Talk:Main Page/Archive index/109

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Planned Parenthood's abortions

Your heading seems to imply that Planned Parenthood uses all the funds it receives for abortion. Perhaps this graph would be of assistance: JackBenny 15:42, 3 February 2012 (EST)

I don't see how that's relevant. They use SOME funds for abortion. Would it have been OK to donate to the Nazis because they only used 3% of the money for gas chambers? --GeorgeLi 19:39, 3 February 2012 (EST)
Straight for the Godwin's law? Really? JackBenny 23:36, 3 February 2012 (EST)
Better than trying to excuse abortion. --GeorgeLi 00:04, 4 February 2012 (EST)
"JackBenny", I don't see disclosures in the graph for Planned Parenthood's referrals for abortion compared to its non-referrals for adoption and crisis pregnancy centers. Also, where's the amount that Planned Parenthood (isn't) spending to compensate those harmed by the abortions it provides?--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 4 February 2012 (EST)


On Feb 2, 2012 Ed Poor edited Template:MainPageRight, erasing accidentally 6.5 previous news bits - and the lines

<! -- Please don't delete link below-->	
[[Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News | Previous Conservapedia Breaking News]]

Now, when you scroll to the bottom of the Main Page, you read

The lamestream media -- ABC News this time -- claims that Demi Moore was hospitalized merely for "stress" and "exhaustion". "Divorcing Ashton Kutcher seems to have been incredibly hard for Demi Moore." As usual, one h

as the last bit was cut off mid-sentence. This was already addressed: Talk:Main Page#Ed Poor's last edit to the front page, but no one saw fit to repair this. Could someone stop to ignore the problem and fix it? Thanks.

AugustO 01:27, 4 February 2012 (EST)

Nixed Hollywood story at bottom and also restored link to archives. That is a good enough fix. Conservative 04:34, 4 February 2012 (EST)
CP appears short of Administrators willing to dedicate the time cleaning up other Administrators messes. Rob Smith 17:28, 4 February 2012 (EST)

Here's a headline!

While 63% will watch the Superbowl [1] Rasmussen says only 29% think Madonna was a good choice for halftime, [2] and 41% object to her anti-Christian degeneracy. [3] That's higher than President Obama's current Approval Ratings. [4] Rob Smith 12:29, 5 February 2012 (EST)

I hate to nitpick, but Obama's approval rating according to Rasmussen is actually 48%. (I think this is the link you intended.) The 26% mentioned at the beginning of the article is the percentage of voters who strongly approve of Obama's performance. --BaileyJ 14:03, 5 February 2012 (EST)
Ok, how about if it was worded his way: higher than 39% who Strongly Disapprove of President Obama's job handling. Rob Smith 16:31, 5 February 2012 (EST)
That seems correct, but then you'd be making an entirely different point. In the first version you say more people approve of Madonna than Obama, and in the second version you say more people object to Madonna's anti-Christian degeneracy than strongly disapprove of Obama. It doesn't really matter, though. It's pretty clear from the survey results that there are substantial portions of Americans who disapprove of both. --BaileyJ 17:34, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Kelly Clarkson vs Madonna

I don't understand how political bias of any sort plays into who performs at the Super Bowl. The mainstream media didn't "allow" Clarkson to sing because of her support for Ron Paul, but simply because she's a good, popular singer. Similarly, Madonna wasn't chosen because she was liberal, but because regardless of her current popularity she remains an icon of 1980s music. There are some things which can be blamed for liberal bias. Who performs at the Super Bowl is not one of them. JLefkowitz 20:27, 5 February 2012 (EST)

If that were true, then why has the public been subjected to an endless stream of washed-up, leftist performers for halftime at the Super Bowl?--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 5 February 2012 (EST)
Most of the Super Bowl halftime performers of the last ten years or so, with a couple of exceptions, are less washed-up than musical icons of the past; for lack of a better term, classic performers.. The music industry is mostly pretty liberal, anyway, and they don't want to stir up controversy by using political or religious lyrics directly in songs.
(EC)Because that is what people want to see. The organisers know they need to appeal to a wide demographic and frequently this means older performers who have been icons in their time, even if now they are past their best. Orwell may have said that everything is political, but I don't know if he meant literally EVERYTHING. In any case, from what I have heard from Clarkson, her politics don't affect the type of sappy, generic songs that pop stars tend to sing regardless of political persuasion. And by the way, who cares who is singing in the halftime show, I may be a bit old-fashioned but I think sports stand on fall on their own quality, not on gimmicks like halftime shows or clever advertisements (or even fancy graphics). --DamianJohn 21:08, 5 February 2012 (EST)
Well said, DamianJohn ! I totally agree with your last statement. --PhilipN 21:19, 5 February 2012 (EST)
If the network/NFL chose a conservative as the lead halftime entertainer, then the backlash by liberals would be like what inflicted Komen for the Cure last week. Or do you think liberals only make a fuss about money issues?--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 5 February 2012 (EST)
If you think Andy can think in other terms except black/white, liberal/conservative on anything, you've got another thing coming.ameda 22:13, 5 February 2012 (EST)
Liberals made a fuss over the Komen issue because it was a stupid decision that would have negatively affected thousands of women's health. The NFL (not some imaginary liberal cabal) chose Madonna for the Halftime Show because she is an established performer with millions of fans, and the NFL likes to choose "safe" performers for the show. Not everything is a political issue, no matter what Orwell said; by the way, the full quote is “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.” Not a ringing endorsement. RachelW 22:15, 5 February 2012 (EST)
If the network/NFL had picked an entertainer critical of Planned Parenthood, then tne network/NFL could expect a backlash similar to what Komen for the Cure had to endure.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 5 February 2012 (EST)
I don't buy that for a second. I wonder if anyone else does? --DamianJohn 00:26, 6 February 2012 (EST)
I don't either. I don't think even liberals are that petty. --RedGoliath 14:26, 6 February 2012 (GMT)
I really think we're making too big a deal about the halftime show. KingHanksley 12:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Superbowl Odds

A front-page stories reads: "the Giants were distant longshots at 25-1 odds" What maniac was offering 25-1 on a two-horse race and why wasn't I told about this before the game started? The best odds I could find on the Giants were a (fairly generous, I thought) 8-1. Is this for real?--Jdixon 15:40, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Oh hang on. I can't read. They were 25-1 pre-season. Okay. That makes sense. Call me a dummy. --Jdixon 15:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Norris endorses Gingrich

Could be worth including. CGoodwin

Atheists and underdogs

I'm sort of baffled by this headline. What's the source for atheists not cheering for the underdog, and how on earth would anyone know? Can you identify atheists in the stands and pinpoint when they cheer and when they don't? What abotu those watching at home? Was there a poll? Even if you have such stats, is it possible that atheists might slightly favor New England over New York for other reasons (maybe the fact that Belicheck is one of the few left of center coaches in the NFL)? I know an atheist who tends to always favor underdogs. And since when do Americans favor underdogs more than any other nation? The Yankees have the biggest following in baseball, and they are the antithesis of underdogs. DaveE 20:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Belief in "survival of the fittest" is one reason. See Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?--Andy Schlafly 20:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Well, you still have no source for your statement that atheists don't root for underdogs. And survival of the fittest is hardly something only liberals believe. It's almost a tautology. Do conservatives think those least fit to survive are the ones mostly likely to survive? That defies all logic. What is your source for this claim? DaveE 20:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Isn't survival of the fittest one of the basic tenets of capitalism? DaveE 20:53, 6 February 2012 (EST)
I disagree entirely with the articles in question. Australians are immensely proud of their underdog heroes and are even more atheistic than the UK. In fact, if you start to type "aussie u" into google, the first suggestion is "aussie underdogs". WilcoxD 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
An atheist friend of mine hates the Yankees and roots for the Cubs (despite living in New York), hates Walmart and shops at Trader Joe's and Co-ops, detests mainstream music and buys albums by small independent bands. That's the very opposite of the picture painted here. Yeah, I realize this is one example, but it's one more than these articles give. DaveE 21:02, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Atheism in Australia is much lower than in Britain, [5] so Wilcox's point above reinforces the observation of a correlation.--Andy Schlafly 21:26, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Actually, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [6] gives 18.7% atheists in 2006. And this is probably a most reliable source. --PhilipN 21:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Regardless of the specific number of atheists in Australia (which clearly varies widely between polls) nothing seems to back up the completely uncited assertion that atheists don't root for underdogs. My atheist friend is a huge proponent of social services for the poorest Americans, while advocating for higher taxes on billionaires. Which is the underdog in that scenario? DaveE 21:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
I said "more atheistic" but perhaps I should have said "less religious". Personally I think it's human nature to back an underdog, a trait which could have been given by God but which permiates all humanity and transcends religion. WilcoxD 21:50, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Futhermore (and please tell me if I should move this discussion to the article's talk page), it could be argued that to barrack for an underdog is to support the removal of a stronger competitor, thereby increasing your own chances of survival, and as such it could be very much in line with evolutionism WilcoxD 21:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
It takes faith and hope to root for an underdog -- two things thath atheism denies.--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Do you have anything to back up anything you've said? All it takes to root for an underdog is the ability to believe the disadvantaged can win in the end. It's the lesson of Star Wars, among so many other things, and something atheists and liberals are quite comfortable with. Do you have any solid evidence that atheists tend to root against an underdog? So far you've given us nothing. DaveE 23:05, 6 February 2012 (EST)
"I hope my team wins today." "I have faith in our players." Neither of these things requires a belief in God. IvanC 08:34, 7 February 2012 (EST)
It's another assertion based of very broad assertions about liberals and conservatives. I don't find these productive for advancing conservatism. The structure is generally [liberals are bad and conservatives are good] therefore [in this particular case liberals are bad and conservatives are good] which is further proof that [liberals are bad and conservatives are good]. There's a cowardice towards the actual engagement of the subject matter that I think serves us poorly. I wish we employed more hypothesis testing at CPedia and more attempts to look for error regardless of the bottom line, because I do believe that conservatism does well in such tests. We should never be afraid to test our beliefs. KingHanksley 23:58, 8 February 2012 (EST)
In this case I think we need to do more to determine whether atheists dislike underdogs without already granting that they're incapable of faith (I think atheists are very capable of faith, and it is often misplaced). KingHanksley 13:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Flip Flop on Santorum

I'm glad to see that this site has finally realized that Rick Santorum is a Conservative!!!!! This page has spent weeks painting him as a RINO, in fact as of 12:16 AM on Feb 8, his page still says "In the Presidential Election 2012, Santorum senselessly remained the race presumably as a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, who has a pro-abortion record." Now that he has had big wins is Conservapedia suddenly in his corner? While no candidate is perfect, I would consider myself a definite supporter of Rick Santorum. He is the kind of Conservative that this country needs. Hopefully , Conservapedia will drop its fixation on Newt Gingrich and embrace the only real Conservative left in the race! Tordenvaer 00:22, 8 February 2012 (EST)

The vote for Santorum was a triumph of conservatism, which is bigger than any particular individual.--Andy Schlafly 00:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Presidential Odds Update

After his stunning upsets Rick Santorum has gained ground on Romney in the latest odds and is now more strongly backed to win this year's election than ever before. Gingrich has sunk to his lowest point to date whilst Obama's support continues to creep up. -- Ferret Nice old chat 07:22, 8 February 2012 (EST)


I removed the nonsense posted earlier by vandals. --RKline 16:03, 8 February 2012 (EST)


I know I haven't been an active editor here in a while, but I've been reading quite a bit. I was wondering when Conservapedia is going to endorse a candidate in the Republican primary. Given the weight that Conservapedia has in the Conservative movement and the Republican party I think it might be a righteous move to make. By endorsing one of the more conservative candidates we might be able to keep the conservative landslide started by Santorum's sweeping victory going all the way to the Whitehouse. What do you think? CraigF 19:19, 8 February 2012 (EST)

I thought Jeb Bush was our candidate? You know, so that if Obama wins, we can blame the GOP for not nominating a "conservative" like Bush III. RachelW 19:28, 8 February 2012 (EST)
From your extraordinarily rude comments above it is obvious you are not here to help. Only an ignoramus would suggest that we endorse a candidate who isn't running. He may be the mostly like to eventually get the nomination, but until he says he's running we can't endorse him. Even if it is likely Bush will be the nominee (which I would support), we should endorse a candidate who is currently in the primary, it is a little odd for a reputable news site like this not to endorse a candidate at some point. --CraigF 20:03, 8 February 2012 (EST)

The Polar Ice Caps Are... Not Melting?

I'm sure most of us know by now that global warming is a hoax. This news simply brings us more evidence of just that - liberals only want your money and will say whatever it takes, or make whatever laws they want, in order to take and spend your money. DerekE 23:14, 8 February 2012 (EST)

A quick question, DerekE: if global warming is a hoax and a liberal scam to take your money, why would those same liberal scientists release studies that throw their own theory into dispute? Surely a study that proves ice is melting less than expected should never see the light of day, if it were in the interests of the conspiracy? The reality is that (as can be read in the usnews link you provided), the ice is melting at a considerable level, albeit at a slower rate than expected. Computer models of ice levels are the newest and least understood approach to examining climate change, so the fact that they may be inaccurate is hardly surprising, least of all to the experts who use them. Ice sheet models are only one of the many models used to examine global warming, so inconsistencies with this new method do not discount the accuracy of the others (the other models for evaluating climate change include the study of Ocean temperatures, atmosphere vs land vs vegetation, the coupled climate model, sulphate aerosols, the carbon cycle, dust/sea spray/ carbon aerosols, interactive vegetation and biochemical cycles). Maninahat 17:57, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Headline:Obama campaign takes money from Drug cartel

Obama campaign takes money from Drug cartel. [7] Rob Smith 15:11, 9 February 2012 (EST)

No, the article you cited says 'Obama returns $200K campaign donation from Mexican drug cartel'.

MathewRW 15:41, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Well duh, you would have the take the money before you return it. Since it never was reported Obama took money from Drug cartels, that is news. Rob Smith 17:21, 9 February 2012 (EST)
Its not often I pay you a compliment Rob, so enjoy this one: Your ability to spin any story into an anti-liberal smear is impressive. I know that if I ever ran for office I would be looking to recruit you as my public relations consultant. --DamianJohn 17:59, 9 February 2012 (EST)
I think that just based on the on the article cited by User:RobSmith, most people would agree that saying "Obama campaign takes money from Drug cartel" is not a very honest description of the situation; it is an incomplete description at best. The initial story, which was broken by the New York Times on February 7, gives more explanation. Note that it was not actually a drug cartel that made the donations, rather it was family members of a fugitive wanted on drug and fraud charges in the U.S. who fled to Mexico in 1994 and has since been linked to violence and corruption. (Of course this is still quite suspicious.) The Obama campaign did make the right decision by returning the donations after being confronted by the Times. It's hard to imagine that every donation could be monitored by the campaign as it comes in, but there is certainly room for suspicion there too. --BaileyJ 18:35, 9 February 2012 (EST)
Where did this one go? You could say that "Obama Took Money From Drug Cartel," that would be more accurate than "Takes Money."KingHanksley 02:29, 11 February 2012 (EST)


US household wealth takes biggest dive since Obama takes office. [8] Rob Smith 17:21, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Facebook murder

I know Andy doesn't like Facebook, so here's a case where two people were murdered over a "defriending."--CamilleT 08:58, 10 February 2012 (EST==

UK - home of 'global warming'

You do realise, because of the cold weather, many old people might die. Andy, you have very little sensitivity to say that 'God has a sense of humour'. By the the way, if you're in the least bit interested, the last 3 winters in the UK have been very cold - which is down to CLIMATE CHANGE. And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about in your assertion that that us Brits don't support the underdog. Explain our involvement in world war 2.

