Talk:Main Page/Archive index/120

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Most of Florida DID vote for Obama

He received a majority of the state. SteveSpagnola 18:48, 8 November 2012 (EST)

News items at the main page tend not to be outright falsehoods, but they have to be read carefully: most of Florida didn't vote for Obama, as he became slightly less than 50% of the votes (a relative, but not an absolute majority). So, it is as true as saying that most of Florida didn't vote for Romney.
However, in this context it doesn't seem to be the relevant number: most of Florida (52%) was in favor of Obamacare - an information which can easily be found in the source. So one could have phrased this item as
Florida Governor Rick Scott stands on principle and declines to implement ObamaCare; most Floridians voted for ObamaCare though.
I wonder why it wasn't done this way... --AugustO 14:00, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Because truth is out of style. MattyD 09:36, 10 November 2012 (EST)
I think opponents of the Florida referendum claimed it was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and without effect, and many may have voted against it for that reason, rather than on the merits of ObamaCare.--Andy Schlafly 10:16, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Any sources for that - especially for your insight into the reason for voting against the referendum other than on the merits of ObamaCare? --AugustO 11:07, 10 November 2012 (EST)
I saw one article about this - I'm sure you can easily find more on the internet about opponents of the referendum saying it was prohibited by federal law, if you look.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 10 November 2012 (EST)

The article that is referenced for the statement, "Florida Governor Rick Scott stands on principle and declines to implement ObamaCare; most Floridians voted against Obama anyway. [18]" says that the referendum on an amendment to the Florida Constitution was defeated 48% to 52%. (Of course, there is more to the Affordable Care Act than just the individual mandate, and Obama received more popular votes in Florida than did Romney.) Please clean this up, it destroys CP's cedibility. Wschact 22:37, 10 November 2012 (EST)

  1. It seemed to be consensus that the referendum was ineffective, but I have found no report on opponents of ObamaCare who voted against the referendum because of this
  2. The point is somewhat moot, as most Floridans voted for Obama after all.
AugustO 04:47, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Poetic justice?

I am not in agreement with this. If the plan is to crash the system, a la Cloward-Piven, you just keep moving in that direction and then lie about who caused it. Everyone remains satisfied as the celebrity president demonizes half of America until one-party rule is implemented.--Jpatt 18:57, 8 November 2012 (EST)

I don't think Obama has some nefarious Cloward-Piven strategy. I think he is just shortsighted about debt and does not understand economics. Most people who ring up high credit debt don't put a high value of their financial future and do not think about budgeting, cost/benefit analysis in terms of their spending/investment, etc. Obama/Bush were from the baby boomer generation and babyboomers have developed a bad reputation on how they handle personal/societal finances/debt. Paul Ryan, who is from a younger generation, was more thoughtful than both Romney/Obama on government debt/finances although if I recall correctly he is not as aggressive as he could be as far as government spending reductions. Romney's big military spending proposal was irresponsible given America's 16 trillion dollars of indebtedness.
I think Obama's second term will go down in flames due to the economy and the same would have happened to Mitt Romney. Maybe 2016 will bring in a conservative Republican due to financial necessity. Europe is engaging is some austerity measures and maybe America will be forced to do the same. It is possible that Republicans/Democrats will work together to get America's budget under control, but I don't think it is likely given Obama's and Congress's past record. Conservative 03:42, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Nice post Conservative. Do you think that a combination of spending reduction and revenue increases would be appropriate, or do you think that all the deficit reduction should come exclusively from spending cuts? --DamianJohn 05:08, 9 November 2012 (EST)

I think the key to an American economic turnaround is more competition in pre-college and college education through vouchers and/or education tax incentives (competition generally increases quality, reduces price/cost and provides more consumer choice), government spending cuts, tax simplification, elimination of the income tax in favor of other forms of taxation like a consumption tax (people generally do less of what you tax and America needs to spur productive capacity), simplified regulatory environment, elimination of corporate rent seeking and a more level playing field in terms of religious freedom (no forced government indoctrination of the religions of evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism, ObamaCare trampling of religious rights and government policies funding abortion).

Calvin Coolidge and Margaret Thatcher are the Western leaders I liked best in history. They were pro business, believed in a more limited government and were honest practicing Christians who didn't have significant problems with government corruption.

Too many Americans have gotten soft/lazy and American liberals do not want to compete in arena of ideas, but rely on government funded indoctrination and subsidies for their immoral behavior.

Whether by necessity or by choice, austerity measures are coming to America and this is going to have an effect as far as trimming government funding of liberalism. America's debt levels are unsustainable and there is the growing economic competition from the Eastern World. America will have to become more efficient or suffer decline. Conservative 10:05, 9 November 2012 (EST)

Consumption taxes like VAT or GST are a very good way to tax people, however I do believe that there should be no consumption tax on the basic essential grocery stables(Bread, milk, fruit, vegetables and meat) that way the less fortunate aren't hit with the burden of a massive tax hike and it allows others to spend their money on other things (which will be taxed !). Making fresh food cheaper will also have numerous health benefits for the wider population as a healthy diet make a healthy person and will probably help farmers produce more and reduce the subsidies they require. Dvergne 10:16, 9 November 2012 (EST)

Vote-splitting among conservatives over same-sex marriage may cost GOP majority in New York State Senate

See [2] for info on the race in question, and [3] regarding the majority. For those who missed it above, Stephen Saland, a Republican State Senator in New York who voted for same-sex marriage in 2010, won the Republican Primary (narrowly) and the Independence Party Primary (unopposed) but lost the Conservative Party primary (by a landslide). New York loves their electoral fusion, in case you couldn't tell. We've been through that already. Well, the Democrat got 44 percent of the vote or so on Election night, Saland got 42%, and DiCarlo (Conservative Party candidate) got 14%. It is likely now that the Democrats will take over the Senate with a 32-31 majority. I predicted privately after the primaris to several family members (Saland represents my district in New York, at least for the next few weeks) that DiCarlo and Saland would vote-split and Gipson (the Dem) would win. Looks like I was right. Big loss for the Republicans. I didn't estimate how big a loss it would be, since it looked like the Republicans would still have a safe majority even if they lost that seat. But they didn't. Gregkochuconn 23:51, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Obama's talk to his campaign workers?

ASchalfly, do you mean the one where he spoke extensively about how the people in the room were so much better organized, better motivated, and smarter than him? The one where he spoke in awe of the things that he imagined they would achieve in the future--in the private sector, in the non-profit sector, in public service? You either turned off the video after about thirty seconds, or you're letting your bitterness at the achievements of a member of your own cohort get in the way of your analysis. MattyD 11:32, 9 November 2012 (EST)

The tears were obviously the result of Obama's narcissism - and the release of the video had the same self-centered reason.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 9 November 2012 (EST)
I saw the tears as the result of what happens when a man works harder and achieves more than men like you or I could ever dream of. As for the release of the video, that's politics, baby. MattyD 11:47, 9 November 2012 (EST)
No, that's not good politics, it's a cheap stunt that doesn't fool informed people. But it's good for a laugh at how there's not much there, there.--Andy Schlafly 14:30, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Take a deep breath Andy. You are starting to sound a little bitter now. There's no point in getting all angry and upset about politics. Sometimes your point of view wins and sometimes it loses, but its not healthy to start personally villifying the other side just because you disagree. It's just not worth the aggravation you cause to yourself. --DamianJohn 17:42, 9 November 2012 (EST)
I just took a deep breath -- and afterward it's still obvious that Obama's weeping was for his own ego, and that he released the private video to puff his image. I don't expect liberals to admit it, but the truth is the same regardless.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 9 November 2012 (EST)

MattyD, apart from countries that possess a lot of oil, modern Muslim countries don't have a track record of economic success by in large and Muslim countries definitely don't have a tradition of promoting liberty so Obama's endeavors in Iraq/Afghanistan will probably come to nothing. A huge deficit which Obama significantly added to and an aging baby boomer generation along with Obama's over regulation will financially doom the unpopular ObamaCare fairly quickly. So I don't see what Obama has achieved. In addition, Obama rated his presidency as an "incomplete" so it is doubtful that future historians will give him good marks - especially with his adding to America's indebtedness significantly. Conservative 18:24, 9 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the good laugh "people in the room were so much better organized, better motivated, and smarter than him." He should be thanking and crying tears of joy to the media instead of his campaign workers. You know they made all the difference. It wasn't a win by somebody smarter, just the opposite. An unfair advantage by the media, massive redistribution of the stimulus money to his campaign supporters. It was a win for demagoguery, Chicago politics but it wasn't an honest victory. When the house of cards fall, his supporters will go without a paycheck, without welfare payments. Then they won't care about skin color, they won't care about race, they won't care about political parties. Their only care will be surviving.--Jpatt 19:07, 9 November 2012 (EST)
JPatt, conservatives need to compete better as far as far as alternative media and pay more attention to education instead of allowing liberal indoctrination. American conservatives failure to nominate a presidential candidate was partly a product of them splitting their votes while Romney gathered up the moderate Republicans, but on the other hand, there are a lot of sectors relating to politics, where American conservatives need to be stronger. But you are correct that if there is an economic collapse, it will be slacker Obama voters who voted for Obama to get free stuff who will be hurt the most. It will not be hard working and wealthy American conservatives who are hurt the most. God will provide for faithful Christians though and the 2012 American presidential election does not change that. Conservative 19:51, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Yeah, I don't know what that means.--Jpatt 19:48, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Barrack Obama's endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan...--JHunter 22:15, 9 November 2012 (EST)

Barack Hussein Obama witnessed one the country’s worst recent heartbreaks without a tear, yet when he experiences personal victory, he weeps.[4]

Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Obama wept over a personal victory.

Right before his crying episode, Barack Hussein Obama says to his supporters, "the work that you guys have done means the work I have done is important and I am really proud of that. I am really proud of all of you." [5] Leave it to the narcissistic Obama to cry when he believes people have made him feel important.[6] Conservative 20:21, 10 November 2012 (EST)

Devotion for today

As the Lord wept over Jerusalem forseeing its soon judgment, and who personally paid the price for the forgiveness of man's sin - which began with the devil seducing a women with the victim-entitlement mentality (as in God is selfishly hoarding that which is His) and a "share the wealth" idea (Gn. 3, and which began in Is. 14) - so should we be weeping in our heart (at least) for the judgment that now is and will yet be, as a country and world increasingly follows men who are subtly (if not always consciously) working in ways that fosters the devil's will being done on earth as it is in Hell, and who will not repent in order to give God glory. (Rv. 16:9)

"And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof." (Ezekiel 9:4) Daniel1212

"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. " (John 9:4) Daniel1212 10:07, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Veterans Day

I don't know what Conservapedia's stance is when it comes to commemorating such days and I understand that in the aftermath of the election there are many news to fill the main page. But perhaps some act of remembrance would be appropriate?

In Germany, we remember the fallen soldiers and the victims of our terror regimes on Volkstrauertag ("national day of mourning") on the last Sunday before lent.

--AugustO 16:29, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Good suggestion - I just added a reference to Veterans Day to the front page.--Andy Schlafly 17:06, 11 November 2012 (EST)
Note that the Veterans Day article stated that Veterans Day changed to the fourth Monday in October, by a new legislation in 1988. But that Congress restored the national holiday to its original date in 1978.
As Congress does not come anything close to exceeding the speed of light (said to be) required to go back in time, I fixed the article at my usual sub-warp speed. Thanks be to God and who said, "Render therefore to all their dues ...honour to whom honour.. (Rm. 13:7) Daniel1212 07:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
Thanks for your superb correction and quote from the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 09:16, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Competitive Electrical Power Distribution

Why are there links to the same article about competition in the electric power distribution market from two different websites? That seems redundant. The article makes some good points, but it oversimplifies things. Even if the exclusive franchise laws are removed, there are still significant barriers to entry into the electricity distribution market. The costs and logistics involved in creating a new distribution network are nontrivial. Also, I'd like to know if the author of the article also thinks electricity transmission should have multiple competitors, leading to multiple networks of open-space-wasting high voltage transmission lines. --Randall7 15:04, 12 November 2012 (EST)

There is a difference between transmission and distribution. The United States has opened up high voltage, long distance transmission to competition, called "merchant transmission." The first merchant transmission line in the United States was built to connect New Haven CT with Shorham on Long Island, NY, the Cross-Sound Cable. Wschact 15:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
This is one of those posts that just says something without any analysis into the issues or evidence for its assertions. Given that 15,000 homes are without power because of damage to their homes, and not because the power company can't deliver power to them, how is the free market supposed to help those people? Right now they can get FEMA loans to fix their electrical equipment, and for many of them private loans are not available. Regardless, such a problem has nothing to do with distribution. --Rlongmont 09:56, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Should Texas split from the US?

Already has over the 25,000 signatures required on the petition. Thoughts? ElectionDay 21:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

When they joined the United States they were given the right to form up to 5 states. That would mean 10 Senators instead of 2. As a practical matter, the expense of maintaining a separate defense force, border protection, international relations would outweigh any advantages of being independent. So exploring the multistate option might be better than forming a separate country.
Many of the petition signatures live outside of Texas -- so I guess those non-Texans want to get rid of Texas for a variety of reasons (perhaps the stereotype view of Texans.) Wschact 23:04, 12 November 2012 (EST)
What benefit would a multistate option offer to Texans? A multistate option would be to address complaints about the state government.--Andy Schlafly 23:08, 12 November 2012 (EST)
More political power in the US Senate, more localized State Government, and hopefully more responsive state government. Wschact 23:12, 12 November 2012 (EST)
You can offer those arguments to Texans, but I doubt they will find them persuasive. They are not complaining about the responsiveness of their state government.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)
Please see the coverage on the other wiki. Wschact 09:19, 13 November 2012 (EST)

What, exactly, is wrong with early voting?

I don't understand your antipathy towards it, Andy. For one, fraud is as likely as with regular voting. Your ballot gets sent to your address, and you can always declare it spoiled if you've lost track of it. For two, early voting might decrease election day voter turnout, but voter turnout overall is increased, as more people are able to vote at their leisure, instead of having to get off of work one particular day to go vote at a precinct that may have long lines, and that may be staffed incompetently. Especially if you show up to the wrong precinct. Then you've waited in line only to find out you must drive elsewhere to wait in line again. I was a poll worker this election, and I saw it happen. It can be very dismaying for people.--CamilleT 10:49, 13 November 2012 (EST)

I don't really have a problem with early voting (and I don't know what Mr. Schlafly's concerns are), but one thing I could see being a problem is the votes trending for one candidate early on. This might discourage turnout in the election if people think, "Oh, I guess Candidate X is going to win, I might as well not vote." RichardPF 15:44, 13 November 2012 (EST)

There is nothing wrong with early voting. As someone said in an earlier post, nothing prevents republicans from voting early. The problem from the conservative viewpoint is that most early voters tend to vote democratic, therefore early voting is evil.

