We live in a multi-variable world. For example, France has this tradition although it is breaking down: "There has also been a breakdown in the classical French tradition of mealtime as a family ritual so disciplined and honored that opening the refrigerator between meals for a child was a crime worthy of punishment."[14] I don't think you have shown enough evidence that Christianity is the culprit or that Christianity condones overeating. Here is what the Bible says about overeating: Gluttony is a sin. Here is what the Bible says about self-discipline: Bible on self-discipline Lastly, although I realize that some people have thyroid issues or other medical problems, I still agree with this: Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity Conservative 14:44, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
I have never tried to show a connection between Christianity and obesity, or atheism and obesity. It's you who hates fat people enough to force an imaginary connection of obesity to everything negative within the Christian community. I'm trying to say that constantly labeling obese people as evil is simply bad manners. It's no different that the bullies on the playground or any other rude person I've encountered in my lifetime. --SharonW 15:04, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, I don't hate fat people. Also, let's look at Amish Americans. Although I don't agree with everything the Amish believe, the Amish are generally more self-disciplined plus Amish men/women get more exercise than most Americans plus Old Order Amish supposedly have a gene which makes them more susceptible to obesity. The Amish Americans through their quiet example teach their fellow Americans that by in large they are not doomed to obesity as can be seen HERE and HERE Conservative 15:13, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
The Amish are a very admirable group of Americans, but they have nothing to do with the topic on hand. What I'm referring to is your insistence on connecting fat people with negative things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH OBESITY. Atheism does not cause obesity, nor does obesity cause atheism, or homosexuality, or a belief in UFOs. You are determined to push a connection, thus forcing a negative stereotype, in order to make your point. I certainly wouldn't call that "love". --SharonW 15:23, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, I know that Americans are not doomed to obesity. As a young Christian, I went to a church that had very low levels of gluttony/obesity plus low levels of other besetting sins. Once, my pastor injected one sentence in a sermon about gluttony in a sermon and I thought to myself, I don't think this family in our church is going to receive that message in his sermon and I think this is their last service they will be attending because I don't think they are very teachable. Sure enough, I was right. I realize that what the Bible teaches is not always popular, but nonetheless what the Bible teaches about gluttony and self-discipline are true. I used to come in contact with the Amish quite a bit and noticed that they did not have a problem with obesity compared to other Americans. Generally speaking, it is fair to say that the Amish are less libertine than other Americans. For example, not once did I ever a gay parade in Amish country. The Amish through being more self-disciplined and being more active, still are a great example to their fellow Americans on the subject of obesity and the Old Order Amish teach that more obesity conducive genes are not destiny when it comes to obesity. At this point, I think it is best if we just agree to disagree on the matter of obesity. Conservative 15:42, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, I can be very diplomatic when the occasion call for it plus I am not a mean person. I do endeavor to have a reason for doing things and I have had my reasons for taunting atheists at Conservapedia on the talk pages about obesity, but to show you that I can also be diplomatic I promise to tell no more jokes about this matter on the talk pages of Conservapedia. Conservative 16:08, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
Your reasons aren't really all that relevant, because you have failed to demonstrate any link between atheism and obesity; it seems clear that no such link actually exists. As for your comments to SharonW, well… what can I say? You think making MORE jokes about obese people is being diplomatic??--CameronS 17:38, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
I was missing the word "no" in my post to SharonW. Typo. Second, was there a significant obesity problem within the New Atheism leadership - the same group that claimed to be rational and heavily pro-science which I presume includes nutritional science, exercise science and medical science? A simple yes or no will do. Conservative 22:20, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Cameron, for the record, one of the reason why I taunted the atheists on the issue is that I enjoyed showing how much many prominent atheists apparently lack a true appreciation of science (nutritional science, exercise science and medical science) and that they are hypocritical as far as their loud proclamations about how much they love science. Conservative 23:19, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Gay marriage in France

Several articles on an unpleasant subject that have been authored by Conservative argue about the effects of the legalization of homosexual marriage in France. However, homosexual marriage has not been legalized in France. ScottDG 23:48, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

Corrected. Conservative 19:59, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Coverage of UK News

Coverage of UK news on this main page is, to be frank, weak. Its often based on op-ed pieces from newspapers or articles that are out of date. Sometimes even the most basic facts are ignored eg today's Dawkins article. Its based on a local newspaper story about a small digital radio station paying for thirty bus ads in a city of 150,000 permanent residents advertising a lecture by ironically but not directly referring to an atheist bus campaign two years ago in a city some 50 miles away. I hope the article is not a deliberate distortion but a mistake, like so many other flawed stories about the UK.

With that in mind, would it be a good idea to have some UK based volunteers - Khalid M springs to mind immediately - who could at least fact check prospective articles about the UK and put them into context? It would save further embarrassment and make this site less of a target.Rafael 10:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm British and read this site with something sometimes close to despair. I see no point in trying to fact check anything here with regards to UK news when things are allowed in the way that they are. Now I know that I have few edits but I have been registered for nearly a year and there is a good reason I have not tried any harder to improve things here.
Good luck with finding someone to check UK pieces, I would offer to help but I expect to get a block for making an entirely reasonable post on this talk page. Davidspencer 11:48, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
I suggest asking Mr. Schafly if a certain percentage of the main page news can be British news. Someone or some people could be assigned to pick the stories relating to conservatism in the UK. Lately, the front page has less turnover so more stories would be helpful. Conservative 09:20, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Nobel Prize

The main page really should specify which Nobel Prize it's referring to, since there are prizes given for literature, physics, chemistry, medicine and peace. --SharonW 18:05, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Ron Paul's win at the Value Voters Summit.

The head of the Family Research Council thinks that Paul supporters may have rigged the vote. Unfortunate. ScottDG 23:43, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Straw polls are a way for conferences to boost attendance, and it doesn't seem unfair if Ron Paul encouraged his supporters to attend. The low numbers for Perry and Romney were perhaps most surprising.--Andy Schlafly 00:21, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Article about Conservapedia.

The "Think Progress" website ran an article about Conservapedia today: linked here. ScottDG 17:24, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

That article is over a year old. Davidspencer 10:42, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Chris Christie - possible Supreme Court nominee

It's highly unlikely that Chris Christie would be appointed to the Supreme Court. He has no judicial history, and elected officials are only rarely appointed to the Supreme Court. The last Justice to have held elected office was Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed in 1981. She held elected office in the Arizona State Senate, was elected to the Arizona Superior Court, was appointed to the Arizona District Court, and then the US Supreme Court. In other words: Although she held elected office, she also held judicial office before her appointment. And I think the last Governor to be appointed was Earl Warren, who spent 8 years as Governor of California and was at one point the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee. He doesn't appear to be in the right branch of the government to be a possible Supreme Court nominee. I'd suggest removing that from the list of possible future appointments. - JamesCA 01:37, 12 October 2011 (EDT)