EJamesW 17:34, 10 February 2012 (EST)

<troll comment by aschlifly removed. Impersonation?>

Sorry, this is frankly insulting. The UK stood essentially alone amongst the European nations in opposition to Germany. That is what the Battle of Britain was about. It saved Europe and probably the world, had Hitler conquered the UK he would have then likely rolled over Russia before turning his attentions elsewhere. Between 1939 and 1941 when the US finally entered the war after the atrocity at Pearl Harbour the UK basically fought alone. To try to say that during WW2 the UK was in some way not supporting those nations attacked by Germany is one of the most amazing claims I have yet seen on this site. Utterly ridiculous. Davidspencer 07:59, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Do you teach a history course? If so can I suggest you learn the history of the second world war. Chamberlain did not 'side with Germany' in any way, what he did was try - and fail - to negotiate a compromise whereby a war could be avoided. Now there are many theories about why he failed, from his naiveity to Hitlers duplicity but this is the first place I have EVER heard it suggested that the UK 'sided with Germany'. Quite frankly it is rubbish. Even this sites own article on Chamberlain says that he signed an agreement which was supposed to bring peace but that he then immediately started readying the UK armed forces for war against Gemany. Hardly supporting Germany, more using the agreement to buy time in order to ready the British armed forces for the war he saw as inevitable and for which the UK was at that time unprepared, having only fought a ruinous war some 20 years previously. Davidspencer 11:22, 11 February 2012 (EST)
This is profoundly offensive. Chamberlain may indeed have pursued appeasement, but the UK entered the war when Germany invaded Poland. The country had virtually no allies. (Remember the USSR was still nominally manacled to Germany.) They were opening themselves up to possible annihilation in order to support a distant foreign country. The US, by way of contrast, did not enter the war until Germany declared war on it. I am, of course, not downplaying the courage of the American armed forces or minimising the essential contribution that the US made to winning the war. (Unlike some here, I would never behave in such an insulting manner.) But for an American to suggest that the UK failed to stand up for the underdog in the Second World War is simply outrageous. It was, indeed, our finest hour. --Jdixon 10:25, 11 February 2012 (EST)

None of this excuses or explains (or even attempts to excuse or explain) your comment that Britain did not support the underdog in the Second World War. The country did. It entered the war -- much to Hitler's surprise -- in support of Poland. It seems absolutely disgusting to ignore that part of the story and focus exclusively on the appeasement negotiations. I'm sick to the teeth of this Brit-bashing. There is nothing "conservative" about your sniping at other nations. Mind you, I am pleased to see that you seem to be ploughing this particular furrow unaided by supporters.--Jdixon 12:27, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Representing WWII as deciding whether or not to cheer for "underdogs" is a gross distortion of history. Britain was strategic about the war, as was the United States. Missteps are dangerous in foreign policy, and each nation had its own interest in mind but had a breaking point at which it would no longer tolerate Hitler's ambitions. In fact, both nations were more suspicious of Germany the stronger, or "fitter," it was. This was not a "survival of the fittest" issue. Foreign policy leaders, whether liberal or conservative, deal primarily in long-term strategy, diplomatic tactics, and in pragmatism. It's also the one field where people of different ideologies often stay on between administrations, because what matters is having a wise and strong player in the White House. So no, let's not simplify this down to a caricature of a nation as liberal or conservative.
This is an attempt to distort history to take a petty shot at Britain, home of some of the greatest conservative icons of the 20th century (Churchhill, Thatcher, Oakeshott, Hayek). I prefer America to the UK because of our culture of individuality and our preference of popular religion against reverence of the crown, but let's not throw our longest and truest ally under the double-decker bus. KingHanksley 17:43, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Those are points are expressed very well, but you also make Aschlalfy's point: Chamberlain, leader of the left, was not pragmatic, but a leftist ideologue, and in that day among the pacifists. Rob Smith 19:54, 11 February 2012 (EST)
I thought Chamberlin was Tory? No? AsherL
Oh, was he? Maybe you're right. I just threw "liberal" in there cause it sounded good thinking maybe it would curry favor with the boss. Rob Smith 00:23, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Asher - he was a Tory, but British politics are different than American politics. He was a pro-labor PM who might be counted as a liberal here. I do think the difference between the American and British conservative parties should help call attention to the fact that liberal/conservative is not the clear dichotomy that some would make it.
RobSmith - If you're saying that Chamberlain and his leftist policies (I'd hardly call him a leftist ideologue, but he was a naively dovish foreign policy leader in a way that's much more in line with liberal than conservative foreign policy) were responsible for Britain's early missteps, I agree wholeheartedly.
But I didn't understand that to be Andy's point. It seemed to me that he was saying that because of the popularity of atheism in Britain, its national character is set against underdogs, and therefore it was content with watching these underdogs lose out to Germany. That's a very inaccurate view of history, and it's unfair to Britain, perplexingly so when Winston Churchill's leadership during WWII was one of the finest jobs of leadership by a conservative leader in the last century.
Look, There's a reason the greatest foreign policy presidents, with the exception of FDR, were all Republicans (Eisenhower, Reagan, GHWB) and the worst (Carter, Wilson, LBJ) were Dems. The traditional conservative point of view on foreign countries is more realistic and pragmatic than the traditional liberal point of view. Without a doubt. It's one of the big reasons I vote Republican (That and the economy. I'm a libertarian on social issues when the gov's involved, although personally conservative, which puts me at odds with both parties). But I don't think this is a case where we should be attacking the Brits. KingHanksley 12:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)
I'd add Nixon to that list, and Nixon admired Wilson very much. Rob Smith 12:07, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Nixon was a mixed bag. But him admiring Wilson doesn't mean he didn't acknowledge his failures. KingHanksley 13:44, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Nixon considered Wilson a visionary -- a president with a vision of a world living in peace. FDR was a visionary too, basing his vision on Wilson's. Not all presidents are visionaries, able to convince their fellow leaders and citizens of that vision. Most president's follow a vision of a previous president. Nixon had a vision -- a world where the US was not at war (hot or cold war) with China and the USSR (such as we were in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, elsewhere), a world where we would be trading partners, dependent upon each other. The world we live in today. Rob Smith 14:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)
I think that's accurate. But Wilson failed badly at realizing his vision. And Nixon badly mishandled Vietnam and that region, although he made huge strides with China and did well with the USSR. Definitely two of our most interesting Presidents, they had some of the stuff of greatness but fell short of their potential because of their flaws.
FDR was one of the true greats, and I don't find it necessary to throw dirt on his name to advance conservatism. I don't think modern Dems have the leadership, vision, or sense of purpose as Roosevelt did. KingHanksley 15:33, 12 February 2012 (EST)
There's much I can agree to with that. Wilson's failures are both his own, his health, and his compatriots in basically an isolationists, center-right nation. FDR's vision was not his own, but rather implemented based on a careful study of Wilson's failure. Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was not to end the Vietnam War, but rather the Cold War, or Detente. And it largely was implemented for awhile, til the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the US arms buildup of the 1980s. However the Cold War ended, Nixon took the first step of building a foundation on trade, rather than an endless cycle of no-win wars like Korea & Vietnam. Rob Smith 16:49, 12 February 2012 (EST)
So, do you think that Poland - the Christ of Nations - was the real bully in WWII? AugustO 02:32, 11 February 2012 (EST)

I am noticing a growing trend from the admins of this site to insult the Brits. Not only do you insult us with numerous outrageous claims recently, but you rarely back up these claims, and most of the time they are just blatantly false! Please stop attacking the UK! --RedGoliath 16:00, 11 February 2012 (GMT)

Aschlafly, tell us what the United States did when Germany overran underdog nations. I can't find much mention of it in my history books. Liberals must have left that part out. GarryG 11:52, 11 February 2012 (EST)
The United States did not sign an agreement with Hitler inviting him to run over his underdog neighbors, and give a hero's welcome to someone for signing such an agreement.--Andy Schlafly 12:03, 11 February 2012 (EST)
The question was not what the US did not do it was what DID they do? Davidspencer 12:34, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Lend Lease. The Brits did not "stand alone", they would have starved to death before Germany ever could cross the channel. Rob Smith 13:49, 11 February 2012 (EST)
I see, so the USA did pick a side (sometime after those appeasing, pro-German Brits did) but didn't want to get any dirt under their fingernails by actually fighting for the underdog. DaveE 14:34, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Yes; the US was deeply divided, with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy for example, siding with the pro-appeasers like the British liberal Neville Chamberlain. Stalin likewise sided with Hitler at this time. Rob Smith 14:49, 11 February 2012 (EST)
What these whiney Brits need to keep in mind is that if it weren't for the USA they'd be writting these comments in German, or Russian. AngusT 12:30, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Whatever language we were writing it in we would be spelling the word writing correctly, probably without needing 2 edits to get it incorrect. Davidspencer 12:34, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Britain's "betrayal" of Poland

RobSmith - I suggest you look up information on the 'Yalta Conference'. You will learn that Roosevelt made a deal with Stalin - formation of the UN in return for an expansion of the Soviet's sphere of influence. Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland and pointed out that the UK "could never be content with any solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state". Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland but never honoured his promise. America did not protest. Why don't you look it up yourself?

EJamesW 16:14, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Thanks. I wrote the Yalta Conference on this site; might I suggest Alger_Hiss#Poland as a supplement, as well. Rob Smith 16:41, 11 February 2012 (EST)
I just read your article.I stand corrected and utterly convinced of your point of view.
Just kidding Rob - READ SOME HISTORY BOOKS! EJamesW 17:03, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Try this one; an earlier version from the primary editors is also available on this site, used with the authors permission. Rob Smith 17:07, 11 February 2012 (EST)
The Wikipedia article you cited was very interesting - much better than the one on this site. Thanks for pointing me towards Wikipedia in order to find truthful information. Thanks RobSmith. EJamesW 17:21, 11 February 2012 (EST)
The Munich Agreement dealt with Czechoslovakia not 'his underdog neighbours' and when Hitler broke it the UK guaranteed the independence of Poland, who was another underdog. We then went to war with Germany when Hitler invaded Poland. This is a matter of public record. Darkmind1970 13:05, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Brits guaranteed the independence of Poland? and we know how that worked out. Kinda just like George W. Bush's WMD, huh? Rob Smith 13:39, 11 February 2012 (EST)
I don't know what you're talking about, this obviously has nothing to do with GWB and WMDs. Just face the facts, Britain was willing to go to war to defend Poland. The USA was not. It isn't anything to be ashamed of, but do face the simple facts.DaveE 14:34, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Just face the facts: Britain alleged the cause of the war was to maintain Polish freedom and self determination, but when it all was said and done, the Polish Govt in Exile and it's Army were not even allowed to march in the London Victory Parade. Likewise, George W Bush alleged the Iraq War was about WMD, but know now that was complete bollocks. Rob Smith 14:49, 11 February 2012 (EST)
What on earth are you talking about? You put "alleged" in italics thereby implying there was another reason the British went to war with Germany. Care to enlighten us? What the heck are you talking about? Incidentally, the story about the victory parade is true and it is disgraceful. The Labour government was keen not to offend Stalin. It also completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. I am genuinely intrigued by this. Why do you think Britain went to war? --Jdixon 15:22, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Britain "guaranteed" Polish independence, in your own words. Britain sold Poland into communist slavery. This is a matter of public record. Rob Smith 15:34, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Okay you still haven't answered the question. Your point (insofar as you have one) seems to be: the British claim to have gone to war to defend Polish freedom, but that country didn't end up free. Well, the Germans went to war to conquer Europe and that didn't work out either. The fact that Poland ended up enslaved does not in any way prove that the UK did not go to war with the intention of opposing its occupation. We still end up back in the same place. If the British did not go to war in support of Poland (and other already occupied nations) then why did they go to war? Answer the bleeding questions. --Jdixon 16:08, 11 February 2012 (EST)


So, your argument is that in 1939, Britain went to war with the good faith intention to secure Polish independence; however by 1944-45, British war aims were redefined being that they had no intention whatsoever to honor, or even recognize, the commitments made to the legitimate Polish government and army, and the sacrifices Polish people made, by allowing them to share in the London Victory Parade? Likewise the contrast can be made, George W. Bush and others went to war in 2003 with the good faith intention to secure a world free of WMD from madmen, but having failed (as Britain had failed in its war aims) it was a mistake based on good intentions, with nevertheless a positive outcome (in both cases, removal of a madman). It can also be said in both cases, a somewhat lawless and chaotic outcome for the people involved. Rob Smith 16:37, 11 February 2012 (EST)

????? The UK did go to war for Poland. It was in the declaration of war. You can't re-write those things after the fact! Darkmind1970 15:02, 11 February 2012 (EST)
They did, the right of self determination of peoples. In the end, Britain ignored the London Poles who signed the Atlantic Charter and handed Poland over to the murderous, unelected, leftist Lublin Committee. Rob Smith 15:48, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Rob, you do not get to rewrite this subject in your view. Should an admin chose to insert sub labels to the discussion fine, you are not an admin and should not try to do so. Davidspencer 15:46, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Oh dear. Despite the gauche comments from Andy, Rob and Angus (read some books fellas!), I am sure most Americans don't share your share your unusual views. Also look up 'Eddie the Eagle Edwards' if you require any further evidence that we English like supporting an underdog. EJamesW 15:19, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Read some books? Why don't you try Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn? In extenso:
In their own countries Roosevelt and Churchill are honored as embodiments of statesmanlike wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious. How could they, in their decline from 1941 to 1945, fail to secure any guarantees whatever of the independence of Eastern Europe? [9]
And there's more on British diplomacy. I'll can find it, if needed. Rob Smith 16:22, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Rob, seriously, look up information on the Yalta conference - it might help you understand what actually happened. By the way when you start 'quote mining' isn't that a sign that you've already lost the argument EJamesW 16:35, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Not really; I typed in by hand and uploaded that quote from a lengthy footnote in the Gulag Archipelago years ago; it's nice to see its been copy pasted so much and taken on a life of it own in Google. Rob Smith 16:50, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Rob, do NOT rewrite what I have written. It is against the rules and is discourteous. Darkmind1970 15:59, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Rob talks about the time after WWII, everyone else is talking about the outbreak of the war... AugustO 16:18, 11 February 2012 (EST)

The outbreak of the war? Wan't that when Britain went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland while the "Christian United States" sat idly by, doing nothing? --SamuelK 17:01, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Why didn't Britain go to war against Stalin when he invaded Poland at the same time? Rob Smith 17:18, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Why didn't the "Christain United States," lover of the underdog, declare war on anyone? --SamuelK 17:32, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Why? FDR was running for re-election and feared going against the will of the people? The Neutrality Act? The American people are basically conservative and don't believe in interfering in other peoples business? The US doesn't believe in di8ctating to the world how others should live? The US doesn't want to get involved in nation building for 40 years after get involved under one premise (right of self determination or finding WMD) and utterly failing in its objectives? Take your pick of any one of these, there's much more, too. Rob Smith 19:42, 11 February 2012 (EST)
Seriously Rob, give it up - see Danth’s Law. You lost the argument long, long ago.

EJamesW 17:35, 11 February 2012 (EST), – Why was the "Western betrayal" article watered down? --Michaeldsuarez 12:14, 12 February 2012 (EST)

That was Professor and former CP sysop RJJ of Yale's work (his name or a link to his CP user page currently won't get passed the CP spam filter), which I think on balance improved it. Credit and consent of WP User:Piotrus should probably be added somewhere (on the redirect?). Rob Smith 12:38, 12 February 2012 (EST)

User Rob Smith: no matter how creative your interpretation of history, there is no excuse for your continued profanity. Let me remind you in big letters: THIS IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY WEBSITE. PLEASE STOP SWEARING. Rafael 18:21, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Western Allies v USSR

@Rob. Is it your contention that the Western Allies should have declared war on the USSR in 1945 or 1946? --DamianJohn 12:57, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Declared war? No. However, the USSR violated the Matsuoka Pact in 1945 when it occupied the Kuril Islands -- violating an International Peace agreement, or "Crime against Peace", the very charge leveled against Nuremberg defendants at that same moment. Neither was anything done in 1945 about the same crimes the League of Nations expelled the Soviet Union for when it was allied with Germany in wars of aggression against its peaceful neighbors. Rob Smith 13:24, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Rob, I think we all agree that the USSR acted badly after WWII, the problem is that given the Realpolitik situation at the time there was no mechanism to correct or punish them. There was no ability or will amongst any of the Western Allies (US included) to fight a long, protracted and inevitably losing fight against them. Some might argue this was cowardice, I say it was the only sensible decision available. Either way, it is not appropriate to single out the UK only for criticism. Do you disagree with any of that? --DamianJohn 13:54, 12 February 2012 (EST)
That's all "coulda woulda shoulda", but not history. All we have is historical facts: the Soviet Union was guilty of many of the same crimes Nazi war criminals were. And it probably wasn't possible without UK and American encouragement or direct help. Rob Smith 14:12, 12 February 2012 (EST)
That's not true, it was certainly possible without UK or US help. In 1945 they were the biggest and best war ready machine in the world. They didn't need to ask anyone's permission to do anything. --DamianJohn 14:16, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Lend Lease aid kept them in the war against Germany, as it did Britain. Without the direct contributions from the US Treasury and American taxpayers, both Britain & the USSR most likely could not have withstood. Most historians the world over agree on this point. There are other examples of direct aid from the US, as well. Rob Smith 14:20, 12 February 2012 (EST)
But that is a non-sequitor. Of course the US and the UK helped the USSR out during WWII. They knew that if the Nazis had beaten the USSR, they would have had a very hard time defeating Germany, and may have had to sue for peace. We are talking about the courses of action available to the Allies after WWII. Or do you think it would have been better to let the Nazis beat the USSR in 1941-42? --DamianJohn 14:36, 12 February 2012 (EST)
(1) "the biggest and best war ready machine in the world" was only possible because of "UK and American encouragement or direct help", assuming that's true, we are in agreement. (2) "they would have had a very hard time defeating Germany" is an assumption, assuming they even wanted to continue the fight. If it were "better to let the Nazis beat the USSR in 1941-42", is problematic; (a) you are making the assertion the Wehrmacht are Nazis; (b) in June of 1941, there was absolutely nothing the UK could do; in fact upto that time the Soviet Union was actively giving aid to Germany in its war with Britain; (c) the entire issue of the "Second Front" in Europe, and the North Africa campaign, is still considered by many former Eastern bloc historical reporters as intended to do just as you suggest, that the UK & US really wanted Germany to wear down and perhaps defeat the USSR. Rob Smith 15:22, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Another whole lot of non-sequitors there Rob. But anyway. It is true that in 1939-1941 the USSR were not squeaky clean in their dealings with other countries, and perhaps there was a moral imperative on the part of the UK to act (not to mention the US who weren't even acting against the Nazi's at the time) but practically speaking there was nothing they could do. In any case, I don't think it could be said that the USSR at that time were anywhere near as big a threat to world peace as Germany was. I think it was entirely sensible for the Allies to try to keep on the Soviet's good side as much as possible because you are right in thinking that the Allied powers were hoping that the Germans would tire themselves out in a war with the USSR. What they did not want, and what (I strongly think) would have been a fate worse than the historical, would have been a quick victory over the Soviets in 1941-42, and then returning to defend the Western front/North Africa. I have read plenty of historians (not off the top of my head) who say that if that occurred, the West would have been in for a massive and probably unwinnable war - though nukes when they came may have had some effect.
The tl;dr version: the Allies looked the other way/supported the USSR because they felt it was their best or only way to beat Nazism which they felt a greater threat to world peace than the Soviets. --DamianJohn 15:48, 12 February 2012 (EST)