On another note, AugustO's post regarding the update of the Main Page and the lack of acknowledgement of Obama's victory from November 7th needs addressing. Mr. Schlafly claimed "our main page has long stated very clearly that its priority is 'what the MSM isn't fully covering.'" Nonsense. If Romney had won, it would have been plastered all over the Main Page; certainly something the "MSM" would have been covering. But just to be sure, I went back in the archives to November 10th, 2010. Lo and behold! "Jubilant GOP wins the House!!!" [153], "Republicans won more than 600 state legislative races. ... The GOP now holds more state legislative seats than it has since 1928." [142], and all sorts of news the "MSM" was most definitely covering. The Main Page made sure to acknowledge Allen West's victory. Funny, I didn't see the same coverage when he lost this year. Even days before this year's election, the Main Page was splattered with polls showing Romney tied or leading. Nothing about who actually won. Incredible. - chicagotony

In response to those who support early voting, would you support early voting by jurors during a trial? The process is analogous to a political campaign and decisionmaking by the public.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Not analogous at all. The purpose of trial is to find the truth about a past event. A group of people come together after hearing all the possible arguments and evidence and decide what the truth is. The purpose of an election is for an individual to decide what candidate best represents his/her desires. What other people think or how they vote is irrelevant. By your logic, polling should be banned also. But as I stated above, Conservapedia has no problem splashing polls all over the Main Page when they favor the republican candidate. -chicagotony

I'm not familiar with your system - are early votes counted early? Members of a jury may have made their decision well before the end of a trial, but it is not counted until the end WilcoxD 18:59, 13 November 2012 (EST)
It obviously doesn't matter whether an early vote is counted early or not. Jurors are prohibited from voting early, period. Do you think they should be allowed to vote early?--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 13 November 2012 (EST)
I think it matters a lot whether the votes are counted early if you are making the argument that the results of early voting influence the behaviour of others. With respect to a jury, I understand what you are saying but you are comparing a small, closed environment with the open chaos of the real world. There are real world factors which make early voting a necessary evil and these are not covered in your simplified jury analogy WilcoxD 19:21, 13 November 2012 (EST)
In response to chicagotony, only hundreds or few thousand of people are polled, and they can change their mind. Some who casts an early vote is prohibited from changing his mind and vote. Are you OK with not allowing an early voter to change his mind and vote?--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 13 November 2012 (EST)
The difference, Andy, is that a trial adjudicates a clearly demarcated past event for which there is finite evidence, while electors can change the course of a current administration. Tony says as much, above. The real question is: why are we explaining this to you? MBell
I don't know why you are harping on a meaningless distinction. And, by the way, jurors certainly do make a determination about the future in addition to assessing the past, just as voters do.--Andy Schlafly 19:19, 13 November 2012 (EST)
Sorry, you're right. Jurors are exactly like electors--the same in every way, including legislation and social mores. Come to think of it, we should work to rid every other "meaningless distinction" between the two! Jail time for the non-voters! Report for vote duty! You get the idea. Maybe. MBell

The argument about juries is a red herring Andy. Jurors have evidence brought before them as part of a process by which they judge past events to decide guilt or innocence. The voting process does not follow the same rigorous process, and quite frankly the vast majority of the people who voted early aren't going to be swayed in the months in between when they voted and when the election is. Fact of the matter is, if they have paid attention to politics enough to vote early, they will most likely be partisan enough to not be swayed by gaffes, which is pretty much all that's going to change between say August and November. SteveSpagnola 22:34, 13 November 2012 (EST)

But some early voters surely would like to change their vote. Should they be allowed to, or not?--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 13 November 2012 (EST)
If they are THAT undecided, then they should not have voted early. Does that mean we should deny access to the voting booth and convenience to everyone else because a few people aren't capable of making decisions? (Personally, I would think after almost of a year of campaigning, if you are still finding yourself going back and forth, you're probably not going to have it figured out by November anyways...). I believe we should cater to the majority who might otherwise not be able to vote on election day, rather than the indecisive few who voted early and regretted it because they are terrible at making decisions. SteveSpagnola 23:54, 13 November 2012 (EST)
Someone who votes on election day and later that day change their mind can't change their vote either. Should that be changed, Aschlafly? --WilfordQ 00:59, 14 November 2012 (EST)
Absentee voting is well-accepted. It involves voting before election day due to the inability to vote on election day. There is a trade-off that every voter must make between his personal benefit from voting early and the inability to take into account last-minute news that could change his vote. In general, I agree that it should be the voter's decision. The only difference between early voting and absentee voting is the need to provide a reason.
Perhaps there is a danger that election officials would force voters into voting early by having inadequate capacity on election day. If the choice is to wait until Election Day and stand in line for hours vs. voting early with no waiting line, then the election officials are coercing citizens to vote early. I have not seen any evidence that early voting is a uniquely Democratic Party cause -- it seems to be a bipartisan movement. Wschact 10:29, 14 November 2012 (EST)
A jury trial is a very poor analogy for an election. Our legal system has a special adjudication process with its own peculiar rules and restrictions. Voters are not sequestered; voters are not told what evidence they can and cannot consider; voters are not asked to come to a consensus in a group; voters are not prohibited from discussing the election until the debates are over; voters are not prohibited from speaking while the campaign is proceeding, etc. Similarly, campaigns are not subject to the same restrictions on their arguments as are lawyers in a courtroom. As a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly, you should know better than to compare the electoral process to due process in a trial. This is not to mention that the practical reason for early voting (voters may not be able to make it to the polls on election day) is completely absent in a jury trial, in which jurors are required by law to be present when it is time to deliver a verdict. KingHanksley 23:27, 15 November 2012 (EST)
Early voting is very important to the elderly, a demographic that tilts toward Mitt Romney. It is hard for some elderly to stand in line for hours on election day. At my local polling place, we had lines that were three hours long. Thanks, Wschact 11:14, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Man in vegetative state communicates with doctors via MRI...

Pretty amazing stuff...and yet another powerful argument for why those in a vegetative state should not be written off. Miracles do happen. --Benp 22:25, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Congratulations, User:Conservative

I know how hard it's been for to not fill up Main Page Left with QE propaganda lately and until now you've shown great restraint, so congratulations on making it this far. While you're reading this, please know that I have been trying to reach you via Talk:Project_200_plus - I would appreciate a response.(PS. I really enjoyed the film "Up" too) WilcoxD 23:51, 13 November 2012 (EST)

User:WilcoxD I fail to see how you have a problem with Conservatives brilliant blog posts. I felt the same way originally, but if you follow his blog you will change your mind and see the subtle nuance and mountains of evidence that back his statements. I wonder if you truly are a YEC like me and the rest of us. Do not give up in your quest to rid this planet of evolutionary theory and liberal claptrap. JNeumann 08:10, 14 November 2012 (EST)

I thought you usually pretended to be many people as one, not one as many. WilcoxD 16:20, 14 November 2012 (EST)
If you are implying that this account is a sock of User:Conservative then you are very wrong, I am an Australian Christian who agrees with his correct and scientific worldview JNeumann 23:40, 14 November 2012 (EST)
In the meantime, it appears as though User:Conservative has been asked to remove the latest QE! propaganda again anyway. WilcoxD 00:25, 15 November 2012 (EST)

The Lakers Eschew Meritocracy...

...but the Jets should play Tim Tebow? - chicagotony

The Jets have fallen to a new pathetic low, illustrating how some would rather suffer in their self-inflicted misery than have a conservative lead them to prosperity.--Andy Schlafly 13:27, 14 November 2012 (EST)

No, it seems Tim Tebow hasn't EARNED the right to start. It has absolutely nothing to do with his ideology. Your hypocrisy is amazing. -chicagotony

Tim Tebow is a football player, not a politician. His ideology means nothing. BradC 17:16, 15 November 2012 (EST)

"Liberals can't let go of their delusions of power"

Unlike, say, this guy? MattyD 12:53, 14 November 2012 (EST)

West is doing a service by exposing the irregularities in that election. Notice how so many close elections are being called by the media for liberals?--Andy Schlafly 13:27, 14 November 2012 (EST)

I see censorship is alive and well. -chicagotony

Andy, are you afraid of my question? I simply asked why you deleted my edit to Allen West's page.

West is properly contesting the election results, and until all ballots have been recounted and irregularities exposed, then Murphy did not win the election. Karajou 14:33, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Which Entry Looks More Like an "Encyclopedia?"

This one:

West lost his 2012 reelection bid to democrat Patrick Murphy. Murphy won by 0.7 percent of the vote and despite Florida law demarcating a 0.5 percent differential to trigger a recount, West continues to contest the election results.

Or this one:

Liberal exploitation of early voting and questionable ballots caused the liberal media to insist that West lost his 2012 reelection bid to Democrat Patrick Murphy, by a mere 0.7%. West stands on principle and is properly contesting the election.


"Encyclopedia." You're cute. MattyD 23:44, 14 November 2012 (EST)

main headline

please change "statistically impossible" to "highly improbable". There is no such thing as a statistical impossibility.--DTSavage 17:48, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Also, stating "That is statistically impossible given that Obama did not win more than 95% of any demographic" is missing the point. It is possible for Obama to receive all the votes in some precincts, and still not have won a demographic by more than 95% of the votes. For example, the precincts that voted all for Obama could have been predominantly made up of African Americans, but there could have been other precincts, also made up of mostly African Americans that voted 85% for Obama. Thus, it would be possible for Obama to receive all the votes in some precincts, but still not had carried any demographic by more than 95% in the example above. GatorLaw 18:08, 14 November 2012 (EST)
Well, there is such thing as "statistically impossible", but in this case it is just "highly improbable", very improbable in fact. But theoretically possible. Voter turnout of 105% (which has been reported in areas either due to either voter fraud or mistallies) is "statistically impossible". But this would just be incredibly improbable. Gregkochuconn 18:28, 14 November 2012 (EST)
"Statistically impossible" obviously means improbable beyond reasonable doubt. That is a standard that people use every day, and is well-accepted. When the probability of something falls to a very low level, then it is impossible in a practical sense. It is not merely "highly improbable," which connotes some reasonable possibility.--Andy Schlafly 18:35, 14 November 2012 (EST)
But it isn't "statistically impossible", as you define it. I just provided a scenario were some precincts could have all voted for Obama, and Obama could have still carried all demographics by no more than 95%. GatorLaw 19:46, 14 November 2012 (EST)
The impossibility of that is beyond reasonable doubt, given the statistics of large numbers.--Andy Schlafly 20:04, 14 November 2012 (EST)
Could you address the specific example I provided which shows that it is possible for this to happen?GatorLaw 20:37, 14 November 2012 (EST)
If a pollster samples 1000 people and finds that Obama and Romney aer tied at 50%, then it is statistically impossible for Obama to win every vote in the election except for 500.--Andy Schlafly 20:52, 14 November 2012 (EST)
I's disgusting that the Democratic party has to resort to vote rigging to win the election. They were not completely successful, however, and your fellow Americans who still have some pride in your great country have saved America from a Democratic party mandate. We'll see what happens in 2016. JNeumann 22:31, 14 November 2012 (EST)

I hear a lot of claims of "This is statistically impossible - voter fraud!" and it makes me sad as a mathematician. Let me show you an example.
In my state, Minnesota, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, got about 2% or so of the vote. This is similar to how Mitt Romney performs in heavily black, Democratic parts of inner cities. So, can we all agree that, for statistical analysis, Gary Johnson is to Minnesota what Mitt Romney is to black parts of Philly? They both receive about 2% of the vote.
In Minnesota, out of 4102 districts, Gary Johnson was shut out in 814 of them (or 20%), by a total vote of 70183 to 0. So, it's pretty empirically justified that, if a person receives only 2% fo the vote, they get shut out 20% of the time.
Now let's take that theory and move to Philly. If 15% of their districts (a low-ball estimate) are "black" districts, then I would expect that Mitt Romney would get shut out in 51 of them (1687 * 15% * 20% = 50.6).
I understand that this is a hot button issue, but these results are extremely consistent with what you would expect from a candidate who garners 2% of the vote. Add in the fact that a similar event happened last year, plus the fact that all it takes is one voter to say he voted for Romney to prove fraud, and I see no reason to call this fraud.
I expect to hear a lot of "Yeah, but Democrats, therefore fraud", but can we all just stop pretending like this is statistically anomalous? CraigRyan 23:13, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Your analogy doesn't work because Romney won 7% of the African American vote, and was known to all voters, unlike Gary Johnson. Johnson's 2% in Minnesota may have been due to a special effort in a few areas of the state. Romney's 7% of the African American vote was consistent - yet 19,000+ voters supposedly didn't give him one vote. That claim is statistically impossible.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 14 November 2012 (EST)
If you knew anything at all about statistics then you'd know that there is no such thing as a "statistically impossible", I think you mean highly improbable. Gerrard 03:07, 15 November 2012 (EST)
It does seem a bit dodgy, however I'm sure there were a few rural districts in states like Texas, where Barack Hussien Obama got no votes at all. Dvergne 23:36, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Nationally, Romney got 7% of the black vote, but that doesn't say much about how did in urban centers - in fact, most exit polls of inner city black voters show Obama won in excess of 96% of the vote and higher in more traditionally Democratic areas like Philadelphia. The fact is that Gary Johnson is as much of a major political party candidate in Minnesota as Mitt Romney is in the inner city of Philadelphia.
Also, the odds that 19,000+ voters all cast votes for Obama is exactly 100% given that the criteria you use to select these voters is the fact that they voted for Obama. These 59 districts aren't randomly selected voters; you looked at the most Democratic demographic in one of the most Democratic cities, and then chose the top 3% Democratic precincts, and act shocked when you find that they voted heavily Democratic. These 19,000+ voters are not independent random voters, and as such, any attempt to use standard probability measures fails because you don't take into account the huge, huge correlations in the set you've chosen. I could select a group that voted 62,610,717 to 0 for Obama, which by your logic is many magnitudes more improbable than the 19,000 that voted for Obama, but they are both meaningless groups because I selected the based on the fact that they had already voted for Obama.
If you want to have a debate about why inner city blacks vote so monolithically and the problems caused when any demographic votes in such lock-step without regard to policies, that's a debate I can get behind. But to try to imply voter fraud through statistics applied to a not-at-all-random sample is just bad math. CraigRyan 08:49, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Bob McDonnell News Item

This item is a bit misleading. Although McDonnell is pro-life, he has stood up against the more extreme positions of the Virginia House of Delegates on women's issues. For example, when the General Assembly voted to make transvaginal ultrasounds a mandatory prerequisite to getting an abortion, McDonnell forced the legislature to back down on the issue. (Admittedly, he was under consideration for Vice President at the time, but he seemed sincere in his believe that violating a woman's private areas with a cold probe was not good legislation.) So, Virginia women may like McDonnell more than Romney because he is not an insincere RINO flip-flopper rather than just on the abortion issue. Wschact 10:06, 15 November 2012 (EST)


Yes, Obama tried to not let the Petraeus scandal interfere with his campaign. Romney would have done the same. In fact, every single politician in his right mind would have done this, even Washington himself.