  • the USSR at that time were anywhere near as big a threat to world peace as Germany

This is just something we'll have to disagree on. Whether it was "as big", or "bigger", is another matter. Point is, the USSR was at war with all bourgeois and imperialist regimes throughout the planet since 1919, including France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Nationalist China, and Germany upto the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Rob Smith 17:01, 12 February 2012 (EST)

They fought a war of self-defence against the White powers in 1919 and there were frequent border skirmishes between them and China, but since they switched to "Socialism in One Country" in the 1930's they did not seem to have a mind for world domination like Germany explicitly did. I am no apologist for the USSR, but I think you are viewing their 1919-1941 actions through the lens of their 1945+ behaviour.
And also, to play devils advocate to a degree, did the USSR not have legitimate reasons to create a cordon-sanitaire to protect themselves against Germany who had, after all, invaded them twice in ~30 years. Although their actions were certainly inconsistent with human rights and international law, I do allow them a certain level of room for the fear that this would happen again. --DamianJohn 17:13, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Read Lenin's own words (from the external link at footnote 1 here: Comintern#Goals); these activities continued until the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; the reasons for terminating the pact are given beginning with Part II here: "the Comintern resumed its subversive activity against Germany, with the official Soviet-Russian representatives giving assistance. Sabotage, terrorism, and espionage in preparation for war were demonstrably carried out on a large scale", until the end. Rob Smith 18:34, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Ah, P.S. Who invaded who twice? Rob Smith 18:52, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Um, are you seriously expecting me to accept that the German invasion of the USSR was a legitimate act of self-defence because Ribbentrop alleges it in the declaration of war? Because Ribbentrop says so. Seriously?
As for Lenin, he died in 1924, and did not have any say in the USSR's foreign policy in the 1930's. They dropped this policy after their adoption of "Socialism in 1 country" in the 30's.
As for who started WWI, that is beyond the ambit of this discussion, except to say that the Soviets certainly believed they were not responsible, and it is their state of mind that is relevant in determining whether they were afraid it would happen again. Don't forget how much land they lost in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
I should say that I know you are ideologically opposed to the Soviets, but that appears to have lead you to extra-ordinary lengths to criticise them, even if it means exonerating the Nazis. I would step back and take a look at the totality of what you are arguing and see if you really believe what you are saying. --DamianJohn 19:04, 12 February 2012 (EST)
There are other sources; historians are debating that right now. [10] As to the Comintern, Lenin's death did not interrupt its activities. Jake Golos was sent to the United States in 1921 and headed the American organization til his death in 1943. The long reach of Comintern killers executed Trotsky in Mexico in 1941. Juliet Poyntz in the United States was probably the first victim of the Stalinist Purges in the US for failing to continue her subversive activities of fomenting revolution aimed at overthrowing and destroying the bourgeois regime of the United States. The Anti-Comintern pact was the name given to the treaty of alliance among European nations fighting with Germany against Soviet hegemony. The Comintern was allegedly disbanded in 1942, removing the supposed basis for German led resistance to Soviet aims on Eastern & Central Europe, the Far East, and elsewhere, but Soviet foreign policy continued uninterrupted for decades right up to the end of the Cold War.
As to WWI, you pointedly said "invaded"; don't matter, either way Imperial Germany was the victim of Czarist aggression. As to Brest-Litovsk, it was Trotsky as chief negotiator, and the other founders of the Soviet state, Lenin, Stalin, et al, that admitted from day one neither the Czarist regime nor its successor state, the USSR, had a legitimate claim over the Ukraine. And that seems to be the same status quo now, being the Treaty of Versailles been been totally undone. As to your personal attacks, contorting historical facts into an ideological debate, I won't dignify with a response. Should you persist, I'll take it to the powers that be. Thank you. Rob Smith 19:54, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Personal attacks? Don't be absurd. Don't play the victim. I am just pointing out that you appear to have ideological blinkers on which is preventing you from listening to other sides of the argument. I will let the readers decide who made sense, and who spoke in non-sequitors and kept changing the topic. --DamianJohn 20:54, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Well the Ribbentrop document cited is the same Ribbentrop who co-authored the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. As an historical witness, he might have something to say about when the terms of the pact can be construed to be violated. Sure, he ended up on the end of rope, but much of the allegations cited can be corroborated. And you still seem to miss another larger point: not only is the Soviet Union guilty of mass exterminations long before Hitler copied Bolshevik methods, at the moment the Soviets sat in judgement at Nuremberg, they continued doing the same things they passed judgement on Nazi War Criminals for. None of this "exonerates Nazi's", it condemns Soviet actions, and to a lesser extent, their UK & US facilitators and collaborators.
I just finished watching the 1980s film, Ghandi moments ago. My God, what did the British Empire do in India, that was little different than what Nazi's did to their subject peoples? Rob Smith 22:57, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Obviously I know who Ribbentrop was. Who do you take me for? And I also know that foreign ministers wrote all sorts of ridiculous things in declarations of war. Hell, the official story in Germany in 1939 was that Poland soldiers crossed the border and invaded Germany. Anyway, I'm sorry if I offened you, that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to get into all these extraneous matters. I simply wanted to point out how simplistic and honestly silly, it is to blame the UK for not upholding the independence of Poland after WWII given the geo-political situation at the time.
With respect to the British in India, I would agree, but they were no worse than in Australia, or the Spanish in Central America, or Africa, or the US in the Southern States etc etc. No country has a completely clean past. --DamianJohn 23:09, 12 February 2012 (EST)
So your point is the Nazi's were no worse than the American's in the Southwest; seizing Bohemia and Moravia was like when the US seized California and Texas, is that right? Rob Smith 03:13, 13 February 2012 (EST)
No, I wouldn't say that. 3 reasons
--a)In a general sense I think it is always very difficult in comparing the actions of various governments through history. People had different values and mores, there was less information available, and there were different ideas of what patriotism and glory encompassed.
--b)In particular, it is almost always inappropriate to compare any actions from anyone to the Nazis. They were such a criminal gang of thugs, without any redeeming qualities that comparing any other government to them is tricky. In any case, saying "x was as bad as the Nazis" is really just an emotive claim, achieves very little apart from aggravating others and always detracts from any debate being had. Hence Godwin's Law.
--c)As you can imagine, I never did Early US history at university, or even at high school so I'm no expert on the subject and I simply am not qualified to say anything sensible on the subject of Early US History. It would surprise me if the US action was as brazenly in violation of an agreement they had made as Hitler's, but I make no claims about anything.
In case you weren't sure, When I said the "US Southern States" above, I was referring to the institution of slavery, and I was not meaning anything by it other than the fact that no country has completely clean hands when it comes to its past. (And no I don't want to get into whether it was as bad as the concentration camps etc etc). --DamianJohn 11:56, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Thank you. I just caught that, too. You probably were referring to the Party's plan for the Soviet Socialist States of America, and their constituent Soviet Republics. Rob Smith 12:47, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Lol, perhaps even you might think that living in a socialist state would be better than slavery - perhaps that is optimistic :) (and yes I am being facetious)--DamianJohn 12:58, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Call me a cynic but I have always believed since high school history classes that United States and the UK acted according to their self-interest in WWII. Germany with its imperialism, evolutionary racist ideas and fascist ideas was a brutal and oppressive regime that was going to keep expanding until it was stopped. I have to believe that after Germany's invasion of Poland that the British thought that eventually Hitler was going to show up on their doorstep. Second, pragmatism is a liberal ideology whereas realism is more compatible with conservatism. Conservative 03:45, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Well maybe your high school history teacher was an idiot. Rob Smith 08:04, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Or maybe his high school history teacher was dead right and you are an idiot. By the time Hitler invaded Poland he had already planned to invade France and the Soviet Union. He had a plan to invade Britain - ever heard of Operation Sealion? Trying to stop Hitler after he invaded Poland was just a way of trying to stop him before he invaded Britain. --AriannaK 08:36, 13 February 2012 (EST)
@Conservative. Of course it is true to say that countries act in what they perceive to be their self-interest; that is trite. However it is an almost meaningless statement, right up there with some of Freud or Marx's unfalsifiable doctrines that explain everything and yet explain nothing. --DamianJohn 11:56, 13 February 2012 (EST)
@Conservative, I should add (perhaps I wasn't clear) that I think you are completely correct with respect to Britain. They felt that an unchecked Germany with an madman in charge would eventually lead to a conflict between them and they felt it was in their interest to stop it while they could. For all that is written negatively about Chamberlain, he was no fool. After March 1939 he knew what was coming. --DamianJohn 17:11, 14 February 2012 (EST)

“The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying 'And another thing...' twenty minutes (or 3 days!) after he'd lost the argument.” ― Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Ok I changed it a bit - but I felt it described poor rob (Bless him!)

EJamesW 18:16, 13 February 2012 (EST)

"If there were not tragic, we might suggest that God has a sense of humor..."

Let me get this straight--you guys offer a writing course? GarryG 18:23, 10 February 2012 (EST)

We aren't perfect like liberals pretend to be! We beg you, please don't apply a double standard against us.--Andy Schlafly 19:22, 10 February 2012 (EST)

Christian Athletes

Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks, Harvard scholar and devout Christian, is making headlines at the moment in the NBA. Scored 38 points in a victory tonight, a personal best. He's definitely an underdog as a 6'3" (which is small for NBA) Chinese American. His Twitter picture is a picture of Jesus and his quote is "to know Him is to want to know Him more" It's also interesting that he's helping the team win as more selfish players (including Carmelo Anthony who un-patriotically said that he threw away his Olympic medal) sit on the bench with injuries. Inspiring story. KingHanksley 02:36, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

Yes, that's why He enjoys reading Conservapedia so much.--QPR 09:05, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Whitney Houston

Why no mention of Hollywood values in the blurb on Whitney Houston on the front page? She did so many drugs.

Excellent question. Do you have particular wording in mind?--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Whitney's Star Spangled Banner is considered the best ever, at least according to the comments of 5 million youtube visitors since her death was announced Rob Smith 11:02, 12 February 2012 (EST).
Just a suggestion; I think you should adopt a policy of waiting at least a week before making any comments about the nature or values of any person who dies. I say this for two reasons: firstly, it often takes that long to get a truer picture of what the cause of death was, and what was involved; secondly, it tends to bring the website (and therefore all the editors) into disrepute by making it appear we are using a tragedy to make a political point. Lets leave it a few days before we start making comments, shall we? --DamianJohn 12:05, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Who did Highway to Hell anyways? Rob Smith 12:15, 12 February 2012 (EST)
AC/DC. Or Ate de Jong --BaileyJ 22:09, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Mitt Romney

Right. So when Conservapedia declared Santorum the tri-state winner, it was a 'prediction' and warranted a frontpage, self-aggrandizing headline. But when apparent RINOs declare Romney's victory, it deserves derision and the hypocritical claim that Conservapedia does "not announce the incomplete results." Does Conservapedia apply the liberal double standard? MBell

The Romney result was not a "prediction" by the Maine leadership, but rather was declared as the final result ... at the expense of 16% who had not yet voted in a close election!--Andy Schlafly 01:29, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Yah butt when a local machine knows it has a enough bodies to finish stuffing ballot box in the remaining precincts, where is the mystery in the final outcome? Rob Smith 03:08, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Are Evolutionists Afraid to Debate?

From the front page: "No wonder why so many atheists/evolutionists are chicken to debate!"

After so much force thrown behind the QE! movement by User:Conservative, it is obvious that he is knowledgable in the subject of Evolution by Natural Selection. Would User:Conservative, then, accept my offer to debate him on the 15 questions Evolutionists can't answer?

I am not afraid to have a spoken debate on this topic. Do you, or anyone else, accept?

(By the way, if this is the wrong place to post this, I will move it elsewhere.) --RedGoliath 12:49, 13 February 2012 (GMT)

He will debate you, but you need to make a donation to a Christian charity of his choice first. I think he's looking for about a $15,000 donation. Conservative, if you dropped this requirement, sorry! --AriannaK 08:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Sign me up for the debate as well. Judging from the talk page of the 15 questions for evolutionists debate page, it shouldn't be much of a challenge. It's bizarre that some people think that you can challenge a celebrity to a debate over the Internet and if they don't espond, it's because they're "chicken." RachelW 08:54, 13 February 2012 (EST)
15,000$ up front? Even Mitt Romney bets only 10,000$ a time... AugustO 09:07, 13 February 2012 (EST)
How convenient, he uses the front page, which most of us can't edit, to make fun of evolutionists and claim that we have no evidence for the theory, and that we are too "chicken" to debate. Only a coward posts ridiculous claims in a forum where they can't be challenged. Then he puts a ridiculous price tag on a debate, as though anyone is going to pay that just to have a "debate" with Conservative. I actually wonder what would happen if PZ Meyers showed up on your doorstep offering to debate you about evolution. I assume you would call him fat and slam the door in his face.
Hey Conservative, I have an idea: go on the 15 questions for evolutionists talk page and try to refute, in your own words, the answers left on EVERY question. For a list of questions that supposedly we "can't" answer, they sure do have pretty definitive answers attached to them. I guess if you keep repeating that lie over and over again, someone might actually believe that this list is any kind of a challenge at all to evolution. No wonder evolutionists are quaking in their boots, they're quaking with laughter! RachelW 09:22, 13 February 2012 (EST)
If your answers are so good, why does nobody believe them? --AriannaK 12:39, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Lot's of people believe Rachel's answers. Similarly lots of people believe Conservative's. However, not many people are prepared to change their minds on the issue. --QPR 13:30, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Whether minds are changed on the subject is not the issue. The issue is the constant claim by User:Conservative that evolutionists are afraid to debate. Well here is an evolutionist unafraid to debate him, as well as RachelW and anyone else willing to add their names to the list. Will User:Conservative take down the false claim and debate me/us? --RedGoliath 18:41, 13 February 2012 (GMT)

I have a hard time understanding this debate business - it makes it seem like it's some kind of sport or game. My understanding is that the evolutionists conduct their debate in scientific journals, and while these are of course biased in favor of evolution (for whatever reason), there are in every university library tens of metres of shelf space of debate material waiting to be taken apart by Conservative or other creationist debaters. --FrederickT3 14:06, 13 February 2012 (EST)
It is User:Conservative who is making falso claims, and it is his definition of debate im challenging him on. However, I have noticed that the accusation on the front page has now been taken down. Thank you User:Conservative. --RedGoliath 13:26, 14 February 2012 (GMT)
RedGoliath, I just saw your post. You seem to feel that I have thrown "much force" behind the QE! Campaign. I am certainly flattered and I will let others decide if your feeling was justified. With that being said and in light of your statement, you should certainly understand my disinterest in debating an obscure atheist/evolutionist like yourself, but please do feel to arrange a written debate between myself and a non-obscure atheist and I would certainly give the debate offer consideration (despite the fact that global atheism is shrinking). Conservative 19:11, 14 February 2012 (EST)
But you're an obscure creationist, aren't you? Why would a famous person want to hold a written debate with a nobody, like yourself? At least I've never heard of you. If I am mistaken, and you have received some level of noteworthiness in the field of Christian apologetics, then perhaps you can point me to books or papers you've had published. Or perhaps some youtube videos of lectures you have given. Better yet, I'd like to see one of your debate performances. --JoshuaB 19:49, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Joshua, my work has been cited by the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today and other major newspapers have mentioned my work as well. Plus, I personally know that one of the largest Christian organizations in Western Christendom linked to my articles and Christian men with doctorates in relevant fields have as well. I can understand you not knowing about the newspaper citations, however, since obscure atheists/evolutionists are often poor researchers. In fact, many obscure atheists at this website have such poor research skills that they fail to spell the words atheism, atheist and atheists correctly at this website. Conservative 20:23, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Excellent. Could you kindly direct me to the works (outside of the articles, comedies, and satires posted on Conservapedia)that these media outlets have cited? I would love to do the research myself, but I do not know your Christian name. Nor any professional credentials you may have that would help guide my research. --JoshuaB 20:35, 14 February 2012 (EST)
I've seen you make this claim a number of times and yet you have never provided any evidence to back up your claim. You say we should do research to find out for ourselves but refuse to give your real name for that to be done. That makes no sense to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you haven't provided evidence of any level. Ayzmo :) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Ayzmo, feel free to contact the owner of this website or the administrators of this website about me supposedly doing as you have claimed. You might want contact some of the newspapers I mentioned as well while they are still in existence. :) In the meantime, HERE is the St. Petersburg Times (now Tampa Bay Times) citing my work. Conservative 20:46, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Conservative, if the rest of the reported citations of your work are of this caliber, you can save yourself the trouble of looking for any more. If that's your strongest piece of evidence for notoriety... you've got nothing. To be fair, the exact details of your person, profession, and education, do not preclude an innate and particularly well-honed debate prowess. I, and am sure there are others, would like to see this skill put on display. What do you say, care to give us a taste? A "freebie", if you will. --JoshuaB 21:45, 14 February 2012 (EST)
JoshuaB, I understand that liberals with their bankrupt ideology often feel it is necessary to brag about the profession/education. But bona fide conservatives with their robust ideology based on proof and evidence do not. By the way, Jesus (who is often cited by conservatives) was a carpenter for most of his life and he was born in a stable and his deeds and words are far more influential than Dr. Richard Dawkins. Conservative 22:11, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Conservative, thanks for sharing with me your views on liberal ideology. I (as with most Christians)am well aware of Jesus' profession and life story as it so beautifully chronicled in the NT. Yet, I'm not sure how it's particularly germane to the topic at hand... which would be proffered debate challenges and your apparent reticence to accept them. --JoshuaB 22:20, 14 February 2012 (EST)