Pointing this out on the main page is just ... absolutely ridiculous. --MCooper 10:35, 15 November 2012 (EST)

No, it just shows that the narsasistic Barack Hussien Obama would do and did everything to get wrongfully re-elected. Dvergne 10:47, 15 November 2012 (EST)
So you're saying Romney would have stepped forward, 3 days before election, saying "Hey, I have a scandal here"? That's pretty naive. Obama got re-elected because the christian right that usually votes red has become an isolated minority, not because of fraud or scandals held back. And you know that. MCooper 10:58, 15 November 2012 (EST)
It seems your the one who is misled, did you not read the article that is linked on the mainpage about how a large amount of districts in philly did not record a vote for romney due to voter intimidation and likely voter fraud ? Things like this happened throughout america. The reason why the Obama ground campaign was so effective was because they were quite practiced at using such tactics. Dvergne 11:36, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Or do it just before he was scheduled to testify?

Do you guys just not read the news, or what? Seeing as he's going to testify regardless, it's pretty clear his resignation has nothing to do with testifying. MattyD 13:19, 15 November 2012 (EST)

A Four-Star General of the United States Army lacks machismo?

Is this a joke?? DGalore

Is it mature to direct ad hominem attacks towards someone who has dedicated over 35+ years of their life to military service?GatorLaw 15:27, 15 November 2012 (EST)
wimpy general? You don't think much of your military. Four days after Veterans day. Congratulations. --AugustO 15:30, 15 November 2012 (EST)
He joins that wimpy general Napoleon, Nelson, the wimpy admiral and all those other machismo-less military leaders that had a bit on the side. Alexander the Great had a bit on both sides. Liberals the lot of them! AlanE 15:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)
Good God, please take this down. Conservapedia is becoming more and more of a laughingstock with every day that passes. BradC 17:11, 15 November 2012 (EST)
This seems to be an example of "anti-American-military-leadership":
"CP's Obama entry clearly states that Obama is the favorite of "", an anti-war and anti-American-military-leadership fundraising machine that ran a full-page ad in the New York Times smearing General Petraeus. More citations on how anti-Americans have bankrolled Obama's campaign are welcome.--Aschlafly 22:22, 7 April 2008 (EDT) "
--AugustO 19:54, 15 November 2012 (EST)
I don't agree as well. The man who won Iraq and was likely the person most responsible for killing Bin Laden. Calling veterans wimpy is a bad choice of words.--Jpatt 20:27, 15 November 2012 (EST)
@JPatt, would you be able to edit or completely remove that headline. Name calling of war veterans is pretty low in my books no matter what they may have done. Dvergne 20:38, 15 November 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has to make that determination. David, picked by God himself to lead Israel, was not wimpy either. --Jpatt 20:55, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Re: David Petraeus, What sort of loser sends THOUSANDS of emails to a married woman who has indicated she is done with him?[7]

Petraeus earned a PhD degree in International Relations in 1987 from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is obviously a liberal and a Rockefeller Republican![8]

Re: Iraq and "winning"

The cost of the Iraq War to the United States is around $808,000,000,000 USD[9]

What did the USA win in Iraq?

Iraq: "Excessive red tape, rampant corruption, an unreliable judicial system and still-inadequate security, as well as a poorly trained workforce and a state-dominated economy all continue to plague Iraq, which completed its biggest trade fair in 20 years last week to much domestic acclaim...

A recent World Bank report listed a litany of problems: a tiny private sector, limited access to loans, an exodus of educated Iraqis, decades of isolation from global trade, destroyed infrastructure, unsteady power and water supplies and a poor transport network.

A survey of firms conducted by the bank, which ranks Iraq as the 165th worst country in the world to do business, listed the three biggest obstacles as poor electricity supply, political instability and corruption."[10]

In adition, consider this: "Exxon Mobil (XOM) is currently in the process of pulling out of Iraq if it can get a decent price for its interest in the West Quarna project, which is a pretty telling commentary on the difficulty of doing business in Iraq. Exxon is not a company to run away from a challenge."[11]Conservative 21:06, 15 November 2012 (EST)

General Douglas MacArthur, would never send THOUSANDS of emails to a married woman who has indicated she is done with him and he did a good job with post war Japan. Conservative 21:11, 15 November 2012 (EST)

General Douglas MacArthur would not have sent emails to people fullstop Dvergne 21:19, 15 November 2012 (EST)
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them." - Sun Tzu
Given the basketcase that Iraq is, I have my doubts it was taken intact nor is the post war situation working out well. Conservative 21:22, 15 November 2012 (EST)
How does MacArthur wanting to nuke North Korea fit in with your Sun Tzu quote? AlanE 21:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
And thankyou Cons. – you have broken ranks with the Right. You said: " Iraq: "Excessive red tape, rampant corruption, an unreliable judicial system and still-inadequate security, as well as a poorly trained workforce and a state-dominated economy all continue to plague Iraq, which completed its biggest trade fair in 20 years last week to much domestic acclaim..." You also mentioned the cost but forgot to mention the death toll and human suffering, the plight of he Christians and Jews in modern Iraq and so on. But was this the work of Patraeus or his political masters? AlanE 21:57, 15 November 2012 (EST)

AlanE, I don't know enough about Korea/China at the time to adequately comment about the point you raised. I do know that North Korean/Chinese communists were evil atheists/evolutionists.[12][13]

"Chen Yizi of Princeton University’s Center for Modern China did research for years in China, first as a student and then as a government official, and determined that 43 million had died in the famine, a figure recently matched by a report from a think tank in Shanghai. According to Chen, this made the total number of Chinese who died as a result of Mao’s policies 80 million.

This confirms the accuracy of democide analyst R.J. Rummel's research on China. Taking every available estimate of Chinese democide by category and time period; averaging them out and adding them together; repeating the process several times; doing the same with other Communist states and comparing the results; Rummel estimated 77,000,000 Chinese were killed by Mao Tse-Tung, assuming 38 million famine-dead from 1959-61." See: Mao Zedong Conservative 22:21, 15 November 2012 (EST)

In addition to the unpleasant wording, the headline is not accurate. "Stay away from my guy" doesn't sound like a married woman who is 'done' with Petraeus. [14] --Jpatt 22:25, 15 November 2012 (EST)
The man made a lot of sacrifices throughout his career, and one human failing (a common one - many of us understand the difficulty of resisting a woman you're deeply attracted to) should not invalidate his decades of service. I don't think it is manly to make fun of a great man for weakness with one woman. It's been an Achilles' heel of brave men throughout history, and although it is a sin and a betrayal of his wife, in military, sports, and the emergency services you judge a man for how he performs in or on the field. KingHanksley 23:11, 15 November 2012 (EST)
Cons....your Chen Yizi reference has nothing to do with this. But you’re right - those “North Korean/Chinese communists were evil atheists/evolutionists.” The farmers in the fields, the shopkeepers and clerks and factory workers and cleaners and seamstresses and wotall in the cities, the mothers nursing their babies, the old people trying to enjoy their last years, were all “evil atheists/ evolutionists.” But hey…”God will know his own.” Nuke ‘em all.

You brought up MacArthur and have, as usual, wandered off on a tangent to the original question… is Petraeus, this four star general of obvious ability… a “pussy”? He can be accused of many things, but lacking “machismo”?... being a “wimp”?... O come on!! AlanE 00:00, 16 November 2012 (EST)

re: JPatt's comment about "done with him" being incorrect: This NewsMax story may be have been incorrect unless they had a on and off and on again affair: "At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment."[15] In the interest of accuracy and due to uncertainty, I removed the main page post. Conservative 00:18, 16 November 2012 (EST)

I'm going to disagree with some of the postings here; I don't think Petraeus "lacks machismo" among other things. Doing fifty pushups four days after getting a bullet in the chest says something about his physical stamina; the decorations on his uniform says something about his duty to country. True, he got stupid over a woman - how many men do? But hopefully he says what he knows about Benghazi to the Congressional committee, and holds nothing back. Karajou 12:09, 16 November 2012 (EST)

I think David's life has it pros and cons and so there are things to criticize and things to admire. As far as the events involving/surrounding his affair, JPatt pointed out some opposing information to Vox Day's analysis of the events so there is some uncertainty as far as the conclusions that can be drawn. Conservative 18:03, 16 November 2012 (EST)

AlanE, you said: "And thank you Conservative. – you have broken ranks with the Right.". I don't think you are correct as paleoconservatism disagrees with neoconservatives and many conservatives when it comes to foreign military intervention. What are my political/economic leanings? I took the political compass test, but I think it is too crude a measurement to give strong accuracy but it is generally accurate. If anyone has a better test, I would be interested in taking it. Conservative 18:42, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Cons; you're taking me rather seriously. Bush's Invasion of Iraq (by whatever name you want to call it) was generally backed by the "Right": that great big somewhat amorphic and occasionally seething grouping that are not of the "Left" which is just as shapeless and often even more seething. (In reality, most people - at least in this country - are somewhere in the middle; being somewhat to the right on some matters and to the left in others.) Call my comment an enormous generalisation if you may, but don't take it as a stone tablet. It was a light dig. AlanE 19:17, 16 November 2012 (EST)

By the way, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive and not a conservative. The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is at the liberal Princeton University. David Petraeus earned a PhD at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Petraeus admitted to being a Rockefeller Republican which is a RINO/liberal. Petraeus obviously has strong liberal tendencies. Liberals lack machismo!

Also, it is possible for a general to lack machismo and I cite the major general George B. McClellan in the American Civil War as a case in point.

Joshua, George Washington, Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton, most Israeli Generals in history and Sun Tzu had more machismo than David Petraeus. Douglas MacArthur was the youngest American general ever to earn the rank of Brigadier General. And George Washington and MacArthur had reputations of leading from the front. Israeli commanders lead from the front. Their motto is "follow me". Conservative 08:35, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Are you implying that being the son-in-law of a four-star general and NATO commander helped Petraeus' career? Wschact 09:13, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Protip: just accept you've overreached on this one. I'm sure Sun Tzu has some wise words on the value of a well-executed tactical retreat. Go read them. --JohanZ 09:14, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Also, David Petraeus expressed his support for President Obama's Afghanistan War policy.[16] The Afghanistan War is a misguided war draining the American treasury and the British empire and Soviet Empire experiences in Afghanistan and the dysfunctional Afghanistan government makes this obvious. The sooner it ends, the better American interests will be served. The cost of the Afghanistan War has been $585,000,000,000+ so far and it cannot be justified on a cost/benefit basis as far as serving American interests.

After the Munich Games massacre, the Israelis sent assassins out to kill the terrorists responsible which was a better strategy than America's strategy. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars did/do not serve American interest. Bush/Obama will not go down in history as great American presidents.

The $1.3 trillion dollars of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars could have been spent on sending out assassins/special forces to kill the 9/11 terrorists, securing America's borders and beefing up security/intelligence services if that was needed. I bet money would have been leftover in order to reduce taxes. Right now, terrorists can cross America's Mexican border. According the Janet Napolitano: Terrorists Enter U.S. from Mexico ‘From Time to Time’.[17]

By the way, unlike David Petraeus, Sun Tzu would have never endorsed Barack Obama's Afghanistan War policy because Sun Tzu had more machismo than Petraeus! Conservative 09:58, 17 November 2012 (EST)

<facepalm> Ranger School. That is all. --JohanZ 10:00, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Sorry, Iraqi War successes plus Ranger school minus endorsing Obama's Afghanistan War policy minus RINO/liberal minus PhD from liberal academia school's program minus affair and possible events during affair minus not equaling the machismo of Joshua, George Washington, Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton, most Israeli Generals in history and Sun Tzu = Lack of machismo! Conservative 10:05, 17 November 2012 (EST)
How much machismo does one man need? You forgot to add professor at West Point, one of the best conservative and low-cost schools in the country, top graduate from the conservative Command and General Staff College, career in the infantry (toughest job in the military), did 50 push-ups while recovering from being shot in the chest with an assault rifle, successfully carried out his duties in central command while undergoing radiotherapy. You could easily criticize anyone if you focus only on the negatives: George Washington was outmaneuvered and captured by the French, powdered his hair, wore makeup, and owned slaves. But he was a great man.KingHanksley 15:02, 17 November 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, Your statements are annoying: you are worse than a Monday-morning-quaterback - have you (or at least any of your entities) served in any sort of military? I doubt it, otherwise you would have been able to show some respect. Of course you can be highly critical on the actions of a general - and extramarital affairs are not to be taken lightly - but adjectives like "wimpy" are especially disrespectful when discussing soldiers.