The main thing debating proves is who's a better debater. As a method of finding truth, it's pretty poor. As personal practice in rhetoric and logic it is pretty useful.KingHanksley 00:02, 16 February 2012 (EST)

You are correct King Hanksley, debating is an exceptionally poor method for discerning truth. What a debate does do is test how effectively a debater can persuade an audience with his or her arguments. Many times User:Conservative has made claims to a string of flawless victories in debates. To his credit, he typically considers such success to be due more to the inherent weakness of his opponent's position than to his own innate debating skills. I simply would like to see some examples of his debate performances, which I don't think is asking for too much. I don't see the need for making boastful claims that can't or won't be backed up with corroborating evidence. --JoshuaB 19:10, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Tsk, you both forget that we do not know if User:C is an individual or a group of people. AsherL 19:55, 16 February 2012 (EST)

"Quite strong the mercenaries of Hillary-Obama at Syria"

The article linked to in that story says nothing about mercenaries, Hillary, or Obama. instead, it is an article about a rebel movement against a regime that has killed over 5,000 of its own citizens in recent months. I believe that the editor who posted the story might have included an incorrect link by accident. GarryG 11:31, 13 February 2012 (EST)

If it means that he gets to defend another bloodthirsty dictator murdering his own people, I'm sure "that editor" couldn't care less. RachelW 15:54, 13 February 2012 (EST)


From the linked article:

According to the US Census Bureau, Buffalo is the third poorest city in the US with a population of over 250,000. Buffalo is the sixth most segregated city in the United States. The income per capita in Buffalo is 43.2 percent less than the New York average and 31.6 percent less than the national average. The median household income in Buffalo is 56.1 percent less than the New York average and 45.6 percent less than the national average. The median household income in Buffalo for owner-occupied housing is 127.4 percent greater than the median household income for renter-occupied housing in Buffalo.

The poverty level in Buffalo is 200.9 percent greater than the New York average and 116.4 percent greater than the national average. The median earnings for males in Buffalo is 39 percent greater than the median earnings for females in Buffalo.

Wow. User:C, don't you bother to read past the headlines? AsherL 17:01, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Asher, there is a difference between the city of Buffalo, NY and the metropolitan area of Buffalo, NY. I suggest reading the article a second time as it definitely list the metropolitan area of Buffalo, NY as being the 19th richest metropolitan city area in the world measured in per capita GDP as can be seen HERE. For example, I just looked up the 2009 median household income in the Buffalo, New York suburban town of Clarence, NY and it was about $82,000 a year. [11] Conservative 17:32, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Hello user:conservative. If the UK were to embrace true conservatism (I acknowledge our government isn't wholly conservative) and become much more Christian, what do you think would be the specific benefits which would lead to an improvement in our cities' GDP?

EJamesW 17:48, 13 February 2012 (EST)

According to the data appendix, London is listed as having a value of $51,466 which is just off the bottom of the "top 20". Furthermore the methodology as to what is an urban area varies between countries. US cities have well defined "metro" areas whereas British ones don't. The 15 million that is stated for London in this report is far greater than one would expect from what the US would define as a "metro" area, since the London Travel to Work region only contains 9.29m. Furthermore using a mean level of income detracts from other factors, such as income inequality and poverty (much greater in the US with a Gini coefficient above 0.45 than European countries). Lastly, measuring income itself is a difficult process: in the US it is measured through the American Community Survey, whereas in the UK it is not asked in the census or any public data collection method. Whether income through welfare is included or not can make a substantial difference. I'm not trying to ask what this has to do with atheism (although I do wonder), I'm just wondering about the methodology used in this report. HumanGeographer 18:04, 13 February 2012 (EST)
You might be barking up the wrong tree; the report's headline states,
"Ninety percent of the fastest-growing metropolitan economies among the 200 largest worldwide were located outside North America and Western Europe. [12]
So whatever that says about atheism, I'm not sure. Rob Smith 18:33, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Humangeographer, Britain was a world empire with great wealth. There has to be some reasons why it is not doing much better today. Granted the city of Buffalo, NY and no doubt its surrounding areas was also doing better better at the turn of the century (the world's fair was held in Buffalo at the turn of the century, it was a big grain mill and steel mill area, etc. etc), but I do think Britain should be doing much better and that atheism, evolutionism and socialism (the pedophile and liberal economist John Maynard Keynes was from Britain) have had a deleterious effect on Britain (social Darwinism, etc. etc). Conservative 19:50, 13 February 2012 (EST)

EJamesW, please read my work Essay: Indian Christian culture is better than low class atheist "culture" which declares concerning an English revival: "Also, the effects of the Welsh revival were profound upon Welsh society.[7] For example, "Men whose language had been filthy before learnt to talk purely. It is related that not only did the colliers put in a better day's work, but also that the pit ponies turned disobedient! The ponies were so used to being cursed and sworn at that they just didn't understand when orders were given in kind, clean words! The dark tunnels underground in the mines echoed with the sounds of prayer and hymns, instead of oaths and nasty jokes and gossip" [8] Also consider this: "The effects of the revival were awesome. There was a dramatic decline in drunkenness and bars were deserted each night while the churches were packed with worshippers. Dance halls, theaters and football games also saw a dramatic decline in attendance as a result of the revival meetings. The courts and jails were deserted and many policemen found themselves without work."[9] Of course, given the foolishness and impotence of atheism, there has never been an atheist revival. "

I have also provided evidence at this wiki that biblical Christianity of the Protestant variety has had the auxilliary effect on societies of making them more industrious among other benefits (Protestant work ethic, increase in literacy through Bible reading).

In addition, homosexuals have become ex-homosexuals through the power of Christ.

There are so many benefits to Christianity that no wiki or collection of wikis could possibly contain them. Scripture declares: "But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9). The Apostle John wrote: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25). Also, the Jesus said: ""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father". (John 14:12). There is no doubt that no single person in history has had a bigger effect on history than Jesus Christ and the effects have been greatly beneficial as can be seen HERE among other places. Jesus's disciples and the Apostle Paul also had a tremendous effect on world history. By the way, here are the Benefits of atheism. Conservative 19:50, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Two brief comments (A) wasn't Buffalo, and the Empire State, once part of the British Empire? perhaps that's why now they are not doing so good; and (B) I'd bet you $100 Buffalo has as many gay bars and bath houses per capita as London, or within a reasonable margin of error. Rob Smith 20:49, 13 February 2012 (EST)
RobSmith, the city of Buffalo certainly could be doing better. That has already been established. It is the metropolitan area of Buffalo, NY that is the issue. Are there any gay bars in the conservative and prosperous town of Clarence, New York? [13] When was the last gay parade in Clarence, NY? Liberalism may reign in the city of Buffalo politically, but the metropolitan area of Buffalo appears to have a significant amount of conservatives as can be seen HERE Conservative 21:03, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Yes, but if a survey was done of the number of gays & atheists in the Buffalo Metropolitan Statistical Area, the number would likely correspond per capita to a similar number in London. And there's likely no relation between lower income and atheism or homosexuality. In fact, Ezek 16:49 would suggest otherwise. Rob Smith 22:07, 13 February 2012 (EST)
RobS, if you want to show me statistical analysis that isolates homosexuality and atheism in relation to wealth production causation, be my guest. I will say briefly that doctors to treat homosexuality related diseases aren't cheap and I am not particularly impressed the wealth production of the Soviet Union or secular Europe which is experiencing a financial crises! Conservative 01:04, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Dear User:Conservative, it seems you are making the very elementary mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Two statistics may both be high, but it does not mean at all that one causes the other and much research must be taken to prove such a link. It is up to the proponent of a theory to prove a causation within a reasonable statistical margin of error, not for those questioning it to disprove it, especially in social science. Secondly you also make the fundamental mistake of attempting to compare two locations, ie: London and Clarence directly when you yourself are trying to state a point about metropolitan areas, rather than small towns. A rather more accurate comparison may be between St Albans and Clarence, the former of which has an income of $68,300 and compares unfavourably towards Clarence but most deprived areas of England, many of which are in London would compare very favourably to inner-city US cities such as Buffalo City since income-inequality is far less in Britain than the US. Like I've already pointed out, London would fall just off the bottom of that list. Measuring the rich areas of a country is only one rather distorted statistic and the only fair way to measure is to compare the country as a whole. It does seem that the UK is doing better than the US at the moment, but I could certainly tell you that the current economic differences between Britain and the US are not related to religion. There is some argument for a 'Protestant Work Ethic' being significant up to about 1850 and mass industrialisation in both countries (see Eric Jones, 1981 - I think you'd enjoy it [14]), but after that there is little evidence to support it. HumanGeographer 01:38, 14 February 2012 (EST)
I think there is evidence to to cultural legacies have long roots such as the Protestant work ethic and I would recommend reading the book Outliers. Second, I enjoy travel and meeting people from other cultures. I have met many fine Christians from many parts of the world. For example, I have a good rapport with a couple of Christian business people who are from Britain. :) One of whom attended the first Christian church I attended. I plan on visiting him soon, Lord willing. The Apostle Paul said be content with your circumstances and I think I could be very content living anywhere. I am also big believer in "bloom where you are planted" and successful people often are successful no matter where they are. Good habits and a strong work ethic can be very powerful. I know you are interested in the subject of geography and its effects due to your college major, but given what I just indicated, I hope you can see why this subject has less interest for me. So I regret to indicate that I am going to bow out of this conversation. Conservative 02:06, 14 February 2012 (EST)

20 Richest Cities

Why does it matter if England doesn't have one of the top 20 richest cities in the world? --DavidToyos 20:28, 13 February 2012 (EST)

David, have you read this essay in a British newspaper: The atheist sloth ethic, or why Europeans don't believe in work. By Niall Ferguson? Are you aware of the Eurozone financial crises caused by European sovereign debt? By the way, even the secular and leftist Guardian acknowledges there is a Protestant work ethic as can be seen HERE. And the book Outliers acknowledges societies can have cultural legacies. Of course, revivals like the Welsh revival are often sparked by people who are often familiar with a societies cultural legacies. No doubt Scandinavian countries benefit from a cultural legacy of the Protestant work ethic. Conservative 20:47, 13 February 2012 (EST)
Yeah, you're talking out of your @$$ Conservative SterlingMaloryArcher 21:09, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Should someone write an essay about it?--CharlieK 20:43, 13 February 2012 (EST)

There is the essay: Essay: Atheists, newer is not necessarily truer Conservative 20:47, 13 February 2012 (EST)

The state of Washington sinks further into satanism

<troll comment by Stairmaster removed>

Can you tell me that in English? I don't follow. Rob Smith 22:30, 13 February 2012 (EST)
I was unaware that bad romantic fiction was considered satanic. It's like a harlequin romance novel for buffy fans... And that's the BEST thing washington state has going for it? Not gonna go for being the HQ of Microsoft? Brian Mcpherson 12:12, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Valentine's day

Happy valentine's day everyone!!! --Joaquín Martínez 08:13, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Don't you mean Saint Valentine's Day? I'm surprised to see such an example of secularized language on the front page. GarryG 08:31, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Fair point, "GaryG", but you could have put it a bit more politely. Or is Valentine's Day a bit of a sore point with you?--CPalmer 12:03, 14 February 2012 (EST)

14 year old, son of a preacher and a nurse, invents a new surgical technique

He goes to a special medical highschool. --BrianBt 12:21, 14 February 2012 (EST)


Re. the headline about 'global warming', you can't treat 'weather' as 'climate' - one is the temperature today, the other is the average temperature across centuries. For every temperature you suggest is a record low and proves global warming isn't happening, there's somewhere else on the planet that's experiencing record breaking high temperatures - right now, high temperature records are being set in Australia, the US has just had its fourth-warmest January ever, Mitchell SD had a high that was 40 degrees higher than it's usual average temperature for Jan 5th, the South is experiencing terrible drought, Houston, TX, Scottsdale, AZ, Columbia, MS and Lincoln, NE just set record highs, and Texas (a State not given to global warming fears) is terrified that it may not have enough power on hand for future heat waves, last summer having been a record-breaker. Finally, we're seeing both record highs on the East Coast, and record lows in Alaska. You just can't come to any conclusions about global warming on the basis of the weather, so please stop trying to do so. JanW 12:53, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Polling results on the contraception plan

The poll was done by CBS and the New York Times, so I don't know how my fellow Conservapedians will view the results.--CamilleT 18:10, 15 February 2012 (EST)

It's their opinion. How do you think Obama got elected anyways? People supported him.JonM 12:32, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Time to step off the sideline

We need to make an endorsement soon or it will be too late. I nominate Santorum as the true conservative. Who's with me? --CraigF 22:27, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Why Is Venus Slowing Down?

Does anyone know?

See Counterexamples to Relativity. Atheistic theories of science are, in a word, incorrect.--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Relativity aside, do we have an explantion? Does anyone? KingHanksley 00:55, 16 February 2012 (EST)
It's important to note that venus is already a slow rotating planet, rotating at a rate of 6.52 KM/hr; By way of comparison, the earth moves at a rate of 1,674 KM/hr. This makes a single day on venus last 243 earth days. From the article, the geographical features on venus were 20 km away, or rather ~ 3 hours from where they were expected to be. This assumes that science has an accurate reading of rotational velocity (6.52 KM/hr instead of 6.5198 KM/hr for example - over the course of TEN years, gives a variance of 17.52 KM), or that the orbiter is perfectly positionally calculated. It's also important to note that because of the atmosphere of venus, we can't watch surface features from earth, so there being human error involved continues to be likely.
I don't really know what other kinds of challenges there are from receiving communications from a device that is orbiting another planet, honestly - I'm not a rocket scientist. However, human error seems more plausible than 'the planet is slowing down'; Brian Mcpherson 7:56AM, Feb 16th, 2012
It's not human error. The scientists think that it has to do with the storms and winds, acting as a counter force against the rotation. Because venus has a atmosphere 200 times of that of earth, the effects of friction should be far more visible.JonM 12:29, 16 February 2012 (EST)
That explanation (the one in the article) seems plausible, I don't have enough information to know if it's correct.
It seems strange to have a news item making fun of scientists for their explanation of an observed event when no other explanation has been advanced. The article mentioned one hypothesis, not that the scientists were certain that it was correct.KingHanksley 12:35, 16 February 2012 (EST)
I'd be interested if Andy could explain to us (a) what the theistic explanation for this phenomenon is and (b) how precisely it serves as a counterexample to relativity. --QPR 14:10, 16 February 2012 (EST)
I don't think there was an intention to give a theistic explanation for the slowing down, nor was Andy citing this as a counterexample to relativity. The conflation of atheism and relativity was unfortunate. SamHB 22:25, 16 February 2012 (EST)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains why things become more disordered and, in this case, slow down. But atheism disfavors this law and prefers theories that implicitly deny it, such as the Theory of Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 22:31, 16 February 2012 (EST)
The Second Law says nothing about order. Ice is more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. I really wish Creationists would stop using this argument, because it's nonsense. --DonauKind 22:42, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Denial doesn't make something untrue. The Second Law speaks volumes about increasing disorder. Phase shifts add nothing to the discussion.--Andy Schlafly 23:19, 16 February 2012 (EST)
No it doesn't. In fact the Second Law says nothing at all about disorder. Entropy isn't disorder. A system with maximum entropy consists of stationary particles arranged at uniform distances from each other. That's as ordered as you can get. The whole "entropy=disorder" argument is just wrong, and Dawkins laughs every time one of us uses it. --DonauKind 23:23, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Define entropy however you like, but there's no denial that the Second Law holds that disorder increases.--Andy Schlafly 23:36, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Sure there is. The Second Law says nothing at all about disorder. Entropy isn't order; it's energy unavailable for work. I said before that ice is more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. Can you argue with that? --DonauKind 23:39, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Despite this fascinating bout of assertion and counter-assertion, I don't see how it is relevant to the question of Venus' rotation. I'm quite sure that whatever the explanation proves to be, it will be entirely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, along with the other three laws, the principles of conservation of momentum (both linear and angular), the Pauli exclusion principle, and all the rest. Physics is not about throwing fundamental laws at a problem and hoping some of them stick. It might be tempting to imagine the boffins at ESA slapping their foreheads and saying 'Of course! It's all down to the second law of thermodynamics. Why didn't we think of that?', but it's unlikely. The explanation requires far more study and thought than that.
So Andy, could you explain how it is that the second law refutes the suggestion that the change in the orbital speed is caused by the weather, and what alternative theory it supports? --QPR 08:09, 17 February 2012 (EST)
And why does weather have any more to do with relativity than it does to do with thermodynamics? KingHanksley 15:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
The change weather is causing the slowdown as the weather systems will basically move matter around the atmosphere (which is quite dense) the change in mass will effect the way venus rotates and it's center of mass and the like. The atmoshpere will also be effected by the sun, and particuly large events with the sun could effect the way the gases interact in venus. The same thing happens on earth due to things like tsunamis, the tide also has a minute effect on the speed of the earths rotation (although this tends to be canceled out by the low tide and hig tides)--Coopers 20:31, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Weather and Global Warming