BTW: google "Elizabeth Cooper" sometimes... --AugustO 11:47, 17 November 2012 (EST)

AugustO and KingHanksley, the Afghanistan War is America's longest war, it is very costly and America has little to show for it. Evidently, not much high powered thinking went into it. David Petraeus expressed his support for President Obama's Afghanistan War policy.[18] The Afghanistan War is a misguided war draining the American treasury and the British empire and Soviet Empire experiences in Afghanistan and the dysfunctional Afghanistan government makes this obvious.
AugustO and KingHanksley, using cost/benefit analysis and military history, please defend the Afghanistan War. Conservative 15:18, 17 November 2012 (EST)
AugustO, every Christian is a soldier of Jesus Christ. God's army of Christians is the most successful army in world history. And unlike evolutionist debaters, God has never been defeated! [19] Conservative 15:26, 17 November 2012 (EST)
KingHanksley, one thing admirers of George Washington can say, America won the Revolutionary War! It wasn't some ill thought out government boondoggle like the Afghanistan War. And remember, David Petraeus expressed his support for President Obama's Afghanistan War policy.[20] The Afghanistan War is a misguided war draining the American treasury and the British empire and Soviet Empire experiences in Afghanistan and the dysfunctional Afghanistan government makes this obvious. Conservative 15:37, 17 November 2012 (EST)
I never said that the Afghanistan war was a good idea or that Petraeus was right to defend it; simply that it's petty and short-sighted to call him a wimp. KingHanksley 15:47, 17 November 2012 (EST)

KingHanksley, there are multiple forms of strength - for example, spiritual, mental and physical. The Afghanistan War was a total failure on the mental front when it comes to military strategy. Unlike Obama and David Petraeus, Sun Tzu never would have done it. I also demonstated that the Iraq War was a total waste of time and another government boondoggle. Iraq is a mess and the Iraqi War cannot be justified on a cost/benefit basis when it comes to serving USA interests. Conservative 16:23, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Spiritual successors to the Philistines...

Do you know anything about the history of these two groups (the Palestinians and the Israeli)? Of events like the Deir Yassin and Lydda? The fact that Palestinians were forced off their land by transactions between absentee landlords and Israelis that the Palestinians themselves took no part in? Of the awful effect that conflicts such as the Six Days war (which the Palestinians did not instigate, but the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians did for their own personal gain)? Palestinians are by no means innocent in this conflict, but to paint them as "modern day Philistines" is a joke, especially in light of the brutality the Israelis have used in their response, such as blockades that threatened to create a humanitarian crisis in Palestine (gee, I wonder why HAMAS rose to power? Is it perhaps because they were able to feed people and give them jobs and essentials during times of crisis, and the fact that they were able to pin the blame for hardships on the people keeping out even the most essential items needed to build? Nah, must be they just Israel b/c Jews). Seriously, the 2-D Good v. Evil paradigm this site projects is ridiculous. SteveSpagnola 10:24, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Insurance exchanges

I respectfully believe that the headline at the top of today's main page misses the point, ""Republican governors decide against setting up ObamaCare insurance market." [1] Ohio and Wisconsin join Texas, Indiana and others in rejecting the new federal-controlled insurance exchanges.

It would be more accurate to say that "20 states have now decided not to implement their own exchanges and will have their citizens use exchanges run by Federal government instead." So, it is not a question of whether there will be an insurance exchange, but rather whether the states will exercise their option to have a state-run exchange. By saying "no", these states give up flexibility that they were granted under the Affordable Care Act. Wschact 18:42, 16 November 2012 (EST)

I think the only flexibility is for states to impose harsher regulations than ObamaCare and choose who sits on the health exchanges board. Free enterprise for the states (or the health exchanges) is not an option.--Andy Schlafly 00:01, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Evil Unions

Yeah, how dare those unions pull under a business that couldn't stay afloat despite receiving over 100 million dollars in concessions from the Unions. They should have just ate another round of concessions and been happy! Seriously, the strike may have been the straw that broke the camels back, but from this story and others about the same subject, it looked like the company was the victim of mismanagement and was probably going go under anyways. SteveSpagnola 23:39, 16 November 2012 (EST)

The lamestream media try to put a pro-union spin on the story, but the fact is that the company would still be employing 18,500 (or more) if the unions did not exist.--Andy Schlafly 23:56, 16 November 2012 (EST)
Wait, so mentioning that the Union already gave 100 million in concessions and were being asked to give a further 8 percent cut with an additional 25 percent increase in benefits payments to a company that had fired for Chapter 11 in the past and was showing major warning signs of being financially unsound is being pro-union? What would they have had to do to be neutral, call the unions evil outright? SteveSpagnola 01:28, 17 November 2012 (EST)
The union I've been a member of since 1986 trained me in the trade that's helped me keep a roof over my family's head and send my oldest daughter to Northwestern. Nate 02:34, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Nate, the 5 states in the United States with the lowest unemployment rates are right to work states. [21][22] Texas and Florida have no state income taxes and they are both right to work states. Anyways, the austerity budgets and economic recession which is in some European countries and coming to the USA is going to shift the balance of power more towards employers and cause government employee unions to make concessions.

A union and union members picketed a non-union trucking company. Of course, I crossed the picket line and a union thug (or thugs) had the audacity to touch my car as it went though!

Nate, by the way, the reason why |you| are so pro-union is that you are a liberal just like I have said all along!Conservative 06:58, 17 November 2012 (EST)

You feign ignorance of what I've said about myself here and continue blithely lying just because I've criticized you for your absurd misconduct. I have prayed for you to learn humility and live a life not so filled with pridefulness and hatred of others. You're apparently beyond help in this world. I pity you. Nate 19:00, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Question, Cons., Leaving aside for the moment the nature of "evil" - are you saying that unionists - those that join a union, take part in its activities - agree with its philosophy (I am talking any union here - not just those that are militant) are evil? Just so I know. (And I am very sorry for your car.) AlanE 19:46, 17 November 2012 (EST)


I haven't seen much coverage in the mainstream media lately about sandy related clean up efforts until this morning when I saw these images of a street nearly 3 weeks after sandy! I suspect that the trash-men are unionized, like the power workers, and that the media will cover up the fact that this is a street in america, and not a 3rd world county. Thanks, WilliamWB 10:28, 17 November 2012 (EST)


So you're just going to delete what I wrote instead of addressing the issue? The bill you describe as a 'Christmas gift' would imprison or execute any one found guilty of engaging in homosexual behaviour. Does that sound like an appropriate response to the 'problem' of homosexuality? My bible is rusty, but surely 'hate the sin, not the sinner' comes into play here? Sambiam

How many lives have been lost due to homosexual promiscuity and the disease caused by it? See: Homosexuality and health Plus, there are the issues of Homosexuality and murder and Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence and Homosexuality and pederasty I hope that clarifies things for you. Conservative 15:42, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Right. So it's more of an 'eye for an eye' type thing? Ugandans deserve to be executed because someone, somewhere with whom they share a trait murdered, or molested or raped someone? Sambiam
At any rate, I was commenting more on the distastefulness of referring to anything involving state sanctioned murder as a 'christmas present' than the Ugandan issue. Sambiam

Sambian, I see that rather than address the information in those articles, you did the typical liberal sidestep and tap dance. Not impressive! Conservative 15:57, 17 November 2012 (EST)

That's entirely fair, you're right, I didn't address the information in the articles you linked. I'll do so now. Homosexuality and health: Gays have aids. Homosexuality and murder: Gays kill people. Homosexuality Couples and Domestic Violence: Gays beat their partners. Homosexuality and pederasty: Gays are pederasts. I feel this appropriately reflects the tone of each article. My point is more that even if we take all of these things to be true, is the appropriate response to round them up and execute them? Is that really a humane thing to do? This new legislation won't only imprison and kill rapists and child-molesters, it would imprison and kill adults who have committed no crime other than loving and sharing a bed with someone with the same genitals as themselves. Sambiam
Fallacy of exclusion "argumentation" is weak and ineffectual. Conservative 16:39, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Using the data from the articles and any supplementary material, please make a cost/benefit analysis in terms of human welfare. Conservative 16:41, 17 November 2012 (EST)

"Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings.." - Dr. William Eckert, world reknown pathologist, See: Homosexuality and murders. I hope that clarifies things for you. Conservative 16:43, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Dr. William Eckert, according to the New York Times, was a world renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Sorry, even the liberal New York Times bows to my expert witness! Conservative 16:55, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Is that really necessary? Bit cold and empirical for my tastes. But hey, i'm just a bleeding heart liberal. But if I must. Child molesters, groomers, rapist and murderers are already subject to existing laws to extinguish or control such behaviours. This new legislation would bring about prosecution of only one group: gay men engaging in consensual sex. I for one do not see a legal issue in two consenting adults engaging in sexual acts with one another. But maybe you do. A cost/benefit analysis then: The people of Uganda would have to pay for the imprisonment and possible execution of a group of people who without this legislation could be contributive and constructive members of society. The kind of homosexuals I believe you are referring to, Conservative, are the kind that engage in behaviour that is already illegal. It has nothing to do with who they like to have sex with. Just as a straight man's love of breasts has nothing to do with him stealing a car.Sambiam

please make a cost/benefit analysis in terms of human welfare

"No man is an Island, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee"

—John Donne

--AugustO 16:57, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Can you prove empirically a causation relationship between homosexuality and murders, homosexuality and increased promiscuity and the other assumptions you made? Can you give me statistics? Remember - it is you that are trying to prove the negative effects that are caused by homosexuality.brenden 17:23, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Brendon, See: Homosexuality Statistics. Put that in homosexuality activist pipe and smoke it! Conservative 20:31, 17 November 2012 (EST)

AugustO, given that your church is sliding down the slippery slope of liberal Christianity, it doesn't surprise me that you are against the Uganda anti-sodomy law. Don't various churches in your denomination bless homosexual "marriages". Conservative 08:02, 19 November 2012 (EST)
"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." - Adolf Hitler

Conservative- Could you please explain to me how arresting/executing homosexuals is any different than what the Nazi's did (arresting/executing Jews for what they perceived was the Jew's harm to society)? Had the Nazis only arrested/executed homosexuals (instead of other groups of people), would have you supported their actions?

Also, if there were statistics that showed that Puerto Ricans committed more robberies, murders, and rapes than any demographic, would you support legislation that resulted in the arrest and execution of Puerto Ricans?

Thank youGSalmeron 10:38, 19 November 2012 (EST)

That's very easy. The leftist National Socialist German Workers Party genocide was largely motivated by evolutionary racism.[23] Anti-sodomy laws are based on righteous indignation and meant to protect society from sexual perverts and the disease, pederasty and other moral degeneracy they spread/promote. See: Homosexuality and health and Homosexuality and murders and Homosexuality and pederasty and Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use and Homosexual circuit parties and disease and Homosexuality and bestiality and Causes of homosexuality. I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 16:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)
"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." - Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Conservative 16:08, 19 November 2012 (EST)
In other words, the reason why what the Nazis did was wrong was not because imprisoning/executing people who's self-identify a particular way is not, by itself, wrong... but because the reason why did it were wrong? And as I pointed out, the Nazis imprisoned and executed homosexuals. Do you agree with how the Nazi's handled homosexuals (which is what this Uganda law proposes)? Also, would you support legislation that resulted in the execution of other groups of people if it could be shown that these groups of people are more likely to commit crimes? Thanks in advance. GSalmeron 17:33, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Just to make sure I am not discussing things with a reality denying liberal, do male homosexuals have a reputation for being promiscuous and did they earn that reputation? Do they disproportionately spread disease/death? See: Homosexuality and health Conservative 18:00, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Also, consider this:

"One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without HIV. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the human papiloma virus (HPV), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HPV type 16 is the most troublesome for developing cancer and is found in a significant portion of gay men.

Another risk factor for developing anal cancer is the use of recreational drugs anally...Inserting "crystal meth" or ecstasy in the rectum can lead to higher rates of anal dylpasia." - June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America. See: Homosexuality and Anal Cancer and Gay bowel syndrome

You see, God did not create men to have sex with other men. The way out of homosexuality is to become a Christian. See: Ex-homosexuals Then you can get married and have children with a long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife.[24] It is so much better for man to have long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife than sleep with a burly and gruff man! Conservative 18:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative- I'm not sure if you are accusing me of being a liberal, but for the record I am not. I am a Bible believing Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. With that said, I also know that murder is a sin, and am not in favor of executing homosexuals. They can face punishment for their sins after their deaths. I find it interesting that instead of addressing my objections, you try to figure out if I'm a liberal... as if that had anything to do with my objections to your point of view. If my objections are valid, they stand whether or not I'm a liberal or a conservative.
In any case, my point is that the law would punish people who have not any of the things you have accused homosexuals of doing. Being a homosexual does not automatically mean that you will do all the things you described. Now... can you please address my concerns? "In other words, the reason why what the Nazis did was wrong was not because imprisoning/executing people who's self-identify a particular way is not, by itself, wrong... but because the reason why did it were wrong? And as I pointed out, the Nazis imprisoned and executed homosexuals. Do you agree with how the Nazi's handled homosexuals (which is what this Uganda law proposes)? Also, would you support legislation that resulted in the execution of other groups of people if it could be shown that these groups of people are more likely to commit crimes? Thanks in advance." GSalmeron 18:11, 19 November 2012 (EST)

GSalmeron, was God wrong in the Old Testament to have the death penalty for homosexuality? I just want to make sure you are a Bible believer and not a fraud! Conservative 18:33, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Again, I'm not a liberal. I'm not sure why you keep asking me if I am... since whether I'm a liberal or not does not address the points I brought up. As I said, I'm a Bible believing Christian. I'm asking you to distinguish these two beliefs you hold (that what the Nazi's did was wrong and that homosexuals should be executed), because I do not see how they are different.
As for your question, many of the Old Testament laws were abolished once Jesus died in the cross, including that homosexuals should be put to death. Can you please now address my objections and stop accusing of something that I am not, of something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed? Do you agree with the Nazi's actions of arresting/executing homosexuals, and would you support the arrest/execution of people who are statistically more likely to commit crimes? Thanks. GSalmeron 18:56, 19 November 2012 (EST)
GSalmeron, you didn't answer my question: Was God wrong in the Old Testament to have the death penalty for homosexuality? I am afraid you are merely one of the countless liberal, atheist men who lack machismo and do not have an adequate appreciation for long haired, sweet and gentle Christian ladies and would rather lie with burly and gruff men! Conservative 19:08, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Of course God wasn't wrong, but he abolished those laws once Jesus died in the cross. What does this have anything to do with what I'm asking you? I really don't want a confrontation over all this, I just want a bit of clarification. Now... can you please answer my concerns?GSalmeron 19:07, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Christmas is coming early

Hello user:conseravative. Your recent news item about anti-homosexual laws in Uganda is disquieting. Can you you clarify the following?

As a Christian do you support the imprisonment and execution of homosexuals?

Would you like to see a similar law enforced in the United States?

Do you regard a country like Uganda as an ideal state due to it's adoption of religious laws?

Incidentally, while Uganda might have a higher fertility rate, the infant mortality rate is 61.22 deaths/1,000 live births.