We should start a list of days where the temperature is much lower than expected. That way, if someone comes around here talking about global warming or climate change, we can just show them a list of days where it was cold and BAM, no more global warming arguments. What do you guys think? RachelW 11:12, 18 February 2012 (EST)

I think you need to understand the difference between weather and climate. You can give me a list of cold temperatures around the world, and i can give you a list of warm temperatures around the world, but neither one would prove/disprove global warming on its own. There are a lot more factors involved than "Its cold/warm outside! Global Warming must be true/false!"--Bobj12 14:04, 18 February 2012 (EST)
Absolutely correct, Bobj12! Global warming is an average, across the entire planet, not simply "everywhere in the world is going to warm up". To prove or disprove Global warming, you must be able to prove that the Greenhouse gases people release are not, indeed, greenhouse gases.JonM 14:37, 18 February 2012 (EST)
I don't think Rachel is being serious.... TadZ 16:41, 18 February 2012 (EST)
No, she's an RW troll and she should be banned. --RichardFrake 23:21, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Lin's Christianity

While the article doesn't reference Christianity specifically, it does mention "faith in God."KJohnsen 11:16, 18 February 2012 (EST)

I don't really understand why this site is taking an issue with this. It seems like anytime there is an article about someone and it doesn't mention their religion (whether it be Christian, Atheist, or whatever) this site makes it out to be some kind of conspiracy. Religion is not always relevant in an article.--Bobj12 13:58, 18 February 2012 (EST)
It's the kind of oversensitivity to language that mirrors political correctness. Conservapedia just has a different idea of what "correct" is. It makes us look like whiners and I don't think "they're doing it too" is a sufficient excuse. KingHanksley 15:33, 18 February 2012 (EST)
Lin's Christianity is a major reason for his success. An article about his success should at least mention it.--Andy Schlafly 15:49, 19 February 2012 (EST)
I would say his physical and mental ability is the major reason for his success. If you take a fat priest he wouldn't succeed even though he is a man of faith.--Coopers 08:21, 20 February 2012 (EST)
How do you know that Christianity is a major reason for his success? Has he ever said so? GarryG 15:55, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Or what about the case of Sarah Palin? listen to what her fellow Christians say about her:
Our presidential candidacy rating of Sarah Palin remains a C-, pending evidence that the Lord is blessing her with Presidential intellect, and that before she is a politician, she is a Christian - one unafraid to testify about her Lord and Savior when asked.
Are we going to blame her failures on God? Has God foreordained America be turned over to the militant godless? Rob Smith 17:01, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Actually, a better question would be whether or not Jesus has said it. What he thinks is the reason for his success is actually irrelevant to whether or not it is. Every group through history which has had successes has said it is because of the will of their chosen deity(both sides claimed divine favor in the Civil War for instance.) Clearly a claim means nothing. Ayzmo :) 16:00, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Oh God

So, not being able to name the full title of a book and upstaging him because of that isn't Gotcha journalism? JLefkowitz 15:32, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Clearly not. The link YOU reference describes it as a "mainstream media tactic" -- thus, it does not apply to Conservatives. Take your misleading comments elsewhere. MBell
...what? Even if the thing described isn't a mainstream media tactic, it's still a gotcha question. There should be a phrase for it or else Conservapedia looks like hypocrites. JLefkowitz 15:43, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Setting aside whether "gotcha journalism" is ethical, this clearly was not gotcha journalism and this is yet another case of liberal/atheist whining. Richard Dawkins was engaged in debate with a Christian and the moderator of the radio program did not ask the question. Now what is debate? Let's look at the origin of the word debate:

Origin: 1525–35; < Middle French batterie, equivalent to batt ( re ) to beat

Now if atheists don't want Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to suffer verbal blows in terms of showing they lack knowledge in various areas and use errant reasoning, they should tell them not to enter public debate rings. After all, the world is used to atheist cowardice (see: Atheism and cowardice). By the way, the 15 questions for evolutionists clearly intellectually knocks Richard Dawkins and atheism to the mat and atheism is not a ethically respectable worldview (see: Atheism and deception).

"Debate is bloodsport. It is combat." - The movie The Great Debaters

I hope this clarifies things. Conservative 19:29, 19 February 2012 (EST)

It clarifies a lot, Conservative. It clarifies why you can't disagree with someone without hating them, and it clarifies why you've never agreed to debate me, despite being challenged. You're afraid of being beaten, and you know that if you can just annoy your opponent enough to make them quit in disgust, you can declare victory and go back to hiding behind your locked articles. RachelW 19:55, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Rachel, I and subsequently other Christians have challenged the atheist Penn Jillette to debate, but he wimped out. Penn Jillette has never had a formal debate with a Christian to my knowledge. I think the portly atheist Penn Jillette realizes that the bigger they are, the harder they fall. :) Secondly, I am more than willing to debate a prominent atheist and please do arrange for such a debate if you wish, but I still don't debate obscure atheist which is not surprising given that the religion of atheism is shrinking in the world and the Question evolution! campaign will no doubt accelerate this trend. Lastly, you have not demonstrated that I hate any atheists. Conservative 20:41, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, so you won't debate me unless I'm a famous atheist. Such high standards! If I didn't know any better, I'd say that was a convenient excuse to never debate anyone! Please, we're not talking about Penn Jillette, we're talking about you. Will you debate me or not? Are you capable of making a coherent argument against evolution without quoting someone or calling them fat? RachelW 20:58, 19 February 2012 (EST)
By the way, do you consider yourself a "famous" anti-evolution crusader? Do you only accept debate challenges from celebrities because you think that YOU'RE a celebrity yourself? Wow, look who needs to read Luke 14:7! RachelW 21:03, 19 February 2012 (EST)
RachelW, given my clearly stated criteria, I think you already know the answer to your question concerning your offer. Second, quoting the opposition in a contextually fair manner concerning the weaknesses of an ideology is a perfectly acceptable practice. In addition, the evolution article just lays out the facts and is an encyclopedia article. It is regrettable that the facts given in the evolution article are upsetting you and I suggest abandoning evolutionism. Conservative 21:08, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Conservative, she made no implication that she was talking about the article "Evolution" here on Conservapedia. Rather, she seemed to be talking about your various satirical articles and/or subpages on atheism and evolution, where you act superior towards atheistic evolutionists and mock them regularly. JLefkowitz 21:12, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Wow. I just checked Wikipedia for Penn Gillettes's qualifications to see if it would be worth hearing a comedian expound on anything serious, and it says, "advocacy of atheism, libertarian philosophy, and free-market economics". Dang, sounds like a male version of Ayn Rand (she was a bit portly too, not so?) Rob Smith 22:43, 19 February 2012 (EST)

RachelW, you haven't given my a compelling reason to accept your offer. Conservative 21:18, 19 February 2012 (EST)

She may have left. JLefkowitz 21:19, 19 February 2012 (EST)
RachelW, many Protestants do not refer to themselves as "crusaders" and I am among them. Secondly, presenting information that refutes atheism and gaining a large audience for the refutations is not a problem for me. As a result, I do have numerous obscure atheists wanting to debate me, but given the ease of refuting atheism due to its utter weakness, I often do have better uses of my time than debating obscure atheists and would prefer to debating more prominent atheists should they present to me an appealing offer. If they don't want to present such an offer I am not going to lose any sleep about it given that global atheism is shrinking and the Question evolution! campaign will no doubt accelerate this trend. Conservative 21:36, 19 February 2012 (EST)
JLefkowitz, as far as the accusation that I "act superior" to atheistic evolutionists, I did notice that you offered no support for this accusation. Conservative 21:49, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Well then, your article on Atheism and obesity counts, as well as your many comments on the Question evolution! campaign and the 15 questions for evolutionists. You mention outwitting atheistic evolutionists several times in the first, despite your only reasoning in that article be that some main militant atheists are obese. You don't regard the actual statistics on obesity and how it correlates to faith, just show pictures of some famous obese atheists. As for the second concerning the Question evolution! campaign, well, it's even up on the main page that the campaign is going to "break the back of Darwinism". JLefkowitz 21:57, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Am I the only one who thinks Conservative is adorable? The way he refuses to debate people that he thinks are below him, and then he mocks a celebrity for not accepting some guy on the internet's challenge? Get over yourself Conservative. You are not famous. You can awkwardly force as many of your locked articles into your sentences as you want, but it does not give you any authority over anyone else on the matter --Bobj12 22:43, 19 February 2012 (EST)
JLefkowitz, your claiming "many comments" and speaking in other generalities is you being purposefully vague and disingenuous. Second, did not 3 out 5 of the New Atheist founders have problems with being overweight? Is that not a statistic? Did I not cite the Gallup study relating to the very religious in the Atheism and obesity article? Please feel free to blather on, but do not be surprised if people do not take you seriously. To my knowledge, given the foolishness and impotence of atheism, there has never been an atheist revival and I doubt your comments here are going to ignite such a revival. Conservative 22:44, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Regardless of your statistics, your incredible smugness towards atheists is clear and very annoying. Even if you do have statistics on how atheists are obese, it's not a valid argument--how does obesity play into atheism's foolishness and how does thinness lead atheists to Christ? (I'm Jewish, by the way.) Statistics and personal accounts don't even really matter when it comes to obesity. Obesity is a choice, not a belief required by atheism, but a health choice that an atheist could avoid easily, just as a Christian may be obese. I am done with my blathering. JLefkowitz 23:28, 19 February 2012 (EST)
The Rev. Jerry Falwell was a little thick around the paunches with a double chin. A very, very dear friend of mine, the Rev. Don Smith who served in the Race Track Chaplaincy of America, stood about 6'5" and weighed easily 350 lbs. This garbage about a persons weight -- intended to inflict ridicule or emotional suffering on a person -- is offensive and really beneath proper conduct of someone purporting to be educated, let alone having any standards of civility or ethical conduct. Rob Smith 00:02, 20 February 2012 (EST)

@User:Conservative. Can you provide me with a complete list of criteria that must be met for you to accept a debate offer? Thanks! --JoshuaB 22:50, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Winning a debate with an atheist does not lead a sinner to Christ. Rob Smith 22:56, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Joshua, I suggest reading my comments above as they are sufficient on this manner. Conservative 23:02, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Conservative, I reviewed the prior discussion on this page, as well as the numerous articles you authored surrounding the Penn Jillette debate that never came to fruition. And well... to be honest with you... it appears that you are intentionally setting preconditions that you know full well will never be met. Thus, making your debate challenge -at least to my eyes- a highly disingenuous one. --JoshuaB 23:26, 19 February 2012 (EST)
It is kind of strange that he expects famous atheists like Penn Jillette to debate some guy on the internet who won't even give his real name. He was challenged to a debate a while ago by a YouTube atheist, voiceoftruth2006, but he just ignored the challenge until one of his lackeys came along and applied the banhammer. He doesn't really want to debate at all. --RobertFrazer 11:20, 20 February 2012 (EST)
He can't do a YouTube debate, that would require him to make an argument against evolution, rather than link to CMI or one of his own "articles." He's afraid to debate in a venue where he can't ban his opponent, declare victory and delete any record of the discussion. He knows that in a live debate, he wouldn't be able to ignore his opponent's arguments and change the subject without the audience catching wise and dismissing him as a joke. It's the same reason that he hasn't even ATTEMPTED to rebut TonyPark's answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists. He doesn't have the knowledge necessary to understand evolutionary theory, much less try to rebut it. He just knows its wrong and evil and atheistic and satanic and all of those other words he likes to throw at people so he doesn't have to listen to them. RachelW 11:46, 20 February 2012 (EST)
I think you hit the nail on the head. Unless he can end the discussion as soon as it starts to go against him he's too frightened to get involved. His preconditions are clearly an attempt to deter anyone from getting involved. I mean who's going to hand over twenty thousand bucks to debate a guy who refuses to even sign a contract confirming that he'll take part? I mean the guy's asking people to hand over $20k and won't even tell his opponent his NAME! You might as well put the money in a big pile and light it on fire. --RobertFrazer 12:21, 20 February 2012 (EST)

What does the New Testament say about debates?

  • I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: (2 Cor 12:20)
  • Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (Rom 1:29)

Question: How do debates, and debate challenges, serve the purposes of God, or the Christian's responsibility to Christian ministry? Rob Smith 23:24, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Very interesting question, Rob. I think 1 Timothy 1:4 is relevant too - warning against spending too much time on topics that "promote controversial speculations" rather than advancing God's work, which is by faith.--CPalmer 08:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
A very interesting question, especially since it's a perfect excuse for Conservative to write anything he likes, and then shut down debate for "biblical" reasons. What do you think Jesus would say if he saw Atheism and obesity? Do you think he would approve, or would he shake his head and wonder how people ever managed to pervert his teachings so ridiculously? RachelW 11:46, 20 February 2012 (EST)
Did you know that Jesus Himself was accused of being a glutton? See Matthew 11:19. Interestingly, Jesus didn't bother to deny the charge, and seemed to admit that He enjoyed His food and drink (cf making bread and wine the centre of the Communion sacrament, or proving that He was still living by eating fish).--CPalmer 12:26, 20 February 2012 (EST)
a glutton... and a drunkard. That's what Jesus was accused of. Jesus was a party animal, spent his time in town eating and getting drunk with the sinners, prostitutes, and the collaborators with the occupation troops (Publicans). That's what the bible teaches. Meanwhile, John the Baptist dwelt 30 miles out of town and dined on insects. "What did you go out in the wilderness to see?", Jesus asked those whose conscience drove them to leave town and get cleaned up in the wilderness. "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners," Jesus told them. Perhaps that's why I spend a lot of time at an atheist vandal site, although I've been accused of being a pawn and a useful idiot of an atheist website. Rob Smith 14:10, 20 February 2012 (EST)

The Apostle Paul on gluttony

"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.'" - The Apostle Paul

"Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." - The Apostle Paul Conservative 16:09, 20 February 2012 (EST)

So what can we conclude the bible says about gluttony? A glutton can be (A) Christ in the flesh, or (B) a sinner who worships and serves the creature. I don't see where being a glutton makes a human being without Christ. I do see where being without Christ makes a human being in danger of being lost. Elsewise you render the gospel of Christ nothing more than a matter of works -- following dietary laws. Rob Smith 16:29, 20 February 2012 (EST)
I think you are absolutely right. Of course gluttony can lead one away from God, ie people whose "God is their belly", but it doesn't follow that everyone who enjoys food or eats a lot or is obese is ungodly. I think the example of Christ, not to mention many later Christians including Aquinas, settles the matter.
Also in the first quote, it's pretty clear Paul was exaggerating for effect. You're not telling me that every single person in first-century Crete was lazy, a liar, etc?--CPalmer 10:21, 21 February 2012 (EST)
As a Cretan, may I point out that St Paul wasn't the originator of the saying? It goes back to Epimandies' paradox of the 6th century BC, when, in a poem to Zeus, Epidemides says:
   They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
   The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
   But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
   For in thee we live and move and have our being.— Epimenides, Cretica

The paradox bit is because Epidemides was himself a Cretan and that the Cretans were liars was down to the fact they believed Zeus had died and was burried in Crete when the religious orthodoxy of that time and place claimed Zeus was an immortal. NicosB 11:27, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Thanks for that insight, NicosB! The most interesting thing I've read all week. Fascinating to know that St Paul was making an allusion in that passage - and to my mind, it strengthens the interpretation that he is more concerned with insulting Cretans than with pronouncing on the exact rights and wrongs of overeating.--CPalmer 11:37, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Wait a minute... looking up that verse in context (Titus 1:12), St Paul himself does make clear that he's quoting a Cretan, so the glutton bit isn't necessarily his view at all! User:Conservative, please do not put words in St Paul's mouth. I will be sure to check Bible quotations by you for similar weaseliness in future--CPalmer 12:33, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Technically, the pastoral epistles are second century forgeries attributed to Paul by their anonymous author, so it's not like putting words in Paul's mouth is a new phenomenon historically speaking. Certainly does make you wonder what a mistake like quoting a famous paradox as a serious denunciation of Cretans is doing in the perfect, inspired word of God though. --MarkSpace 11:27, 22 February 2012 (EST)
Mark, it's funny how the early church fathers and the early church widely accepted Paul's writings?[15] It's claims like yours that are help causing global atheism to shrink. Conservative 15:27, 22 February 2012 (EST)
You are using the words of Paul as a book of rules, of does and dont's, as a system of law and works. But Paul could not be more clear that works, i.e. not being a glutton for example, cannot make a person righteous. This is a perversion of the Gospel of Christ.
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, (not being a glutton, for instance) or by the hearing of faith?
You boast of your readership, I ask your readers, "Who hath bewitched you?"
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge (evolution, atheism, and obesity for example); and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
There's not much charity in your obesity jokes.
For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Says nothing about going on a diet to receive salvation. The Bible should not be cherry-picked to make a point, especially with non-believers. It only perverts its original intent, confuses the lost even more, discredits yourself, and steers people away from Christ & salvation. Rob Smith 08:50, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Contested Convention

Maybe this article by Fox News might interest a few people here. It seems that the scenario predicted by Conservapedia is becoming more and more likely.--VPropp 08:36, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Right. Thanks for the link!--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 20 February 2012 (EST)
You're very welcome. --VPropp 14:00, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Presidential Odds Update

Romney has lost more ground in the latest Presidential Odds update, with Obama and Santorum once again shortening their odds. -- Ferret Nice old chat 15:49, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Washington's Birthday

George Washington is still 279 today, but it's actually his 280th birthday on February 22. JLefkowitz 15:55, 20 February 2012 (EST)

"The article insists Beijing must stick to opposing any attempt to intervene or regime change in Damascus."