Cuba has a rate of 4.83, Denmark 4.19 and Sweden 2.74. (America is 5.98, UK is 4.56)

Does a country lack 'machismo' if they have a health care system that protects the young and doesn't needlessly imprison or execute it's citizens? EJamesW 16:01, 17 November 2012 (EST)

"Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings.." - Dr. William Eckert, world reknown pathologist, See: Homosexuality and murders. I hope that clarifies things for you. Conservative 16:43, 17 November 2012 (EST)
And of course, there is the issue of loss of life and pain and suffering due to highly promiscuous lifestyles of male homosexuals and the disease/deaths they cause. See: Homosexuality and health Conservative 16:50, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Dr. William Eckert, according to the New York Times, was a world renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Sorry, even the liberal New York Times bows to my expert witness! Conservative 16:54, 17 November 2012 (EST)

I think you just posted these remarks in the wrong section as your nonsensical answers fail to address the three questions I wrote above. EJamesW 16:55, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Might i suggest you answer the questions? To quote you yourself: "I see that rather than address the information in those articles, you did the typical liberal sidestep and tap dance. Not impressive! Conservative 15:57, 17 November 2012 (EST)" Philipp 16:58, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Yes, Mr/Ms/Mrs/Organization Conservative, I totally appreciate a law that can put people like me to death, for who we are. That really is the Christmas spirit, isn't it? YOU, Conservative, have yet to say a single tactful thing, you have yet to apologize to me for implying I am fat, and you have the audacity to post such ridiculous and obviously offensive postings everywhere you go! If this is not trolling, I do not know what it is.brenden 17:26, 17 November 2012 (EST)

So just to clarify User:Conservative, you are indeed in favor of putting to death homosexuals as a way of putting them out of their misery? SteveSpagnola 19:43, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Brendon, you can choose to repent and be an ex-homosexual. Your perversity is not cast in stone. Jesus is knocking. Turn or burn. Conservative 20:29, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Well at least now your prejudice and ignorance are out in the open again. You are the worst the US has to offer. Philipp 20:48, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Brendon, you can choose to repent and be an ex-homosexual. Your perversity is not cast in stone. Jesus is knocking. Turn or burn. Conservative 20:29, 17 November 2012 (EST)


Brendon, you can choose to repent and be an ex-homosexual. Your perversity is not cast in stone. Jesus is knocking. Turn or burn. Conservative 20:29, 17 November 2012 (EST)


How can Christmas come early? Christmas is Christmas. It is not a moveable feast. I know it is a common phrase but it is one I have always disagreed with - because of respect for the Christian calender. (From your treatment of Brenden and others, I realise "respect" is not a concept you are particularly familiar with.) Can you please answer a question - any question - with a straight answer! AlanE 20:55, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Ken, that's the 4th time you mispelled my name... Shows quite a bit on your ability to read, and therefore, think critically, don't you agree? I remember you said "I scored 450 on this reading test", on the main page once, so where's the reading comprehension now?brenden 20:16, 18 November 2012 (EST)
Brenden, you wrote: "Shows quite a bit on your ability to read, and therefore, think critically, don't you agree?". It could also mean that I don't take you very seriously. Conservative 03:47, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Might want to read the article in the West race...

They are recounting the West race because they failed to count REPUBLICAN early voting. So it would seem that West is the one exploiting early votes for the win here. SteveSpagnola 18:59, 17 November 2012 (EST)

With all due respect, this sentence "Conservative Allen West wins a recount by St. Lucie County" is terribly confusing. I think what was meant was "Conservative Allen West gets a recount of St. Lucie County votes". Having the county recount its vote is a "win" in a sense, but the headline could be read as saying that the vote was recounted and he got more recounted votes in St. Lucie County than did his Democratic opponent. Wschact 00:00, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Formula 1 in America

The American grand prix is taking place in Austin, Texas this weekend at the Circuit of the Americas (and will again next year), there was also meant to be a second US grand prix next year, but RINO Chris Christie and his people have managed to bugger it up so it won't be happening. The circuit of the americas in texas was built ahead of time and under budget, whilst the building of the port imperial circuit was delayed due to the ineptness of the new jersey administration. Dvergne 20:19, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Evolutionist women are like drippy faucets

Cons., You have the social skills of a cane toad! If I were to show your latest chunder to my wife she would want to belt your face in (and even at 5ft she would probably be able to do it.) But she wouldn't find you because you hide. You don't have the good ol'fashioned guts, bottle, Machbloodyismo to show yourself, do you? you poor insipid little man. Insult me Ok. Insult my wife of 38 years who is as loving and kind and sexy as she was to me when we met all those years ago shows you to be a person who deserves only pity!!

Ban me if you want - but before you do, apologise to my wife; a woman of the quality you will never hope to be loved by!! AlanE 22:05, 17 November 2012 (EST)
AlanE, you wrote: "If I were to show your latest chunder to my wife she would want to belt your face in". She sounds more like a lady wrestler than a "long haired, creationist, wife sweetheart".[25] Where did you find each other? At a woman roller derby match, a tattoo parlour or swilling beer together at an Octoberfest? Conservative 22:51, 17 November 2012 (EST)
No Ken. She is a pretty little 62 year old redhead who loves me and our "children" and you can not begin to understand what wonder there is in our relationship. Your last edit only reinforces how nasty and how deprived of love you are. AlanE 23:13, 17 November 2012 (EST)
Sorry. I forgot it takes you ten edits per line. Look. If you had the slightest understanding of anything you would realise that my "belt your face in" comment was not an actual depiction of what she would do. Look. Ken. Mate. Stop carrying on like a pork chop. Stop hiding behind your Evolutionism and.. and just say sorry for insulting a kind, gentle, pretty and wonderfully loving wife and mother. Or is that too decent, too normal, too, um, Christian? AlanE 00:06, 18 November 2012 (EST)
I am afraid your backpeddling is too late. Conservative 00:09, 18 November 2012 (EST)
What the hell are you talking about? AlanE 00:12, 18 November 2012 (EST)
AlanE, I have to seriously question why you are undertaking this conversation. Just let Conservative do his thing. You shouldn't think you are the only one here shares your opinions about his postings; far from it. Leave the man be to write, it is one of his pleasures. --DamianJohn 00:40, 18 November 2012 (EST)
So DamianJohn what your saying is that if I or another person said one of their/my pleasures was inciting racist violence/hatred you'd happily let them/me continue doing it without even muttering a word ? Dvergne 00:46, 18 November 2012 (EST)
Damian, if Ken's "thing" is insulting my wife, then no - I will not let him do so without making a stand. I find his attitude utterly disgusting. I am amazed that you don't too. It's common decency, something that Ken lacks.AlanE 01:00, 18 November 2012 (EST)
And Dvergne....thanks for your support! AlanE 01:02, 18 November 2012 (EST)
If he was a normal person, I would agree. --DamianJohn 01:41, 18 November 2012 (EST)
If someone is an experienced wiki editor and is considering contributing to CP, the two places he is most likely to visit when checking out the site is the Main Page and Talk:Main Page. If I were visiting CP for the first time today and read this discussion as well as the current Main Page, I would run away as fast as I can. We need a main page that showcases the rest of the site and draws readers into specific articles. We need a talk page that has an elevated level of discourse. Thanks, Wschact 03:27, 18 November 2012 (EST)
I wonder if the best solution would be to have a page, especially for Consevative where he can post whatever he likes about anything at all. We could link to it from the Mainpage. This way, Conservative gets the therapeutic benefits of his postings, without detracting from the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm sure we all understand that Conservative does need an outlet for his talents, the key is to allow him to have such an outlet without it affecting the rest of us. --DamianJohn 03:51, 18 November 2012 (EST)
That is generally what a user page and talk page are for, however he does not have much on his user page and his talk page isn't even a talk page, it is basically just links to more of his musings and links to various sites (C you can use bookmarks you know). Dvergne 03:58, 18 November 2012 (EST)
Good morning everyone. 5:40 AM on a brand new Monday of a brand new week! AlanE 13:42, 18 November 2012 (EST)
"Conservative," you know you'd have an extremely hard time finding a man who would not beat the living shit out of you for talking like that to his face, don't you? You know that, right? How is antagonizing critics appropriate behavior for someone who claims so vehemently to be a "Bible believer." I don't see you practicing what Jesus preached. All I see is a sad man who lashes out angrily when his ego gets pricked. Pathetic. Nate 17:46, 18 November 2012 (EST)

This is all out of order. The site owner, Andy Schlafly has endorsed Conservative's comments. If you don't like them you need to take it up with him, or retire from this wiki. Taking them up with Conservative is pointless when he has the approval of the site owner. --DamianJohn 18:58, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative ladies love User: Conservative's material - especially the smart ones! Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. at Concerned Women of America, cited the portion of the Planned Parenthood article which User: Conservative created.[1]  Olé! Olé! Olé!, User: Conservative!
Indeed. The beauty of the whole thing, of course, is that Mr Schlafly will automatically discount such protests as liberal deceit designed to deprive his site of an industrious editor. If anyone actually wants rid of this obnoxious loose cannon, they should probably switch to constant, effusive praise of his efforts.
With that in mind, I'd just like to say that Conservative is the most talented and creative wiki editor I have ever encountered. He commands the utmost respect from his peers, and conservative websites and forums are full of sincere, heartfelt praise for his articles and essays. His tireless outreach work has inspired thousands of like-minded editors to contribute to this project.
All major conservative organisations regard him as a key voice within the movement. They are eager to associate themselves with him and make every effort to disseminate his material to as wide a readership as possible. His presence here greatly enhances Conservapedia's credibility.
Only a fool would ask him to move on and take his talent and industry elsewhere. --JohanZ 17:37, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative ladies love my material - especially the smart ones! Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. at Concerned Women of America, cited the portion of the Planned Parenthood article which I created.[26] Olé! Olé! Olé!, User: Conservative! :) Conservative 19:53, 19 November 2012 (EST)

I bet they love your eyes even more. Please don't ever leave. This projects needs you. --JohanZ 20:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)
This is second time I have been cited by Concerned Women of America.  :) The largest women's lobbying organization in America. :) American conservative ladies love me! Olé! Olé! Olé!, User: Conservative! :) Conservative 20:15, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Olé! Your logic is faultless, as ever. I'll leave the last word to Mr Andy Williams on behalf of all the American conservative ladies out there. --JohanZ 17:46, 20 November 2012 (EST)

The reality is that many Democrats would rather fail than be led by a conservative.

Who are these "Democrats" that you're referring to? Is Rex Ryan a democrat? Woody Johnson certainly isn't and it's his team. As such, I would think if Johnson really thought Tebow was so great he would tell Ryan to play him. But then again, there's this: -chicagotony

The statement is a general maxim.
I think many on the Jets team are Democrats. Johnson doesn't make the decision whether to play Tebow, and didn't make the decision to trade for him.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 18 November 2012 (EST)

No, the statement is not a "general maxim." It's an opinion. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Just like you thinking many on the Jets are democrats. You have no idea who is a democrat. The only thing you said that has any basis in fact is that Johnson doesn't make the decision whether Tebow plays or not. You can bet your bible Johnson approved that trade however.

The reality is this: Tebow has a different skill set than Sanchez. The Jets committed to Sanchez before the season began, (3 years, 40.5 million) and you don't just ignore that to play a "conservative" second-string quarterback who can't throw (45.6% in 2012). The Jets are built around Sanchez. For them to start Tebow would involve revamping the entire offense, for which there simply isn't enough time, nor do they have the players to accomplish.

You talk about meritocracy. But then you ignore it when your guy is involved. What has Tebow done to earn the right to start? Who has come and said, "Tebow really shined in practice and should get the chance to start?" Nobody, that's who. The Jets start the guy they think gives them the best chance to win. Political or religious ideology has nothing to do with it. You know what Tebow DOES do? He keeps people talking about the Jets, which in my OPINION, was the reason they signed him in the first place. The Jets are 4-6, a middling team in the AFC just like Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, and San Diego, but you don't hear about those teams constantly, do you? Why isn't there a headline on the Main Page demanding that Tavaris Jackson be the starter in Buffalo?

By the way. The Jets won yesterday. Sanchez: 15 of 20 for 178 and a touchdown. Tebow: 1 of 1 for -1. 2 rushes for -5. I guess the democrats know what they're doing. -chicagotony

Chicagotony, if the Democrats "know what they are doing", as you have said, then why are the Jets 4-6? Karajou 11:07, 19 November 2012 (EST)

I guess you missed the sarcasm. -chicagotony

And I guess you missed the fact that the Jets are having a losing season. So much for the Democrats. Karajou 11:48, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Maybe it will be like the Book of Exodus. God is allowing the Jets management team's hearts to be hardened and they are not playing Tebow as the main quarterback. And after the Jets suffer plagues of losing, Tebow will lead the Jets into the promised land of a Super Bowl victory! Conservative 13:31, 19 November 2012 (EST)
There seems to be a punchline that many of you are missing here, and it's this: the Jets suck and Tebow doesn't matter. Look at their defense: Top 5 for each of the previous three seasons: ('09, '10, '11). This year, not even in the top 10. They allow over 140 yards of rushing per game. You're not going to get too far in the NFL if you can't stop the run. On the other side of the ball, you have no rushing to complement Mark Sanchez. You can argue all you want, but the run sets up the pass as much as the pass sets up the run. And if teams don't respect the Jet's ground game, Sanchez will see lots of people back in coverage. Make no mistake, the Jets aren't a play-off team regardless of Tebow. So stop saying things like "They wouldn't be 4-6 if Tebow was starting." Yes, the would be, they're a mediocre team heading for a mediocre finish. SteveSpagnola 23:48, 19 November 2012 (EST)

I am sure Egypt's Hebrew slaves looked like a ragtag bunch. With the power of God though and Moses, they were able to trounce the Egyptian army. If only the Jet's management were not so stiff-necked. With the power of God and Tim Tebow, they could win a Superbowl game by a very large spread! Conservative 07:41, 20 November 2012 (EST)

As much as New Yorkers would probably disagree, I don't think God is that big of a Jets fan (Also, does this mean Belichick is the Pharoah?). SteveSpagnola 11:02, 20 November 2012 (EST)

Russian Wikipedia

Say Пока на данный момент. [27] --Jpatt 15:59, 18 November 2012 (EST)

"Conservatives can't let go their delusions of power." -chicagotony

Chicagotony, the U.S. Federal government is on a financially unsustainable path and if BIG cuts don't happen America will be like the Eurozone/Greece. America is the biggest debtor nation in the world with $16 trillion dollars of debt. If conservatives merely wait, fiscal conservatism will happen. And if the Feds have less fiscal power, then less power over social policy will likely follow. Plus, religious conservatives are having more kids which will affect social policy.[28] The pendulum will swing our way. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Why fight against inevitability? Conservative 13:14, 19 November 2012 (EST)

You were saying...? -chicagotony

Chicagotony, I am sorry to see that you cannot spot an unsustainable system and cannot distinguish events from trends. Conservative 12:30, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative, I am sorry that you can't stay on topic. Ever. -chicagotony

Adult Stem Cells

True, remarkable breakthrough. Bit disingenuous not to mention the cells are from the dog. Sambiam

It is worth mentioning that this is not actually all that large of a breakthrough. iPSCs have been used to treat/reverse spinal cord injuries in animal models for a few years now. The major caveat is that the grafted iPSCs are wayyyyyy more tumorigenic than embryonic stem cells would be. Hence why iPSCs are not currently considered therapeutically viable. Of course, there is quite a bit of research going on right now to address this problem; but it'll probably be a few years until we figure it out.--JHunter 21:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)
In response to Sambiam, of course the cells are from the dog. Isn't that obvious? The headline doesn't suggest otherwise.
In response to JHunter, I think embryonic stem cells are typically more tumorigenic than adult stem cells. I have not heard of tumors typically developing from the use of adult stem cells. And experimental work with this promising use of adult stem cells to treat paralysis is not allowed in the United States -- paralyzed Americans must travel to foreign nations to get the treatments.--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Yes and no. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can be profoundly tumorigenic (that's the nature of all stem cells), which is amplified by the fact that the vast majority of hypothetical ESC grafts would require the suppression of the host's immune system. However, when injected into mice in similar numbers under identical conditions (that is, same number of cells is injected at the same injection site, all experimental groups are immunosupressed), iPSC grafts tend to be two to four times as tumorigenic as ESC grafts. Additionally, the epigenetic reprogramming that occurs during the production of iPSCs can sometimes lead the host's immune system to reject iPSCs generated from host cells, requiring immunosuppression and thus further multiplying cancer risk. I've encountered both of these problems in my own work and I have colleagues who are actively working on addressing them. Here is a good review article from Cell Stem Cell on the topic.--JHunter 22:40, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Bieber mispelling

The smaller font at the bottom of the news story has "Bieber" spelt "Beiber", I ask for this to be fixed. JacobN 02:36, 20 November 2012 (EST)

Chicagotony, Proven Right. -chicagotony

The ever-reliable Daily Telegraph lists Obama's oversees disasters

Well worth a mention. There are some Conservative newspapers that refuse to drink the Kool-Aid.

--Jdixon 08:01, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Let's not forget whom the Pilgrims were thanking: God.`

Happy Thanksgiving: but there is a weird apostrophe dangling at the end of the line... --AugustO 02:55, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Happy Thanksgiving to my Conservapedia family!

May all of you have a blessed day! DMorris 11:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)

I second that. But if you can be with family today, please put down the computer and celebrate your relationships. Wschact 11:21, 22 November 2012 (EST)
I would do that, but my mother's at work and I'm grounded at home by an injury, all alone for now, so why not be online? DMorris 12:15, 22 November 2012 (EST)
Thanks DMorris. Right back at you.--Jpatt 13:17, 22 November 2012 (EST)
Happy Thanksgiving to all!--JHunter 20:47, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Homosexuality cheerleaders noticeably silent about this large and well designed study

My two dads and my two mommies have one thing in common: their kids ain't so happy and gay. [29][30][31][32]

Your silence is quite telling.

Of course, we all know this is a victory for conservatism. Once again, sound research confirms conservatism. Conservative 06:01, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Conservatives are right 90% of the time on such issues ! The bible gave us a very very good moral standard that everyone should live and love by. Dvergne 06:25, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Large and well designed, eh? It took me 2 minutes to find that the study was so poorly done that the publisher said it should never have been published [33] and Regnerus' scholarship was so shoddy that the University of Texas investigated him for scholarly misconduct. Nate 10:39, 23 November 2012 (EST)
A politically correct backlash is predictable. Anyone think the courageous researcher will be able to obtain tenure now? It used to be that liberals (like Voltaire) would defend free speech by their critics, but that's not true today in liberal academia and the media.--Andy Schlafly 10:50, 23 November 2012 (EST)
No. Fudging data and lying are not courageous. This has nothing to do with politics. Nate 11:20, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Nothing to do with politics??? I don't agree - the issue is more politicized than most.--Andy Schlafly 16:29, 23 November 2012 (EST)
He wasn't fudging data, but his results were questionable. He took his sample entirely from when gay marriage was illegal, hardly an adequate study of the affects of a loving homosexual home. By default the survey only counted responses from gay people who were passing themselves off as straight people (i.e. they were the product of a broken home). Taking this into account, of course the kids are going to be messed up, not because one of their parents were gay, but because their parents broke up, one of the most traumatic experiences for a child. If you fail to see a distinction between this and gay marriage, then you should not be allowed near the social sciences! SteveSpagnola 16:32, 23 November 2012 (EST)
"Loving homosexual home" is a joke. See: Homosexuality and promiscuity and Homosexuality and murders and Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence and Homosexuality Statistics. I hope that clears things up. Conservative 18:24, 23 November 2012 (EST)
The issue in general is politicized. This man creating definitions so broad that his study reported results that simply didn't exist as stated is called fudging numbers. Fudging numbers is lying. Calling someone out for lying isn't political, it's appropriate regardless of who the person is. "Conservative", as usual you clear nothing up. You rely on mere assertions and then when challenged say "but but my articles contain citations you didn't respond to". If the study doesn't support the claims you're making, you should consider how one might perceive your honesty as well. I certainly know how I perceive it. Nate 19:10, 23 November 2012 (EST)
NateK, homosexual relationships/couples are often transient and more transient that heterosexual relationships as a whole. See: Homosexuality and promiscuity and Homosexuality and murders and Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence. Of course, you fail to recognize this just as you failed to mention that the 5 lowest states for unemployment in the United States are right to work states. NateK, just as I have said all along - you are a liberal! No wonder why you become so upset when I criticize the evolutionists/liberals Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. Birds of a feather, flock together! Conservative 19:33, 23 November 2012 (EST)
There are should be more studies, not less, that analyze harm caused by homosexual lifestyles. The conclusions drawn by the cited paper, though politically incorrect, are hardly surprising.--Andy Schlafly 19:35, 23 November 2012 (EST)
This is the only response I'll give dignifying your continued deceit. I've been clear about my background in the RCC. If you wish to call me a liberal because I think you're a liar and I suppor labor, so be it. I haven't gotten upset at anything you said about Dawkins or Myers. They're clowns. I've taken issue with your false obesity claims and your strident anti-Catholicism and general hatefulness. I don't care whether there is a correlation between anti-labor legislation and low unemployment. You can't prove causation. You seem to need a lot help understanding this concept. Mr. Schlafly, can you admit that the conclusions drawn in the paper are actually false and/or so unreliable as to be worthless? Is that hardly surprising? How strange. Nate 20:01, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Do you have evidence that the conclusions in this paper are false and/or unreliable? If so, what are they? Karajou 21:17, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Yes. The Chronicle of Higher Education was given a draft of an audit on the paper done by someone on the Social Science Research journal's editorial board. Here is a link to the article discussing the audit. Nate 21:23, 23 November 2012 (EST)
And the very first words of the link you provided state "The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples" Either they failed to find problems with the study, or they found problems with it. Can't have it both ways. Karajou 21:27, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Karajou, you completely took that sentence out of context. The problems with the study are very real, and the fact that the peer-review process failed to catch those problems is not an endorsement of the paper but rather a condemnation of the process as applied to this paper. GregG 21:41, 23 November 2012 (EST)

It was not taken out of context at all; it says exactly what it says about the paper, and that fact is also confirmed by the very last paragraph. And the other thing, it's also someone doing the reporting on a personal blog. Truth hurts, doesn't it? Karajou 21:45, 23 November 2012 (EST)
If a statement like "A square is a three-sided polygon" ends up in a published math paper, and the peer-review panel fails to catch the error, that does not mean that the statement that a square has three sides is correct. Rather, it indicates an egregious failure to act on the part of the referees. Likewise, the fact that a peer review panel failed to notice significant methodological problems in the paper does not absolve the paper of its methodological failings. GregG 22:02, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Two things, Greg: one, if the "peer review panel" failed to find anything wrong with the paper, then obviously there's nothing wrong with the paper; and two, if there is something wrong with the conclusions the paper made and the peer reviewers couldn't find it, then just what are they doing sitting on a peer review panel? Waiting for the coffee to quit percolating?
Here's exactly what I've seen here, and we have past experience to back it up. We have had a bunch of liberals over the years demanding that we accept everything under the sun that's been peer reviewed; we cannot live as a site unless we have peer reviewed papers supporting their versions of what science ought to be; but when someone else submits a peer reviewed paper that happens to disagree with a basic liberal tenant - in this case homosexual parenting - there has to be a couple of liberals here who object to it. The debate on this subject is over. Karajou 22:21, 23 November 2012 (EST)
I think you're still missing the point. Just because a peer review panel does not question a specific fact in a paper does not mean that that fact is automatically true. Squares will not become three-sided polygons merely because someone writes it in a paper and it passes peer review. Peer review has obvious shortcomings (as someone who has written a paper for submission to a mathematical journal and later discovered a flaw in that paper, I am aware). Nevertheless, it is still a very useful tool to keep out cranks, reduce error, and promote scholarly standards.
One thing that came to mind when I am writing this is Jeopardy!' question-writing process. Because Jeopardy! is a prestigious game show and because of Standards & Practices requirements, questions are thoroughly researched, checked, and tested before they make it to air. Nevertheless, embarrassing mistakes have made it into actual, aired shows. Even so, I would prefer the rigorous fact-checking process over the "anything goes" approach to writing game show questions.
(By the way, "tenant" in the second paragraph of your previous post should be "tenet.") GregG 22:32, 23 November 2012 (EST)
From the article: Wright points out (as Regnerus [author of the study] himself wrote) that the paper could be read as supportive of gay marriage because it seems to indicate that more-stable households produce less-troubled children. --EdgarP 23:59, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Karajou, nobody's trying to shove anything down your throat or pull one over on you. "Either they failed to find problems with the study, or they found problems with it. Can't have it both ways" No, you're not reading the article carefully. The peer review process failed, not the editorial board's audit of the study, which DID turn up serious problems. That's just true as far as they say. "if the "peer review panel" failed to find anything wrong with the paper, then obviously there's nothing wrong with the paper;" The editorial board disagrees. "and two, if there is something wrong with the conclusions the paper made and the peer reviewers couldn't find it, then just what are they doing sitting on a peer review panel? Waiting for the coffee to quit percolating?" That's a pretty good explanation if they blew it this badly. Nate 00:23, 24 November 2012 (EST)

NateK, one man's strident anti-Catholicism is another man's staunch Protestantism. :) Conservative 00:00, 24 November 2012 (EST)

The notion that vile hatred of fellow Christians exemplifies good Christian behavior is absolutely reprehensible. GregG 00:15, 24 November 2012 (EST)
So those two men are the same man: a strident and hateful anti-Catholic who justifies his behavior as reflective of his faith. Not so good. Greg, just making a record of this kind of behavior in case anyone here starts caring. He seems to be able to get away with saying whatever he wants and has been openly attacking people's faith for as long as I've been here so I'm not that hopeful much will change. Nate 00:23, 24 November 2012 (EST)
NateG and GregG, your simplistic caricature of my view of Roman Catholics is quite unimpressive - especially since I cited several videos of a creationist Roman Catholic several times on Conservapedia's main page. For example, this one which is cited at at Conservapedia:Videos on Conservapedia. In addition, I have worked with a Roman Catholic as far as the abortion issue. Sorry gentlemen, you failed again. Conservative 00:50, 24 November 2012 (EST)
Again, I point out that there were severe problems with the study being cited as proving gay marriage causes unhappy children. A good read that I found can be found here: Again, the biggest thing the study finds is that kids from broken homes usually end up in a heap of trouble, not that homosexuals couples are necessarily worse as parents. SteveSpagnola 01:43, 24 November 2012 (EST)
The diagram of the yin and yang.

"Yinyang, Wade-Giles romanization yin-yang, Japanese in-yō, in Eastern thought, the two complementary forces that make up all aspects and phenomena of life. Yin is a symbol of earth, femaleness, darkness, passivity, and absorption. It is present in even numbers, in valleys and streams, and is represented by the tiger, the colour orange, and a broken line. Yang is conceived of as heaven, maleness, light, activity, and penetration. It is present in odd numbers, in mountains, and is represented by the dragon, the colour azure, and an unbroken line. The two are both said to proceed from the Great Ultimate (taiji), their interplay on one another (as one increases the other decreases) being a description of the actual process of the universe and all that is in it. In harmony, the two are depicted as the light and dark halves of a circle."[34]

"Yin and yang are opposite in nature, but they are part of nature, they rely on each other, and they can't exist without each other."[35]

"The earth we live on is yin, and the sun that brings us warmth is yang. A woman is yin, and a man is yang. Sadness is yin, while joyfulness is yang.

Generally, yin is passive, oppressed and feminine. Yang, on the other hand, is active, bright and masculine.

Managing yin yang is something that we have to do all the time.

Knowing how the yin and yang energies can be altered helps us to have a better control of reality.

By altering the yin-yang relationship, you can make the energy towards your advantage, or strike a new balance that are often helpful to all parties involved. yin yang management"[36]

Liberals, when you have a couple which is ying-ying, the boys (yangs) in the relationship will run wild. On the other hand, when you have a relationship which is yang-yang, the boys (yangs) will miss out on the very sweet/tender side of life and treat their future ying too gruffly.

It is so obvious that you need a proper ying/yang balance in a family. No yang can ever match the sweet yingness or a Christian woman. No ying can ever match the machismo of a Christian man!

A relative of mine was in America carving a Thanksgiving turkey with an electric knife. Electric knives were new at the time. So another relative said concerning the electric knife: "What is that?". My relative carving the turkey said, "A neck massager". Everyone got a big laugh from this joke. You see, electric knives were not designed to be neck massagers. In the same way, yangs are not designed to be with yangs and yins were not designed to be with yins.

Do you see what happens when you mix yins with yins and yangs with yangs: Homosexuality and promiscuity and Homosexuality and murders and Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence and Homosexuality Statistics and Homosexuality and health

"Let’s look at an example. Imagine that you are in a heated argument.

In most cases, we tend to become agitated when the other party begins to argue. This is quite natural. Unfortunately, the heated energy is yang. When you respond with agitation, it is also yang, and the whole situation will get off-balance.