So the US should take its foreign policy cues from China's communist dictatorship? GarryG 18:17, 20 February 2012 (EST)

...Who cares where a policy originates. It should be judged on merits not on who proposed it. Should we stop breathing oxygen because liberals and communists breathe it too? Jamescaan 09:00, 21 February 2012 (EST)
This is a perfectly valid point. Merit should outweigh everything when it comes to deciding policy. Your analogy is a little off, but it makes the same point nonetheless. NSmyth 09:16, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Pictures at the Main Page

Over the last couple of days, we saw numerous pictures at the main page which illustrated some not to clever figures-of-speech:

I understand that Conservapedia wants to attract a younger audience. But I don't think that you have to act childish to do so. And though humor has it place on the main page, it shouldn't dominate it.

Personally, I'd like to see pictures like the following given a more prominent place over the juvenile illustrations. But those tend to be buried at the end of the page.

AugustO 09:57, 21 February 2012 (EST)

I would go one step further and say that User:Conservative should be limited to one item on the main page at any one time. It's currently coated in his Atheist-obsessed rubbish. The main page of what is otherwise a good encyclopedia should not be a personal blog for someone with an unhealthy obsession that includes smearing a group of people with every insult under the sun on a worryingly constant basis! --RedGoliath 17:18, 21 February 2012 (GMT)
I just sit back and enjoy the irony of watching someone who accuses others of being "militant" then turn around and promise them their backs will be broken. WilcoxD 20:30, 21 February 2012 (EST)
AugustO. I realize that you may wish the rest of the world was as bland and lifeless as your evolution believing denomination, but the world isn't that bland. With that being said, I can think of no better graphic than a frightened chicken to represent a liberal scientist who "fears for the future of evolution".[16] Of course, unlike evolutionists who cannot satisfactorily answer 15 questions believers in biblical creation have nothing to fear. By the way, I know your denomination is on the slope and has women pastors, do you have a woman "pastor"? Conservative 20:59, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Wiilcox, I realize it is hard for atheists and evolutionists not to engage in deceit, but with that being said, I merely cited material concerning breaking the back of Darwinism. Conservative 20:59, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Don't worry, I'm only having a chuckle :) WilcoxD 21:13, 21 February 2012 (EST)

RedGoliath, you claim I have smeared atheists, yet there is a conspicuous absence of you showing one factual error in my atheism related articles. In short, you are merely bellyaching. If you can't show any factual errors in my atheism related articles and you can give no proof and evidence showing that atheism is true, I suggest you become a Christian. Conservative 01:04, 22 February 2012 (EST)

  • My denomination is not evolution believing - it just doesn't have problems with members who think that the theory of evolution is generally correct, nor with those who don't think so.
  • In the early 1600s, there have been iconoclastic tendencies in my denomination, but today, the EKKW has a more relaxed approach.
  • That said, adding numerous silly pictures which don't have much to do with the actual content of the main page makes it look silly. Or at least unencyclopedic.
  • No, my pastor is not a woman (why the quote-marks?) But you digress. As you do with you juvenile pictures.

AugustO 08:34, 22 February 2012 (EST)

What's wrong with female priests?--CPalmer 09:31, 22 February 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, setting aside the issue of the priesthood of believers, what does the Bible say about this matter? [17] [18]Conservative 14:48, 22 February 2012 (EST)
AugustO, some people are hard headed. Setting aside the fact that Darwinism cannot be shoe horned into the Bible, you would think after seeing the fruit of the evolutionary teaching such as the fruit of the evolutionist Adolf Hitler and seeing evolutionary belief hollow out European Christianity and evolution friendly denominations that the lesson would be very apparent. Conservative 14:48, 22 February 2012 (EST)
Conservative, even the pages you cite make clear that the matter is disputed. Rather than rehearse a well-worn dispute, I do follow the Bible in this case (Jesus's teachings, to be exact, which tend to be a surer guide than Paul's): "By their fruits shall ye know them". I personally do know a number of women priests whose ministry is very fruitful indeed, so I shall continue to back the more inclusive interpretation.--CPalmer 09:53, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Progress of the QE! Campaign

Considering the amount of times the campaign has featured on the front page and in the news section, I would like to know how well the campaign has done so far. How many Evolutionists have converted? How many text books have been put out of publishing? How many marches have we seen on the streets? How many dishonest Evolutionist scientists have been discredited?

Or perhaps a more fitting question: How many videos has ShockofGod uploaded to YouTube about it?

It seems that a single video on YouTube about it merits a place on the news section, as if a YouTube video is a newsworthy occurence. Apart from these amateur videos, what has been acheived? Speeding train? More like dead slug at the moment.

Sorry if I seem quite snarky today, but this stream of nonsense is getting infuriating, and nothing is being done about it. --RedGoliath 17:34, 21 February 2012 (GMT)

Why don't you write Creation Ministries International and Shockofgod with all your questions? Sorry if I seem snarky today, but that seems like a common sense thing to do. I realize that atheists and evolutionists often lack wisdom and common sense, so I thought I would be of assistance to you. Conservative 14:24, 21 February 2012 (EST)
By the way, people are leaving evolutionism and atheism all the time. You see, unlike global atheism, global Christianity is not declining at an accelerating rate, but is actually seeing significant growth. It must be very sad to be part of atheist religion where people are fleeing it like rats abandoning a sinking ship. 15:04, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Since when have I been an atheist?
It has also come to my attention that, looking at the QE! blog you always refer to, there appears to be an average of zero comments per blog post. Tell me, User:Conservative, as a person, or persons, who likes to talk about google trends, how well is the QE! campaign trending? --RedGoliath 01:43, 22 February 2012 (GMT)

Where's your facts that atheists are abandoning atheism and turning to Christianity, anyway? JLefkowitz 20:25, 21 February 2012 (EST)

So the answer is: Nothing achieved ... yet WilcoxD 20:26, 21 February 2012 (EST)
RedGoliath, I realize that math is not everyone's forte, but since the blog has various comments on it, I don't see how the average could be zero. You see this is how you would do an average: total number of posts/number of comments equals the average. You see, if there were even one post, the average would not be zero. I suggest taking some brush up courses in math as it appears as though you slept through your math classes. Conservative 21:16, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Actually he is quite correct and his understanding of maths seems fine. You are refering only to the arthmetic mean and using that as your definition of average. There are also the median and modal values and he is quite correct to say the average number of posts is zero. Just as you are correct to say the average number is not, if you use the arthmetic mean defintion of average. Davidspencer 02:39, 22 February 2012 (EST)
OK, User:Conservative, I've done a little investigation. I went to the QE! Blogspot and did some counting. There are currently 142 blog posts from November 2011 to now. On all those 142 blog posts, there are 65 comments. Now let's do some basic maths!
65/142 = 0.4576.
So there are 0.46 comments for every 1 blog post. Round the number up to the nearest whole and you get...
Zero. --RedGoliath 13:18, 22 February 2012 (GMT)

Redgoliath, Davidspencer was correct in his commentary. I am so used to using the arithmetic mean for my own personal uses that I forgot about the mean and modal values. Second, I fail to see the relevance of your calculation. How does your figure show the people supporting the Question evolution! campaign are any less determined or any less resourceful? And we both know that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Determination, resourcefulness and fundamental and relevant questions that evolutionists can't answer will trump irrelevant atheist analysis in every instance. By the way, by the time I communicate with you next, global atheism will have shrunk further and global Christianity will have grown larger. I can relax in my comfy chair knowing that Christianity is rapidly growing while you are like a desperate hamster futilely running on your atheism evangelism wheel, but accomplishing nothing. Conservative 08:53, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Firstly, what brings you to the conclusion that I am an atheist? I never stated that I was. Secondly, I do believe such calculations are relevant. It shows either a lack of support or a lack of publicity, the latter of which is probably the case. Without support or publicity, it will achieve nothing. And, judging by your own logic, the QE! campaign is obscure. While looking over the blog posts on the QE! Blogspot, I found this statment: "The obscure atheist crank PZ Myers is estimated to get 20 searches a day for the search "PZ Myers" at Google and the number of searches is trending down." [Friday, February 3, 2012 - Jesus reigns triumphantly while the atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers is down and is in decline]. If PZ Myers is obscure, and his website gains more views and comments than yours and any other purely QE! based website, than the QE! campaign is even more obscure! One of his recent blog posts has so far gotten 61 comments. I suggest pushing the campaign for more publicity even harder. Lastly, I would like an apology for your unfounded attack on my Maths skills. --RedGoliath 14:13, 22 February 2012 (GMT)

Redgoliath, if you are concerned that a new campaign does not have enough publicity perhaps you should consider directing your comments to CMI since it is their campaign. Second, how long has PZ Myers been around? Let's compare apples with apples and oranges and oranges. Lastly, what types of people are commenting on PZ Myers blog?[19] Do the Question evolution blog people really care if PZ Myers gets many aggressive and socially challenged atheist men commenting on his blog? You seem to be like an "atheist hamster" who runs on his bellyaching about Christians/creationists hamster wheel, but gets nothing accomplished. Since I communicated with you last global atheism has shrunk and global Christianity continued to experience significant growth. It doesn't seem like you are accomplishing much here. Conservative 20:23, 22 February 2012 (EST)
Jlefkowitz, I realize that many atheists are lazy, willfully ignorant and also engage in the fallacy of exclusion, but I suggest reviewing the footnotes for the global atheism article, its internal links, and its external links as there have been many people leaving atheism in China and Asia and the former Soviet block countries plus people who have left atheism in the West such as Peter Hitchens. Did you examine all the footnoted material for the global atheism article or were you a lazy and willfully ignorant atheist? Conservative 21:20, 21 February 2012 (EST)
No, sir. I was a lazy and ignorant Jew. JLefkowitz 21:40, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Evolutionists, a Question Evolution Campaign blog declares: "In addition, due to some manpower issues related to sickness which have been resolved, the Question evolution! campaign initially got off to a slower start than expected, but things are now moving much more rapidly."[20] Now there are plenty of cases in history where one party got off to a slow start due to unforeseen circumstances, but ultimately prevailed. Unlike most atheists, zealous Christians have abundance patience, persistence and enthusiasm. What is exciting about atheism? You die and your body is eaten by worms and the universe burns itself out and becomes lifeless. That is not a very inspiring atheism battle cry. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Question evolution! campaign will help increase the rate that atheism is shrinking. Global atheism is already shrinking and it is expected to shrink at accelerated rate due to demographic forces.[21] Even in the secular UK, global Christianity expansion is already bringing Christian immigrants into London and the population of London Christians has not decreased in the last 20 years.[22] According to Professor Eric Kaufmann (who I believe is an atheist) in the Western World due to immigration and the higher birth rates of religious people: "Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050."[23] Conservative 04:50, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Now there are plenty of cases in history where one party got off to a slow start due to unforeseen circumstances, but ultimately prevailed. I'm afraid that you will find more cases where one party got off to a slow start due to unforeseen circumstances and ultimately perished. AugustO 08:36, 22 February 2012 (EST)
AugustO, that is the type of defeatist and passive attitude which is causing your evolution loving denomination to shrink. Second, the promulgation of the biblical creation account has at least a 5,000 year head start on Darwinism and it is going strong in the world so a few months delay of the Question evolution! campaign is certainly not devastating. Conservative 09:07, 22 February 2012 (EST)
It's a shame about the sickness issue. It seems like particularly bad luck that QE should be held back by illness, when it's atheists who are well known to lead the unhealthier lifestyles. Do pass on my good wishes for all the campaign members to get well soon.--CPalmer 10:51, 22 February 2012 (EST)
So as soon as everyone's well again (must have been some epidemic to disable such a huge grassroots campaign! Why did the lamestream media ignore it?) we can expect to see a flood of blog comments, lots of events promoting it and the final collapse of Darwinism? --RogerFinningley 11:05, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Roger, who are the most vocal advocates of evolutionary belief?[24][25] Is global atheism shrinking and will it shrink in the West due to demography and other factors? Are there 10 factors in favor of American atheism shrinking in the future?[26] Is global Christianity seeing dramatic growth despite not having mainstream media approval and lacking generous media coverage? Although the media can certainly be utilized, are there ways to bypass the media and still get publicity? [27] Is the popularity of atheist Richard Dawkins plunging despite him having mainstream media approval? [28] Conservative 15:00, 22 February 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, I still wait for an apology for the smug, arrogant way you insulted my Maths skills, when it was you who was mistaken. If you have any shred of dignity and Christian value left in you, you would give me that apology. Time and time again on this website you have spoken to me with a sense of full superiority. Your ability to brag about your supposed, exaggerated knowledge and apparant superiority, whilst all the time being wrong is, frankly, unbelievable! I suggest taking a break from your keyboard for an hour or so and just think about what you are doing to this otherwise respectable site. RedGoliath 13:37, 23 February 2012 (GMT)

I'm afraid, Mr Goliath, that demanding apologies like you do is not particularly Christian conduct. He who exalts himself shall be brought low.--CPalmer 09:50, 23 February 2012 (EST)
And yet Christianity is based around God demanding apologies for us existing. God demands our apologies for our wrong-doings, with a threat of Hell if we don't. The Christianity I follow is one of justice, and justice is never done if one just accepts all the dirt that comes their way. If we don't demand justice be done, then justice will not be done. I believe User:Conservative should apologise for the insult he baselessly threw at me.
Also, I assume that you believe that Christians should not be demanding that Richard Dawkins apologise for his ancestors owning slaves. RedGoliath 15:48, 23 February 2012 (GMT)
Whether or not User:Conservative should apologise, I don't think it's Christian, or particularly dignified, for you to demand it. You're right that I demand nothing of Dawkins; for all I know, he might be quietly donating his millions to anti-slavery charities as we speak. I don't think it's any of our business.--CPalmer 11:19, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Hello user:conservative. I must admit I find your ‘question evolution! campaign’ rather puzzling. As I’m a liberal atheist, I must be part of the target audience which you are hoping to convince that there are other explanations for the appearance of life on Earth. I’ve read the 15 questions (and answers) on this very site and I admit there are some very interesting problems posed. I’m not a biologist but I have learnt much about evolution when reading some of the talk pages associated with this particular subject.

However, to be honest, I feel this particular approach is actually strengthening the case for the theory of evolution as you are inviting people to respond with very compelling answers to these questions.

EJamesW 12:33, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Must you be part of a target audience I am trying to convince? Is the Question evolution! campaign my campaign or is it Creation Ministries International's campaign? Conservative 14:13, 23 February 2012 (EST)
I don't understand. If an atheist is NOT the target of the Question evolution campaign then that can only leave the religious as the target. But you keep saying that adherence to global atheism is falling and global religiosity, and Christianity in particular, is increasing. So what exactly is the point of the campaign? It can't be to stop Christians falling away from faith because, as you know, that is unlikely to happen. So exactly who IS the target of this campaign by CMI, ShockofGod and yourself? Davidspencer 14:27, 23 February 2012 (EST)
User:C, it does seem to be a campaign that you are almost daily promoting on cp - so I presume you must strongly agree with it's strategy. Do you see the potential flaw that I outlined in my question above?EJamesW 14:40, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I have to ask again. As a follower of the Question evolution campaign in the UK, and it's not easy to follow it as it is getting no lamestream media coverage at all, I am now utterly at a loss as to what I have been following. I was under the impression that I was following a campaign that would finally deal the death blow to atheism. I took that as an inference that the arguments were so strong that no atheist would be able to adequately answer them and most, if not all, atheists would realise the folly that QE shows. Now you tell us that atheists are not, and were never, the target of this campaign. So who is this campaign targeted at please? When I show the campaign to people of my acquaintance what am I supposed to tell them? Davidspencer 16:13, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I see a question of mine still has not been answered. Is the Question evolution! campaign my campaign or is it Creation Ministries International's campaign? Conservative 16:55, 23 February 2012 (EST)
It's CMI's, but you promote it heavily and agree with the strategy they use. JLefkowitz 18:10, 23 February 2012 (EST)
What strategy does Creation Ministries International use for the Question evolution! campaign? Conservative 18:44, 23 February 2012 (EST)
Mocking and bullying atheists and evolutionists until they give in. JLefkowitz 18:47, 23 February 2012 (EST)

JLefkowitz, did you see a staff member of Creation Ministries International pin a student against a school locker and demand answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists or do you just feel threatened by the 15 questions that we both know you cannot satisfactorily answer? :) The reason I ask this question is you certainly offered no proof and evidence for your accusation of Creation Ministries International bullying people. Conservative 20:42, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Now that JLefkowitz has answered your question do you think you could see your way to answer mine? Exactly who is the QE campaign targeted at unless it is atheists? Christians surely need no help to reinforce their faith so the campaign can only be targeted at atheists. If not them then who? Because otherwise, quite frankly, the entire campaign is a monumental waste of all of our time. Davidspencer 01:28, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, since we came to the conclusion that the Question evolution! campaign is the campaign of Creation Ministries International, why don't you ask Creation Ministries International? Better yet, meet the staff members of Creation Ministries International and their Question evolution! campaign grassroots supporters at the Creation 2012 SuperConference and ask a multitude of people your questions about the campaign. Since the conference is 5 days long, you can ask a lot of questions. Lastly, the campaign is called the Question evolution! campaign so I would think a natural audience for the campaign would be open minded people who are willing to question evolution. Stubborn atheists/evolutionists who are not willing to use critical reasoning skills and/or who want to live in denial are probably hard ground when it comes to planting question evolution seeds. Jesus is considered one of the greatest teachers of all time and he said, "He who has ears, let him hear". Have you read Jesus's parable of the sower? Conservative 02:45, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Evolutionists still can't answer 15 questions

Report from the Question evolution! campaign front:

"Thank you for taking the time to put together those “15 questions”. Even if you’re not giving the pamphlet to someone, they highlight many important questions and enable me to see topics that I should read up on, and learn more about.