Try doing something to avert the ‘yang-yang’ imbalance, and achieve the yin-yang balance.

Instead of rebuttal, stay silent for a moment.

See what happens! You are now introducing to the energy field a noticeable level of yin energy. In other words, you are now altering the state of the energy field by lowering the yang energy."[37]

Now at the present time, there is entirely too much yang on this section of the talk page.

So I will rest my case as it is a very strong case with much YANG! Conservative 07:50, 24 November 2012 (EST)

I thought you were Christian, Conservative, not Daoist. GregG 09:54, 24 November 2012 (EST)
GregG, all kidding aside, although the concept of yin/yang does not perfectly capture the relationship between males/females, the two sexes are designed to work together in terms of biology and their dispositions.
It is like chunky peanut butter and jelly. Chunky peanut butter is wonderful, but it makes for a bad sandwich all by itself. Jelly is very sweet, but too much sweetness in a sandwich does not taste very good. But put chunky peanut butter and jelly together and you have a great sandwich! Even post feminism, 1980s television commercials and other post feminism commercials recognize the sexes are different and complementary! Hey you got your chocolate in my peanut butter! Hey, you got your peanut butter on my chocolate! Mmmm, delicious!
Of course, evolutionist/liberal men are stuck with leaky faucet women (and women who are cold fish) and evolutionist women are stuck with evolutionist men who lack machismo so they often have difficulty understanding the different and complementary nature of men/women and that the same sexes are never good together when it comes to marriage![38][39]
By the way, have you seen THIS and THIS? Whole books have been written on ShangDi and Chinese characters and their similarity to the Bible.Conservative 11:49, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Jets give up 3 touchdowns in 52 seconds; Jets fans beg for Tebow

[40] Think they'll get the message? --Benp 10:16, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Should have stayed in Denver, should have known NY would be too liberal for him! BMacD 10:58, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Tebow's broken ribs

Tebow - you may want to pull the last main page post - coach didn't play him due to broken ribs - this is hot off the press: Conservative 11:36, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Also, just looking at the stats, a dash of Tebow wouldn't have solved the Jet's woes. Not with the D giving up 3 TDs in the air and one on the ground to Brady, not to mention 130 yards on the ground in addition to 323 through the air. The Jet's lost 4 fumbles, only one of which was by Sanchez. Seriously, the whole team was and is mediocre/awful. Tebow, with all his mediocrity, can't save the Jets. Peyton Manning couldn't save the Jets. I would wager that John Elway and Dan Marino couldn't save the Jets. SteveSpagnola 13:23, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Also, on an unrelated note, man those 7-3 first place, three games from clinching a playoff spot Broncos sure do suck with Manning instead of Tebow huh. Man, can't believe how much they screwed themselves in getting the 7th best passer in terms of yards, tied for 3rd most in passing TDs, the second highest completion percentage and the highest in passer rating amongst active starting QBs. It's almost as if they thought he was BETTER than Tebow or something, but we all know it's because they can't stand conservatives, not because they want to win football games. SteveSpagnola 13:32, 23 November 2012 (EST)

What? Tebow doesn't have the power to heal himself? Seriously, Conservative, thank you for acknowledging the reality. And Steve, you're making far too much sense. -chicagotony

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: Tebow was cleared to play yesterday, as the coach confirmed. Broken ribs is nothing to someone like Tebow, and it appears he was being a Good Samaritan to the coach in deflecting criticism of him. Peyton Manning is having a good year so far in building on Tebow's work last year, but it remains to be seen whether Manning will lead the Broncos into the second round of the playoffs as Tebow did.--Andy Schlafly 16:27, 23 November 2012 (EST)
...Building on Tebow's work? In one less game he has only one more interception, twice as many TDs, 1200 more yards passing (although this also may have to do with the improved receiving corp). The D has been unfreakin' believable (seriously, 5th best in the NFL), which has nothing to do with Tebow and everything to do with an improved secondary and other key acquisitions. All in all, Peyton is once again an MVP QB, and John Elway and the Bronco's front office look like geniuses. SteveSpagnola 16:48, 23 November 2012 (EST)
So far, so good for Peyton Manning and the Broncos. You're right ... to this point. Manning's a solid Christian and I wish him the best, and would wish him the best even if he weren't. But it remains to be seen whether Manning can finish a season strong ... as Tebow did in carrying the Broncos to a playoff victory last year.--Andy Schlafly 17:00, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Well, the schedule looks promising: two games against the 1-9 Chiefs, a game against the 3-7 raiders, a game against the 2-8 Browns and a game against awful passing D of the 6-4 Tampa Buccaneers means they could easily come out with a 13-3 or 12-4 record. The real test will be the Ravens, who seem to be able to pull out of those close games with wins. SteveSpagnola 17:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

So who is the liberal that wouldn't let him play? And Andy, you just make stuff up as you go. "Building on Tebow's work from last last year"? What does that even mean? They are completely different quarterbacks playing in completely different systems. What Manning is doing has absolutely nothing to do with Tebow. Just like Jeremy Lin, (remember him? I do. 2012: 10ppg, 33% fg) what Tebow did last year was a FLUKE. He was a great college quarterback, no question. Unfortunately, his skill set will never translate in the NFL because he can't throw. The Broncos defense last year had just as much to do with their success as Tebow; in fact, it was the defense that made up for the holes Tebow got the team in during most of the games. The Jets aren't nearly as good defensively as the Broncos were and it's my guess they wouldn't even have four wins had Tebow been the starter. So if you are going to keep saying that liberals aren't letting Tebow play, why don't name him or them? You can't. Because you don't know for sure. You don't know whether Ryan is liberal or not and it's his sole decision whether Tebow plays. Admit the truth: ideology has nothing to do with it. Tebow is just a bad NFL quarterback. - chicagotony

What Tebow did repeatedly last year was not a fluke! That is why so many Americans would rather have dinner with Tebow than Barack Obama! Conservative 18:14, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Tebow's a good quarterback, but the Jets don't have anyone to help him. Even Tom Brady or Peyton Manning couldn't save the offense. The offensive line is terrible and so are the receivers and running backs. And the defense looked awful against the Patriots too. Sanchez had what may have been the worst play I've ever seen when he fumbled while sliding, but Tebow's not enough to save this team. They need more than just a quarterback right now. Tebow would help, but he's not going to save this team. Gregkochuconn 11:18, 25 November 2012 (EST)
PS: I don't know Rex Ryan's political ideology. But he's an awful NFL coach on multiple levels. Gregkochuconn 11:20, 25 November 2012 (EST)

It's spelled innards

With an a. Innerds is incorrect.--CamilleT 14:44, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Good correction. Thanks - it has been fixed.--Andy Schlafly 17:28, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Uganda's Anti-homosexuality bill

The news item on main page left about Uganda's Anti-homosexuality bill seems to praise the bill. I know that you guys don't approve of homosexuality, but are you really going to support a bill that would give life in prison to any people that commit homosexual acts, and even the death penalty to "serial offenders"? (As in someone to has committed a homosexual act multiple times.) This seems to be a massive violation of the right to privacy. You can bring up that study that was just posted on this site about how gay couples are worse parents than straight ones, but i'm not here to argue about that, as it's no justification to throw someone in prison for the rest of their lives and certainly no justification for execution.--JasonKL 17:21, 23 November 2012 (EST)

I thought liberals were for moral relativism, cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Are you saying Uganda's proposed homosexuality law is wrong? Secondly, I think you are misinformed about the proposed law or misrepresenting it and it seems to be undergoing some changes as can be seen here: Conservative 18:52, 23 November 2012 (EST)
My understanding is that your news source is incorrect and that the Uganda Parliament is falsely claiming to have removed the death penalty in response to international outrage. [41] says that the Parliament just changed the penalty to refer to another law, which is also a death penalty. If this report is still current, then that's just being sneaky and yes, Uganda's law would be wrong. It is an unBiblical and morally outrageous perversion of Christian principles to execute people for engaging in homosexual conduct. Nate 19:25, 23 November 2012 (EST)
First of all, I am not a cultural relativist, and I am, indeed, saying that the bill is wrong. Do you really believe that homosexual behavior between consenting adults should be punished with jail time? Your own source even says that the promotion of gay rights would be punished. How can anyone who supports the freedom of speech also support this bill?--JasonKL 19:54, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Just saw this today, and will say that freedom of speech and civil rights does not provide freedom of immoral actions. And what a State considers immoral is based upon its foundational ideology, and which is drawn from religion or in some cases by a rejection of it. Thus in America pedophilia and polygamy is wrong while in some tribal cultures these are accepted. If American can outlaw and penalize these than Uganda can outlaw homosexual relations.

While Christians may be attacked for not opposing the penalty, which is the prerogative of the State, homosexual activists want to see those punished who oppose them, and i doubt they would much oppose making such a capital offense in Uganda, while confusing free speech with immoral actions is part of the confusion that homosexual relations express. Daniel1212 07:43, 29 November 2012 (EST)

This is absolute gibberish. Who wouldn't oppose the penalty as to whom? Did you just say that imposing he death penalty is the prerogative of the state? Nate 13:07, 29 November 2012 (EST)
Jason, I think you are forgetting that 'freedom of speech' does not apply to Uganda. Keaton, homosexuals are sinners, and all sinners die at some point.

JJCC 08:27, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your revolting trolling. Nate 13:07, 29 November 2012 (EST)
Daniel, pedophilia is outlawed because the rights of the children are being violated, as they are not old enough to give consent. There is no victim in a consensual homosexual act. JJCC, I understand that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply in Uganda, I was simply asking how a supporter of free speech like User:Conservative can support a bill that punishes someone for speaking in support of homosexuality. Also, everyone dies at some point, that's a horrible (and disturbing) argument--JasonKL 00:25, 30 November 2012 (EST)
Secular leftist anarchy and secular leftist authoritarianism is far different than Christian liberty. The big difference between liberty and licentiousness on the homosexuality is discussed in this article. "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." - George Washington
Many Uganda citizens need to work harder so they are not subject to threats of loss of foreign aid from places like libertine Sweden.[42] This is especially true when it comes to Uganda men. According to the World Bank: "Available data indicate that women work considerably longer hours than men, between 12 and 18 hours per day, with a mean of 15 hours, compared with an average male working day of around 8-10 hours."[43] In 2005, LifeSiteNews reported that bestiality is on the rise in libertine Sweden.[44]

The Lenski Experiment Gets More Coverage.

Curiously, Conservapedia, and its critiques of the experiment, are not mentioned. MattyD 16:19, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Some critiques of the Lenski experiment:

It is a bit surprising that the Conservapedia response (which I helped to draft) does not get a bit more coverage. I'm no biologist but I wonder if the scientific community is too close-minded in its handling of criticism. Perhaps Ben Stein has a point after all. --DamianJohn 17:11, 24 November 2012 (EST)
A bunch of links to preaching-to-the-choir creationist sites. Not surprising. Perhaps the lack of coverage has more to do with the quality of that critique.(unsigned)
The more the valid the criticism, the less likely there is to be a response. And universities have become so leftist that it is rare to find any robust debate there about anything.--Andy Schlafly 17:24, 24 November 2012 (EST)
With the growing sector of online education and the coming proliferation of government austerity budgets and deeper government austerity budgets, there is going to robust debate on public universities about how much to cut their funding. Conservative 17:31, 24 November 2012 (EST)

By the way, evolutionism suffers from a "lack of quality" and despite 150 years, Darwinism still has not gain widespread acceptance even in the land of its birth. In 2006, it was reported that just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.[45] Conservative 03:41, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Having just read the latest embarrassing blog story about British evolutionists having to watch out because someone is skyping someone about something, can I remind you that Charles Darwin's face is still on our banknotes. Evolution is well entrenched over here and no amount of ya-boo-sucks or preaching to the choir will even begin to change that. Rafael 14:36, 26 November 2012 (EST)

"The more the valid the criticism, the less likely there is to be a response." I guess that would account for why Lenski sent you long and detailed responses to your criticisms. MattyD 11:42, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Abortions down

Somewhat good news but in 2009 the abortion drugs became widespread. It is likely that these pregnancy termination drugs are a factor in the steep drop from 2008 to 2009, helping to bring the numbers of surgical abortions down.--Jpatt 23:33, 24 November 2012 (EST)

You raise an important issue, but I think chemical abortions have been about 10% of overall abortions since about 2005 or so. I'm not aware of an uptick in chemical abortions in 2009, though it is possible.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Maybe an increased availability of contraceptives had something to do with it. MattyD 11:41, 25 November 2012 (EST)
No, I don't think there's any evidence of that.
Most likely the negative cultural reaction to the election of such a pro-abortion president (Obama) is what caused the decline, similar to what happened after the election of Clinton in the 1990s.--Andy Schlafly 12:51, 25 November 2012 (EST)
So Democratic presidencies reduce the number of abortions? That's interesting.--MRend 19:04, 25 November 2012 (EST)
So if I want to reduce abortions, should I vote for Democrats? That doesn't seem to make sense. Also Andy, I think you overestimate people's intelligence. Most people don't think Obama is nearly as bad as he actually is. Don't assume everyone is as smart as us. I hate to say it, but it's true. Gregkochuconn 21:18, 25 November 2012 (EST)
You're right. Most people don't accept that Jesus wrote a book of the New Testament. Amazing, huh? MattyD 21:29, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Speaking of evidence, is there any evidence that "negative cultural reaction" is what caused decreases in abortions after Clinton and Obama were elected? --Randall7 13:51, 26 November 2012 (EST)

This "negative cultural reaction" to Obama is a bit confusing. Can you explain it better? Are women carrying their pregnancies to term just to spite the president? That seems really weird to me. Does the opposite happen when a pro-life president is in office? Or is it like guns, wherein when a liberal president is in office gun sales spike because people think that they will be banned and they need to stock up? When a pro-life president is in office do women "stock up" on abortions before they are banned, and relax more when a pro-abortion president is elected, causing abortions to decline? PortlyMort 09:59, 27 November 2012 (EST)

How to Fix the Broken Republican Image

] This] ran in UConn's student paper the Wednesday before UConn went on Thanksgiving break - that would be eight days before Thanksgiving then. As the headline indicates, it is about how the GOP can fix its broken image. This guy isn't some random writer who decided to write some column for the paper and then disappear (we get them though, and if it's a good column we use it) - he's the editor or the commentary section and also writes a weekly column, plus he's on the editorial board (I'm not going to disclose how they write their columns - that's not information I can make public.