As for some of the other users commenting, I am disappointed that there has been little, or no "rebuttal". All there has been thus far is what I hear on a daily basis when I voice my disbelief: “Evolution is a closed case as proven as gravity” (insert either an ad hominine or straw man argument here)." - J. G., Canada, February 2012 [29]

Incoherent atheist award

Based on the "February" award, I'd like to ask is this a new monthly feature? If so, I like it. It's a good idea to highlight the arrogance with which many atheists conduct themselves. FrancisB52 09:06, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I would prefer an "insightful Christian award". Far better to accentuate the positives of Christianity than to point out the already-obvious negatives of its absence, I would have thought.--CPalmer 09:55, 23 February 2012 (EST)
I just gave it a "catchy name". In order for it to be a monthly feature, Conservapedia would have to have someone or some people follow the atheist news beat on a more diligent basis or have an alliance and arrangement with some Christian or Christian organization that follows that atheist news beat on a diligent basis. The same could be said for the Christian news beat for an insightful Christian award if the award were to be awarded fairly and not be similar to "Obama's Noble Peace Prize". This is due to the fact that global Christianity is a very large enterprise. Conservative 14:35, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Less Combat Ready Troops

I beg to differ. If you would have read the whole article you would have seen that this training is to teach the trainers how to do PT with pregnant soldiers. Before this point they were letting those soldiers skip out. Also, I haven't seen any stats, perhaps you can provide them, to show that the military is now less effective with homosexuals in the ranks.--DanJG 14:12, 23 February 2012 (EST)

How well are Obama's wars going? Are they meeting worthwhile short term and/or long term objectives? Are Obama's wars meeting a reasonable return on investment in terms of advancing America's interest? Are Obama's wars significantly advancing the welfare of mankind? How strategically sound are Obama's wars and how well are they being carried out? Personally, I don't think the Obama administration is a very thoughtful administration and these policies are reflective of that. Conservative 14:41, 23 February 2012 (EST)
Can you possibly help me understand how those questions have any relation to women being fit for service after their pregnancy or homosexuals that were already serving in the military now being able to say that they are in fact a homosexual? Are trying to say that the status of "Obama's wars" are being directly affected by making sure pregnant women are exercising or by men who were already serving being able to say, "my boyfriend"? --DanJG 14:54, 23 February 2012 (EST)
User: Conservative, while your use of rhetoric is adequate, you fail to actually provide any quantifying or qualifying points, data, or even "logic" to actually support your claim that the training of pregnant women is somehow more detrimental to the military than just allowing them to skip training. It seems as though you have stooped to using underhanded liberal tactics, rather than relying on old fashioned Conservative truth and honesty.KenShomer 15:21, 23 February 2012 (EST)
I see there is a great reluctance to admit Obama's overall defense policy is a failure. By the way, how many troops does the USA have in Germany? Does any threat on the horizon warrant the number of troops America has in Germany? I think if you honestly answer those two questions, you will see how thoughtful the Obama administration is. Conservative 17:09, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Obama's defense policies are (there have been no radical changes) a continuation of George Bush's defense policies. Blaming any of the current military actions on Obama, or the Democrats for that matter, overlooks the authors of our current foreign policy doctrine. --JHunter 01:50, 24 February 2012 (EST)

I thought one of the purposes of elections was so policy course changes could be made. Thanks for letting me know Obama is not at fault in any way for making any mistakes in defense policy. I guess Bush told Obama to keep the same amount of troops in Germany and to keep his other defense policies the same before he agreed to hand him over the keys to the Oval Office. Conservative 04:14, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Conservative Bible Project

I noticed today that the invitation to help develop and expand the Conservative Bible Project has slipped so far down the Main Page that it is now essentially at the bottom, swamped under the morass of ludicrous articles about fat people, Richard Dawkins, rabbits, or whatever. Please, can we not put this properly high-profile, excellent and deserved project, that is so in line with the original goals of this site, back up at the top, and leave it there? There is so much work to be done, so much work that has already been done that is so instructive, and so many more people needed, that it seems a shocking waste of our time to be missing this opportunity. The main page of this site has become a playground for the mad obsessions of the user 'Conservative', but we have better things to do. JanW 23:02, 23 February 2012 (EST)

JanW, If you are upset with the amount of space obese atheists are taking up on the main page, why don't you encourage PZ Myers to lose a little weight? Many atheists get annoyed about the amount of coverage this site pays to the wildly successful and enthusiastically received Question evolution! campaign. Perhaps you felt the Earth rumble when the campaign went full throttle! Or perhaps that was the rumble of ShockOfGod's motorcycle? :) The Ebola virus of Christianity is set to liquefy the vital internal organs of atheism and evolutionistism!
Seriously, the above answer is about all you can expect to get from User:"Conservative". Instead of using his obviously copious amounts of free time to promote a cheerful, positive message of Christianity, he rather sit in his bunker and throw endless rhetorical bombs at his perceived enemies. Just one of the many many PZ Myers articles is over 45K in size. While the article for Dr. William Lane Craig, a man User:"Conservative" cites frequently, is only worth 6K of his time. In size, a single article for Richard Dawkins trumps the article for Jesus! What more can I say? --JoshuaB 01:03, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Conservative, although I'm pretty sure JanW and all these other Ws who seem to behave the same way is a liberal troll, it should be noted that a lot of us who are conservative Christians also think the obsession with topics like obese atheists does more harm than good. It diminishes the credibility and seriousness of the site. KingHanksley 03:29, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Lately, it seems as if the atheists are preoccupied with atheism and obesity article. Of course, the bitten dogs often yelp the loudest. Next, a good hockey team has a good offense and a good defense. I realize some people might want to skate by a puck in front of the atheism empty net, but Shockofgod and others like to fire them into the net. Instead of whining, I think the atheists should switch what team they are on. They clearly do a poor job in defending their goal and scoring goals against Team Christianity. Last time I checked, global Christianity is expanding rapidly, while global atheism is shrinking. In addition, atheist cowards often fiddle while global atheism burns. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." - Jesus Conservative 04:48, 24 February 2012 (EST)
"Lately, it seems as if the atheists are preoccupied with atheism and obesity article. Of course, the bitten dogs often yelp the loudest." And you aren't preoccupied with atheism in general? You seem to spend your entire time whinging and whining about it like a child who isn't getting things his way. You appear to to yelping the loudest of all.
I would also like to add that Evolutionists appear to be the ones who have responded on the 15 Questions debate page. You are still yet to reply to them at all! And considering the amount of time you spend posting on this site, it's obvious that you aren't short of time with which to "break the back" of the evolutionists. Not only do you not respond to those, but you are also dodging debate challenge after debate challege. Why is that? Trying to hide your identity/ies? You seem suspiciously close to this "popular YouTube Christian" ShockofGod... RedGoliath 17:00, 24 February 2012 (GMT)
JoshuaB, you say you want me to be more positive and cheerful as far as my material, but then you exhibit a very dour and thin skin about some satires of atheism that I created. Second, if you are an atheist, I think you need to have a more positive attitude when atheism is documented to be shown in error and look at it as an wonderful opportunity to accept the true worldview of Christianity. Lastly, as far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women? Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen HERE (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 07:16, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Uh, Monica Shores isn't an atheist. I hope that clears things up for you.--RolandFarragut 00:41, 2 March 2012 (EST)
User:Conservative, I have no problem with atheism being criticized. I believe that atheism is wrong, both in the sense that it is incorrect, and in the sense that it is a weak foundation for morals. However, the manner in which it is presented in articles like "atheism and obesity" actually weakens the argument against atheism, because it makes this site look silly and petty and our arguments look weak. I'm sure your response will be something along the lines of "atheists should convert" (yes, they should) or "PZ Myers should lose weight" (yes, he should, although I don't care much about his health), but the point of the discussion is to decide what WE should do. And moving the Conservative Bible Project, which is a big undertaking of Andy's and very much in line with the values of the site, to the top of the page, is a thing that I think that we should do. KingHanksley 12:42, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Wow. How long has this obese atheist stuff been going on? six? eight months? by my recollections. It's an even numbered year -- an election year, and a presidential one at that. CP's readership should go up. Of all the problems in the world, if a poll were to be made atheism & obesity would not rank in the TOP 499. People come to the Main Page for information cause the MSM can't be trusted. What if an anonymous reader were an obese agnostic, would they take offense and not spend another 15 seconds on site? Would it persuade them to Christ? or the GOP? or conservatism? or at least go on a diet?
My God. It's time to get real. Rob Smith 20:14, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Amusing quotation! Isn't that one of this typical mote/beam examples: e.g., out of the 30 administrators here at Conservapedia, I could only identify four women undoubtedly: BethanyS, DeboraB., SharonS and PhyllisS. The first three haven't edited Conservapedia since 2009, PhyllisS last comment is over a year old.

Of course there are those administrators of uncertain sex, like Karajou or you, Conservative. But nothing in your edit history indicates that you are of the fairer sex.

So the whole business of gender proportions is likely more an internet thing than something which roots in faith (or the lack of it).

AugustO 07:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)

AugustO, about twice the proportion of men vs. women practice homosexuality if memory serves. No doubt heterosexual women throughout the world adore my homosexuality article as it helps keep fewer of them from becoming spinsters. :) Conservative 08:40, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Actually, at least in the United States, the percentages are quite similar. Women are more likely to have same-sex attractions and experiences but not identify as bisexual or bisexual though. Take the statistics how you will I guess since it all depends on how a person defines himself or herself. Ayzmo :) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (EST)

This entire thread is a non-sequitur, sorry. Can we please move the Conservative Bible Project item back to the top of the Main Page? That is all. JanW 11:46, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Question Evolution! campaign (again!)

Hello user:conservative. I believe it would be fair to say that you ‘champion’ the question evolution! campaign here on conservapedia and might be able to address some questions and concerns that have been raised:

• Firstly who exactly is the campaign aimed at? I would have imagined it would be people who currently think that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the appearance of life. Not necessarily atheists but also Christians who interpret the Bible differently. What are your thoughts?

• Secondly is this approach the best way to discredit evolution? The 15 questions invite experts on the theory of evolution to respond with what could be described as interesting and compelling responses. This could reverse the intended aim of the campaign as it encourages curiosity. What do you think?

I know I’m the kind of person you hate – atheist, liberal and evolutionist, but I’m interested in listening to your thoughts.

Best wishes to you and your family. EJamesW 14:17, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Do you know that I hate atheists, liberals and evolutionists? Second, evolution has already been discredited. Third, given what I already wrote above and given your post directly above, I cannot say I am enthusiastic to proceed further as far as any discussion with you. Conservative 15:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Fair enough user:conservative. I believe you missed out the word 'how' in your response above... 'How do you know that I hate atheists, liberals and evolutionists? would make more sense. It's a shame you feel unable to answer the concerns raised, but never mind - they were quite difficult questions to answer. EJamesW 16:11, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Sorry user:conservative - I ridiculed you for missing a word out of a sentence. I apologise. EJamesW 16:39, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia shatters our record for unique visitor traffic for the entire month of February, well before the month has concluded.

Congrats. Any details? AugustO 14:57, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Olé! Olé! Olé! Z
Olé! Olé! Olé!, indeed! --JoshuaB 19:39, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush has criticized the 2012 GOP contenders] saying, "I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are." I think this is big news considering many, including Conservapedia, hope he'll step in and run. Certainly a noteworthy statement. Ayzmo :) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (EST)

New Editors

I'm new how can I help? I love writing but generally write fiction and I am Australian is that ok??

How so I get my name blue??

Know Thine Enemy

While Richard Dawkins' 6.9 out of 7 may not be explained in the article referenced, he does go into the idea in depth in his book, The God Delusion. Probably worth reading as preparation for criticism of his ideas. --QPR 07:58, 25 February 2012 (EST)

After debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the student audience felt he lost, Richard Dawkins claimed the debate never took place and then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. See: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach I don't see how you could possibly forget debating a rabbi you claimed shrieked like Hitler. I am firmly convinced that Richard Dawkins does not communicate ideas to the public a bulk of his time, but merely communicates lies and folly. Plus, we know that he engages in pseudoscience and even a prominent evolutionists from his side of the aisle has indicated this (see: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience). While I certainly have no problem with people who oppose his lies/folly to read his books in order to "Know Thine Enemy", but when possible I would encourage them to get his books from the library and not fill the pockets of Richard Dawkins. There is no sense in rewarding a liar and a peddler of pseudoscience. Conservative 15:02, 25 February 2012 (EST)
I take it then that you concede he has explained 6.9/7 quite clearly. --QPR 17:48, 25 February 2012 (EST)
Do you think Richard Dawkins lied concerning the Rabbi Boteach debate? If not, please explain how he forgot debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Conservative 18:08, 25 February 2012 (EST)
I take it then that you concede he has explained 6.9/7 quite clearly.--QPR 18:52, 25 February 2012 (EST)

The latest New Yorker

If either Romney or Santorum gains the nomination and then falls before Obama, flubbing an election that just months ago seemed eminently winnable, it will unleash a GOP apocalypse on November 7—followed by an epic struggle between the regulars and red-hots to refashion the party. And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP’s political class now expects...[30]
Rob Smith 00:45, 26 February 2012 (EST)

Douglas or George?

The underlying link refers to a Douglas Kennedy, not George Kennedy. Rob Smith 09:35, 26 February 2012 (EST)

Fixed. Conservative 10:30, 26 February 2012 (EST)

Academy Awards

I do not know how closely you guys follow the award ceremonies, but the Artist was pretty much guaranteed that win. Many people DID predict Clooney (despite a decidedly average performance) but I wouldn't call his loss a surprise (especially after seeing how the Artist was winning everything). Is it really news worthy? --AlexanderSz 01:41, 27 February 2012 (EST)

I think many would agree the "best actor" award was a surprise.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Well, only those who hadn't been following the Oscars to that point. After wins at Bafta, the Screen Actors Guild and the Golden Globes, Dujardin was the favourite with most experts. If you go to, the awards site, you will see that a majority of their panel of experts had Dujardin as the favourite before showtime. There was no real "surprise" here. --Jdixon 12:43, 29 February 2012 (EST)

18 USC § 1030

I was killing time pressing the "Random page" link and came across the above page. It appears to be nothing more than the (incomplete) text of the titular statue. I can't see any reason to keep it around, but the page is locked. Would someone with access mind deleting it? (Assuming I'm not overlooking its encyclopedic value.)--JustinD 22:33, 27 February 2012 (EST)

It's had good traffic. We try to add pages rather than delete them. What's the value in deleting something that others would like to learn from?--Andy Schlafly 22:40, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Well, my thought was that this type of information is better read at its source where amendments and comments are also available. But, in the last couple minutes I've continued clicking and come across the Constitution of Michigan as well, so it seems like this is possibly more the standard than the exception and I'll just update the 18 USC § 1030 article. JustinD 22:47, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Wait, sorry, the article is locked. Could someone update 18 USC § 1030 to include subparagraphs (i) and (j) which are currently missing. The text can be found here. Thanks. JustinD 22:49, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Thanks! JustinD 23:04, 27 February 2012 (EST)
I notice the talk page is locked over there, and has been so for 5 years. Since I don't have another 5 years to wait for someone to unlock discussion (and by then I'd forget the question anyway), I'll ask it here:
(d)(2) presumably would not be operative in civil matters, would it? Seems CP could avoid embarrassment if it would not be so heavy handed in discouraging discussion. Rob Smith 08:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Neutrinos now obey speed limit

I remember seeing this site post about how scientists found neutrinos that moved faster than the speed of light. The scientists involved with this finding have now discovered a flaw in that experiment. Apparently the error was due to a bad connection of a fiber-optics cable.[31] After fixing this error, they found that the neutrinos did not travel faster than light.--CarloP 16:09, 28 February 2012 (EST)

The link in your posting says the issue remains unresolved.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 28 February 2012 (EST)
It's unresolved as in, they don't know which problem was the bigger cause of the error. If this article isn't enough to say that the neutrinos did not travel faster than light, it is at least enough to say that it is inconclusive that the neutrinos traveled faster than light, and it is certainly appropriate to go back and edit any relevant articles to at least include this inconclusiveness.--CarloP 23:50, 28 February 2012 (EST)

But i guess that would mean taking down the victory banners of this site's bizarre crusade against the theory of relativity--CarloP 18:34, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Is NPR Following Conservapedia's Lead?

Media outlet NPR has recently modified its ethics handbook, adopting a practice more similar to Conservapedia's policy of being "neutral to the facts," rather than attempting to create the "appearance of balance" like, for example, Wikipedia or Fox News. Of course, NPR is known to be left-leaning, so their idea of truth is probably different from most Conservapedians. --AaronT 20:45, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Christianity's Birth

It's an article on a recent archaeological discovery. It doesn't seem particularly accurate, (HuffPost stuff, after all,) but... I'm not sure.

Romney Wins

Looks like Fox News has called it for Romney we better update the main page, I'd do it but it is locked to non admins. This victory is really too bad, perhaps we should consider endorsing a real conservative before it is too late. --CraigF 22:34, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Fox News has been cheerleading for Romney ever since John McCain endorsed him. We need a really conservative television channel ... or fewer people watching television (which is already happening).--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 28 February 2012 (EST)
I am surprised you have not formally endorsed a candidate yet. I would have thought someone with your profile and background could have a big effect on the political landscape. Time is running out for you to make the difference! --DamianJohn 22:42, 28 February 2012 (EST)
How about WND? They've called it for Romney, just like every other news outlet. I know we all wanted Santorum to win, but it is clear he didn't. Time to move on. Maybe next time we can do something to actually influence the race... --CraigF 22:43, 28 February 2012 (EST)
Don't forget that the people who really want Santorum to win are the Democrats. They're trying to help him in open primary states, because he's completely unelectable. Probably for the very same reasons that Conservapedia likes him.--RyanFollett 22:54, 28 February 2012 (EST)
More likely those are conservative Democrats -- of whom there are millions -- who are voting for Santorum based on genuine support for him.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 28 February 2012 (EST)
I don't think that is very likely Andy. I think you are letting your hopes get in the way of reality. --DamianJohn 23:10, 28 February 2012 (EST)
Damian, there are millions of pro-life Democrats who do cross party lines to vote for pro-life Republicans. Ronald Reagan won in a landslide by attracting the support of millions of Democrats in 1984, and Reagan was as conservative as Santorum.
If Democrats are voting for a Republican in the hopes of electing Obama, then that's foolish to the extreme. Spitting in the ocean would have a greater impact.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 28 February 2012 (EST)
Just because you want an ultra-conservative candidate to run for president does not mean that such a person is even remotely electable. Democrats voting for Santorum and actually getting him to win the Republican nomination would be an absolute boon to the democratic party, and you know it. Just three weeks ago, Santorum was a pro-abortion RINO around here, now he's the Great Republcian Hope and you can't see 6 inches in front of your face from all the crap that's spewing out of your mouth. LouisPotts 23:56, 28 February 2012 (EST)
People view the world through ideological prisms. It is sometimes very difficult understand the level to which our deeply held beliefs color our interpretations of events. Your apathy for Romney and your enthusiasm for a more conservative candidate is understandable and laudable; you make the mistake of assuming that the best chance to unseat Obama is your ideal candidate. I think this is understandable, but is profoundly mistaken. A Santorum candidacy will enthuse certain sections of the GOP base (who would grudgingly vote for Romney anyway) but will alienate vast sections of moderate voters and will mobilise liberal forces who have been waivering on Obama to come back to the fold. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama, make no mistake.
Lets not start comparing Santorum with Reagan. Reagan was a charismatic, strong-willed, defiant leader who inspired people of all stripes. Santorum is not in his league, not by a long shot. I'll bet even Nixon could have beaten Jimmy Carter in 1980 so lets not get carried away with the demographics of that election. --DamianJohn 00:13, 29 February 2012 (EST)

According to the CNN Michigan exit poll, those who identified as Republicans voted 48-37 for Romney. Those who identified as Democrats voted 53-18 for Santorum. Those who felt the most important quality they were looking for was beating Obama voted 61-24 for Romney. Those who felt it was most important to have a true conservative or someone with a strong moral character voted about 59-18 for Santorum. -- Ferret Nice old chat 07:22, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Election Odds Update - Jeb Bush Special

In the latest update of the 2012 Presidential Election odds, Rick Santorum has fallen from 8% to 6% probability of winning. But the main beneficiary is not Mitt Romney, but one Jeb Bush who is viewed by the betting market as a serious (albeit still unlikely) contender for the first time. Only Obama, Romney and Santorum are seen as being more likely to win in November. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:49, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Interesting reading! Though of course, odds only reflect the number of bets placed on each candidate, and I'd imagine a disproportionate number of people placing bets are Beltway politicos who may be out of touch with the wider electorate (what in England is known as "Westminster village"). So it all needs to go down cum grano salis.--CPalmer 11:48, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Purpura v. Sebelius and standing

I'm a bit confused by why Conservapedia continues to feature articles (apparently written by one of the plaintiffs) about the Purpura v. Sebelius case, which the Supreme Court refused to hear. I read both the District Court of New Jersey and the 3rd circuit opinion, and it seems that the judges raise a very good point about Purpura and Laster not having standing to challenge Obamacare, which would mean that the justices lack jurisdiction under the Constitution to hear the case (which looks like a manifestation of the separation of powers that activist judges throw to the wind). I think that to better serve the readers, Conservapedia should focus in on the issues that the Supreme Court will hear in March with the cases they have scheduled for argument. GregG 22:28, 29 February 2012 (EST)

What you probably don't realize is that Andy is involved in the case. We will continue to hear about it. Ayzmo :) 23:12, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Mars exploration

Space exploration is something America excels at and has led to great achievements, like the moon landings. It's a shame that the mismanaged economy has forced an end to NASA's plans for Mars. Do we really want this childish crowing about it splashed all over the main page? It looks spiteful and stupid. --RolandFarragut 08:08, 1 March 2012 (EST)

I don't but the people in charge do. KingHanksley 13:45, 1 March 2012 (EST)
Roland, how much did the moon landing cost and besides bragging rights, what did America have to show for it? Can you show me the return on investment was worth it? The U.S. government is 15 trillion dollars in debt so that is about $50,000 per citizen owed. Can you make a strong case that limited government is not best at this point? If not, how much higher does the debt have to go before you are willing to concede that it is best? Are expensive moon and Mars landings examples of limited government? If so, why? Is the American private sector well known throughout the world for its technological innovation? If so, why would you not want to have limited government so that private sector companies could make bigger R & D investments and create new products and industries? Is the federal government known for its innovation and productivity or is the American private sector known for this? Jesus gave a parable on stewardship. Being a good steward is important. Is the private sector wiser with its money or is the federal government? If the federal government is wiser then why is it 15 trillion dollars in debt? Conservative 23:38, 1 March 2012 (EST)
I think that most people know that the space program vis a vis NASA has resulted in countless inventions which have saved billions(if not more) of dollars and have saved countless lives as well as made lives more comfortable. Just a few that you might appreciate: waste water purification system improvements, wireless communications, most of the technology in modern airliners from their radar systems to the lightweight composites, breast cancer biopsy, cardiac pacemaker(3 million people saved right there), CT scanner, etc. The reality is that America, and the world, benefited greatly from NASA. These things probably would have been invented eventually and we would have made it to the moon eventually but it would have taken longer. There was no economic incentive for businesses to go to the moon and the amount it would have taken them in R&D would not have been worth the cost(clearly you can see that.) If NASA had not gone to the moon it wouldn't have happened then, if ever, and we wouldn't have many of these inventions since necessity is the mother of invention. That isn't to say that NASA is still worth the money(I tend to think that it serves a very important purpose though I'm not for colonizing Mars or returning to the moon.) Also, I'm not sure you can try and attribute our deficit to NASA(the entire Apollo program cost $85 billion and had paid itself off by 1980). At its zenith, in '66, NASA's budget was a scant ~4.4% of the budget. It has been less than 1% for the most of the last 40 years. Mind you the budget is halved currently and so it is costing less than 1/10 of the cost of the secret service as one example. Ayzmo :) 00:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Ayzmo, I understand that liberals are not very adept at economics and finance relative to conservatives. If they were, the U.S. Federal deficit would not be 15 trillion dollars and conservatives would not dominate the business world relative to liberals (And liberals would not be whining about the upper 1% of income earners). A basic concept of economics is opportunity cost and you still have not shown that the American public sector is more innovative and efficient as the American private sector. Therefore, you have not shown that the opportunity cost of the U.S. government landing on the moon was worth it in terms of lost private sector investment in R & D to create new products and industries. Conservative 00:21, 2 March 2012 (EST)
How many moon landers, Nimitz-class supercarriers, F-22s and airborne divisions has the American private sector built? There are things that only the government can do, whether you like it or not.--RolandFarragut 00:46, 2 March 2012 (EST)
My economics knowledge is sufficient I can assure you. That wasn't the point of my post and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. I pointed out that there was (A) benefits from the investment in technology and scientific advances which you denied; (B)that there was a return in investment as the space program actually made money from 1960 - 1980 after inflation which you said wasn't worth it. I said nothing about the ingenuity or efficiency of the private sector because that was outside the scope of my post but, once again, I'm sure you're aware of that and just ignoring what I posted. That being said, both the private and public sectors have areas where they are better(there's a reason private fire departments haven't caught on despite a number of attempts.) Also, the private sector was heavily involved in NASA. Boeing, Douglas, etc were heavily involved in the Saturn V rocket as just one example. Ayzmo :) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Roland, I am not an anarchist. I realize the government has a place in society. For example, government militaries overseen by limited government political leaders. However, even in an area like defense the 100 mercenaries from Executive Outcomes thwarted murderous rebels far better than 17,000 United Nation peacekeepers in Sierra Leone as can be seen HERE. Conservative 01:29, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Ayzmo, you are still side stepping the central issue. The issue is not whether the government moon landing had any benefits or even met a cost/benefit criteria, the issue is whether taking that money out of the private sector was worth the opportunity cost as far as other private sector uses for those funds. And since you still not shown the federal government is more innovative and efficient than the private sector, you advocacy for the moon landing has no solid foundation in terms of it yielding a more positive benefit to society than private sector investment. If memory serves, you are atheist and given that atheism has no proof and evidence, I am sure you are used to holding on to things with no foundation. On the other hand, as a Christian, given that Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence, I am far more comfortable arguing for things which have a foundation.

By the way, I did notice that you did not say the space program made money post 1980. I personally think the moon landing was all about America having a science/technology chip on its shoulder post Sputnik and it was mostly about national pride and bragging rights. Speaking of Sputnik, do you think the Russian empire could have had more private sector investment and more limited government? As far as national pride and bragging rights, what does the Bible say about pride? Does not it come before the fall? Conservative 01:52, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It's before destruction, actually. The haughty spirit is before the fall. "Pride goeth before destruction; and a haughty spirit before a fall" - Proverbs 16:18. But it is the same idea. I think "haughty" is a actually a better modern English word than "proud" to describe the kind of pride discussed in a Bible. When most people say they are "proud to be an American," or "proud of their children," they're not talking about having an arrogant and lofty attitude like the biblical "pride." It's a positive feeling of, one the one hand, being part of something special, and on the other hand, helping others to achieve. But there are also people who are "proud" in the biblical sense about their American status, which can hurt international relations, or "proud" of their children in that sense - if you've ever seen a rich suburban liberal high school, you know the type of parents who bandy about their childrens' accomplishments as a symbol of higher status. This type of pride certainly precedes destruction. We should be careful at Conservapedia to keep our "pride" in our country and faith from turning into "pride" about our status in the world. I think I've seen the second kind of pride too often. KingHanksley 08:59, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Addendum: By the way, given the growing number of Obamavilles, the 15 trillion dollars in federal government debt, a fragile world economy and an aging U.S. population, a responsible president would have cut NASA's budget further so it wouldn't even think of a 2018 or 2020 Mars exploration launch. To use an analogy as far as NASA, the time for a wife to suggest taking a vacation of a tour of the world is not when the bank account is empty and the credit carda are maxed out and the car has just been repossessed. America just had its credit grading downgraded and it needs to cut spending and get its financial house in order. America is the world's largest debtor nation. On the other hand, China which has never landed a man on the moon and has no plans to walk on Mars, is a creditor nation and it is nation of savers. The American public and American politicians need to start using more financial common sense and the Greek and European sovereign debt problems should be a warning sign they heed. Conservative 02:31, 2 March 2012 (EST)

I'll try and answer all parts again. I already pointed out the benefits in terms of advances in technology such as the pacemaker which has already saved millions of lives. That, GPS, etc are all direct results of the space program. And again I showed you the cost/benefit by showing you that not only did the space program not lose money but it actually doubled the investment within 20 years($85 billion was the cost of the Apollo program which ended up making $~150 billion.) And again, the private sector was involved. The money that went to NASA was in fact given to private sector companies for them to design and build the Saturn V rocket and other things. NASA doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities and doesn't pay enough to attract the engineers that Boeing and IBM has/had. I have no qualms admitting that the government can be inefficient an uninventive. I've said that a number of times. What I have said is that the private sector requires a financial incentive to do something and no such incentive existed which is why the fed was needed for the space race. And I agree that the space race was all about national pride and defending our honor against the USSR. Did we need to go to the moon? No. Was it worth it? Probably. And I didn't look at the finances post 1980 because that was the point in which the total investment of the Apollo program was paid back in double. I imagine that money is still being made but I don't have time to look into it now. Ayzmo :) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Ayzmo, the choice to land a man on the moon is partly an investment question. Investors pick investments based on the rate of return. Based on the fact that the private sector is more innovative and efficient, I think the rate of return on funds would likely have been higher if the financial resources of the moon landing which the government took out of the private sector had been invested by the private sector. The private sector could have made many medical advances and business/scientific/technology advances if they would have had access to those funds. Again, it all comes down to opportunity cost. Conservative 13:52, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Presidential Election 2012

I've been following this election with far more interest than ever before. As an English guy I'm quite envious of your country's democratic process. Do you think you guys could answer two questions?

Who would you like to win the election?

Who do you think will win the election?

EJamesW 13:58, 2 March 2012 (EST)

See Presidential Election 2012 for answers.--Andy Schlafly 14:01, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Hello Aschlafly - as the founder of this site you must have very informed and inciteful answers to both of my questions. Mr.Schlafly, who would you personally like to see as president and who do you think will actually win? EJamesW 14:18, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It's going to be another 4 years of Obama in the states. Mitt Romney is big money in a time of 8% unemployment, Santorum lacks any appeal to moderates and liberals who are dissatisfied with Obama, and Gingrich was never even remotely electable in the first place. The Republican party needs to get it's act together before it can even consider taking the wheel again. While Obama may be promoting the slow decline of the nation, voting for candidates of questionable integrity is too much of a risk for the average American in this day and age. KenShomer 15:15, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Andy, I expect ,reluctantly, you would say Rick Santorum and Barack Obama as the answer to both of my questions if you were to be totally honest with yourself. RobS tried to draw your attention to a gathering storm that's coming. He's right, the GOP is going to implode on November 7th. Your situation is very similar to the British conservatives in 2001 - basically - you're screwed. Andy, I'm sure that GOP staffers view your site regularly and note what you guys are saying. You need to look ahead to 2016 or 2020. EJamesW 15:59, 2 March 2012 (EST)

I think the honest answer is "I don't know" who is going to be the next U.S. president. A lot depends on the U.S. economy and a lot can happen to the economy in 7 months given the present fragile world economy. There is a lot of sovereign debt weighing down the Western world and a lot of the East such as China is having economic growing pains. In addition, Japan has a lot of problems now too (heavy debt, after effects of some recent disasters). Many times economic instability and volatility helps breed political instability and volatility so I think the race is too early to call at this point. Conservative 20:10, 2 March 2012 (EST)
I for one am shocked that this website has not chosen to endorse a candidate. It isn't about being right, it is about doing the right thing. If Super Tuesday passes by and we don't like the results we'll have no one but ourselves to blame. I say we officially endorse Santorum today! --CraigF 21:49, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Ockham's razor and Andrew Breibart's death

Heart disease is the leading cause of death among American males. "According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2003 just over one million American men died of heart disease or one of the nine other leading causes of death. That represents 80 percent of all deaths by men that year....About a quarter of all heart-disease-related deaths occur in men ages 35 to 65."[32]

Andrew Breitbart was overweight as can be seen HERE and he was at increased risk for a heart attack given his previous problems with heart disease. It unfortunate that he didn't take better care of his health.

I think the most plausible and simplest explanation for Breitbart's death was not an assassination, but a heart attack. I realize that some people like conspiracy theories and Tom Clancy novels, but as policemen say, "move along, there is nothing to see here". Conservative 17:58, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Being as he was overweight, I guess the chances of him being an atheist (HERE), and possibly a homosexual (HERE), are also greater. --DanJG 18:59, 2 March 2012 (EST)