If you're looking for the column he referenced in the opening, it's here.

I am also a commentary writer for the paper, although I am still a staff columnist, not a weekly columnist or section editor, which means I'm not on the ed board. So I don't write on any specific schedule, though I do have article pitches at most weekly meetings. I have one running tomorrow (Monday) on free speech and what it really means. Gregkochuconn 21:14, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Your commentator is correct about the problem starting with the primaries. When the shortlist of potential candidates includes Captain Moonbase, Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan-stan, Governor Remind Me-Which Programs Did I Say I Would Cut?, Former Governor $10,000 bet, and the guy with a BA, an MBA and a law degree who says that wanting people to go to college makes one a snob, you know your party's got problems. The field was a joke, and a weak candidate emerged only because he was less insane and vaguely more competent than all the other guys. MattyD 21:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Also, this is advice every Republican ignores at his own peril. MattyD 21:28, 25 November 2012 (EST)

It is the Democrats image that is going to be tarnished significantly

The U.S American debt, including promises made to the American public relating to social security and medicare, now totals over 75 trillion+ dollars.[46] There is no way these promises are going to be kept and it is the Democrats who have more strongly pushed this ponzi scheme. Like Greece there are going to be a lot of angry people. It seems probable more people are going to be angry at the Democrats when this financial rug is pulled out from them. A third party may even form and some states like Texas could eventually succeed from the United States. Succession has become more of a mainstream idea in Texas.[47]

Also, if you think Obama and his advisers have adequate knowledge of economics to handle a potential economic downturn worse than 2008 because we are deeper in debt and lower in the economic water, you are kidding yourself. Conservative 16:15, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Tough economy and tough events are bringing people back to church. Non-religion is wimpy! Just like we suspected!

Tough economy and tough events are bringing people back to church. Non-religion is wimpy! Just like we suspected! [48]

Conservapedia predicted this would happen! See: Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline

American atheism will be cut by at least 50% just like Shockofgod predicted! [49] Conservative 01:37, 27 November 2012 (EST)

It's almost as wimpy as deleting a page in my userspace and then oversighting my requests to have the page restored or the deletion explained. GregG 09:11, 27 November 2012 (EST)
It's pretty well established that hard times co-relate with religiousness and prosperity is associated with more secularism. I'm not sure that's a thing to brag about, though. Nor do I see what it has to do with "machismo". I'd say people who can't deal with problem on their own and have to seek salvation from others are wimpier. And isn't Jesus's order to turn the other cheek the opposite of machismo, which would more likely dictate "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, hit them back so hard they never do it again"? PortlyMort 09:54, 27 November 2012 (EST)
Atheism is not a causal factor of prosperity nor a guarantee of continual prosperity as the Soviet Union and secular Europe (Eurozone crises) help show, but merely can be a product of pride associated with prosperity under certain conditions (socialism, liberalism and less religious freedom and state churches). But if there is a culture with a lot of religious liberty, like the United States, atheism does not have to be associated with prosperity. See: Atheism and prosperity Conservative 21:21, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Relying on another is not a sign of weakness if one was designed to do so, both for guidance and strength, and historical unjust oppression and body counts negatively testify to what happens when man goes it alone w/out God, or has the wrong God, both of which America is increasingly engaging in. Either God's will shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven, or the devil's Hellish will shall be done, whose end shall be according to his works. (Rev. 20:10) To the holy yet gracious God be glory and dominion forever and ever. Daniel1212 09:21, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Addition of the word "inoculate" (1721) brings Best New Conservative Words only one term shy of another perfect doubling by century.

Just to get this straight, "inoculate" is conservative, but vaccines are bad. Am I correct? MattyD 18:48, 28 November 2012 (EST)

There is a number of ways the word can be used as seen HERE :) Conservative 21:09, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Kinda like "men weep; women cry" i suppose. Daniel1212 09:06, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Coup d'Etat

Nope, there's no racism at all in the Tea Party. "Spade?" Unbelievable. -chicagotony

New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change]

Presenting the other side of the debate: Daniel1212 08:22, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Huge setback to teaching Creationism in the U.K.

user:conservative, bad news about the teaching of Creationism in U.K. in free schools.

Free schools are 'are all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to what local people say they want and need in order to improve education for children in their community.'[50] They have been very popular with the fundamentally religious community as it creates the possibility to create education establishments that are able to promote extremist religious views. They are particular popular with Muslins.

However, the new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a "comprehensive and coherent scientific theory".

The move follows scientists' concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution.[51]

How will the 'Question Evolution!Campaign' overcome such a disastrous setback? EJamesW 13:42, 30 November 2012 (EST)

EJamesW, is it a huge setback for biblical creationism and creationism in the UK?

EJamesW, is it a disastrous setback for biblical creationism or the Question evolution! campaign? When you make a claim, it is best to look at the whole picture and analyze the important factors. You didn't do that.

1. Question: How effective is the teaching of evolutionism in schools been in causing people to be Darwinists? You didn't address this issue. Please provide data and indicate how strongly/dogmatically Darwinism has been taught over the last 150 years in the UK and in recent years in the UK and how effective that teaching has been in terms of causing people to be Darwinist. In 2006, just under half of Britons believed in evolution.[52]

2. What religious trends does Darwinism face in the UK?[53][54]

3. What is the birth rates of the various worldview populations in the UK and how will this effect the future?[55][56]

4. What has immigration done to the worldview populations of the UK and what is the likely future trends of UK immigration?[57][58]

5. How effective is the evangelism of the various worldview camps in the UK? Are there any trends or recent development which will alter this. For example, see: Internet evangelism

These are just some of the issues you have to address in order to claim a "disastrous setback". Conservative 20:58, 30 November 2012 (EST)

I have a lot of respect for you, User:Conservative, and find your tenacious approach to evolution both admirable and interesting. However, as a Brit, allow me to address your questions, without cherrypicked citations or links to op-ed blogs.
1. I have no empirical evidence but I do work with young people in church groups and schools. Belief in evolution is the norm, particularly among more able students. Lower ability students and students who are not studying science tend to reject evolution but, significantly, often have no alternative belief.
2. Religious trends are way down the social order in the UK. Look, for example, at the recent Synod vote on women bishops in the Anglican Communion, a classic clash of liberal and conservative values just after Obama's re-election was a wake up call for everyone in what is the established, state religion. Almost zero public reaction. As Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's number one advisor, said "We don't do God". So, the impact of religious trends on British evolutionism is unlikely to be noticed.
3. Your idea about changing birthrates is interesting but neglects three facts very evident working with young people in inner London. First, many immigrants, including Poles and south Americans, are Catholics. The Catholic Church in the south east of Britain hasn't been so popular in decades. Many immigrants are Moslem. Evangelical immigrants are a minority. Second, second generation immigrants tend to be less religious than their parents, something churches have had to work with since the 1950s. Third, even if points one and two were irrelevant, migration to the UK is slowing down.
4. I'm not even sure what question four means, but Britain has had a mass immigration policy for nearly sixty years. What's different about immigrants now?
5. Like I said, I have a lot of respect for you and your work on evolution has made me think a lot, so please don't take this as an attack. The effectiveness of evangelical groups in public life in the UK is minimal and the effectiveness of Question Evolution! is less than zero. I work with kids and young people, my wife and I are active in our church and work with various interfaith and inter-church groups and nobody has heard of QE. Not only that, the few of my colleagues who have looked at the QE blog really didn't like it's tone and it's vague promises of action.
Like I said, I don't have the cherry picked links and op-ed webpages, but I do know what is happening at Church and street level in the UK. I know that, when we took some kids to see the robot dinosaurs at the Natural History Museum, we saw Darwin's statue and took a comfort break in the Darwin wing of the building. I paid for some pencils and erasers and the like at the gift shop with money with Darwin's face on it.
We may not all believe in Darwinism, but he is much deeper in Britain's intellectual, scientific, political and cultural life than Genesis, let alone the Question Evolution blog. Rafael 11:36, 1 December 2012 (EST)

Rafael, thank you for your generally cordial tone. However, because you neglected sources that you disparaged you made mistakes.

For example, do second generation immigrants necessarily become less religious?

"Conservative Protestants, a much larger group than the Mormons, also benefit from relatively high fertility. Hout et al. (2001) find that three-quarters of the growth of conservative Protestant denominations against their liberal counterparts is due to fertility advantage rather than conversion.

In Europe, there has been less attention paid to fertility differences between denominations. However, several studies have discovered that immigrants to Europe tend to be more religious than the host population and — especially if Muslim—tend to retain their religiosity (Van Tubergen 2006). Though some indicators point to modest religious decline toward the host society mean, other trends suggest that immigrants become more, rather than less, religious the longer they reside in the host society (Van Tubergen 2007). All of which indicates that religious decline may fail at the aggregate level even if it is occurring at the individual level (Kaufmann 2006, 2010). This article thereby investigates the hypothesis that a combination of higher religious fertility, immigration, and slowing rates of religious apostasy will eventually produce a reversal in the decline of the religious population of Western Europe."[59]

Second, UK and fast growing evangelicalism/pentecostalism:

"African Pentecostals are the fastest-growing denominations. “In Lewisham, there are 65 Pentecostal churches serving the Nigerian community, and others serving the Congolese, Ghanian and Ivorian communities,” says the report. It adds, “perhaps the most significant change has been the growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity within migrant populations, particularly those from Africa and Latin America.”[60]

Quoted From the respected publication The Economist:

UK: The rise of evangelicalism is shaking up the established church Also, found HERE

Next, you wrote: "I have no empirical evidence". I am not going to accept less than empirical evidence. For example, smart students knowing the malevolence of Darwinists can choose to remain silent or just parrot back "according to evolutionary scientists" which means nothing. But silence or parroting back does not mean assent.

Next, an aging Brit population may have to eventually open the doors wider to immigration again according to the BBC.[61] Conservative 04:31, 3 December 2012 (EST)

"2012 is cooler than the average for the past decade."

From the same article: "... the average temperature for 2012 will be about 14.45C. This is 0.45C above the 1961 to 1990 average and makes 2012 the ninth warmest year in records going back to 1850..." "...the past decade has been the warmest on record." "“This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began." "...the general pattern of warming is not in doubt." "...Arctic sea ice also reached a record low this year." Did you not read the article all the way through? MattyD 19:06, 30 November 2012 (EST)

None of the other quotes disprove the basic point: there is no global warming crisis, and there obviously never was. Time for Democrats to run along to overhype another issue now?--Andy Schlafly 19:36, 30 November 2012 (EST)
The quote you put on the front page doesn't prove your point. Imagine this: the Dow in 2012 performs better than the 1961-1990 average, and has has its ninth best year since 1850--but not as good a year as the ten years previous. I write an article that says all that. You come on your website and say my article is evidence that the Dow is a foolish investment. do you see how wrong you'd be? MattyD 20:25, 30 November 2012 (EST)
A single outlier in a dataset does not disprove a trend. Global temperatures are increasing on average, in a manner correlated with atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Because of this, we having disappearing glaciers, melting ice caps, a concurrent rise in sea level, and massive loss of farm land. This is pretty settled science (like evolution), however politically unpopular the implication that we must curb our usage of fossil fuels may be.--JHunter 20:56, 30 November 2012 (EST)
But, JHunter, why would God warm the earth, or give us something and get us to use something that warms the earth? And, if evolution js your idea of settled science, then you might just believe anything. WHooper 22:17, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Oh Andy...

-chicagotony, toasty in boston

Chicagotony, global warming skepticism climbs during tough economic times.[62] Sorry Charlie, when a U.S. and global recession hits which shouldn't be too far away,[63] global warming hysteria is going to take a back seat and jobs, jobs, jobs is going to rise in importance on the political front.Conservative 00:49, 1 December 2012 (EST)

So what? Since when aren't jobs foremost in people's minds? The issue is that we are facing a problem that needs to be addressed. You call it "hysteria." I call it foresight. Andy says there is no global warming crisis. Should we wait until there is one? How much ice has to melt and how much do the oceans have to rise before we call it a crisis? (Ask the Maldivians.)Should we wait until all the fossil fuels are gone then decide it's time to find alternatives? Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, common sense says that there is a finite amount of coal, natural gas and oil. The smart thing to do is invest now and develop alternatives. -chicagotony

BTW, Weather forecast for December 2nd -5th in BOSTON: 55, 55, 60, 52. - CT

Chicagotony, jobs are not foremost in people's minds when it is an employee's market.[64] That is the one of the big problems with liberals. They don't understand basic economics! Conservative 04:54, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Still not the point but wrong again. And notice the "hysteria" about the environment.

And conservatives can't understand how the deficit got so high after two wars and two tax cuts. Who really doesn't understand basic economics?


Chicagotony, given Obama's huge run up of the federal deficit and Bush's big spending "compassionate conservatism" which was faux conservatism at best, you are hardly in position to complain. Plus, the conservative George Washington warned of the dangers foreign entanglements. Fiscal conservatives certainly can take exception to ill advised wars and have done so repeatedly. And remember, it is Obama who ramped up troop level in Afghanistan. See also: Paleoconservative. Furthermore, it is the irrational big spending that is the core problem.
Lastly, you haven't show that global warming alarmism is going to get significant legislative traction in the next 5 years or beyond and overcome increased resistance during tougher economic times. Conservative 17:39, 3 December 2012 (EST)

I never said I would. If you recall, THE POINT of this thread is that despite 2012 being cooler than average for the decade, global warming is real. Nobody said anything about jobs, people's opinions, Washington, evolution, the Easter Bunny or any of the other tripe you ramble on about. Sea levels are rising, as are temperatures. Period. What people think about it or whether it's important to them is another subject altogether - chicagotony

Chicagotony, Barack Obama Signs Bill to Exempt US Airlines from EU Aviation Carbon Tax.[65]. Et tu, Obama?
I think you need to get used to liberal politicians giving the global warming debate lip service and half hearted efforts plus Republicans being bolder to attack global warming alarmism. Conservative 17:20, 4 December 2012 (EST)

Water on Mercury

Ummmm, water ice on Mercury is not evidence of a flood on Earth. The solar system (and much of the observable universe) has tons of water in it; for instance, Europa (a moon of Jupiter) is covered by a layer of water ice at least 60 miles thick. In fact, water is the most common chemical compound in the universe. Because of Mercury's lack of an appreciable atmosphere, temperatures near the poles (and anywhere else not exposed directly to sunlight) hover around -280 degrees Fahrenheit. Finding water ice at those temperatures on any terrestrial body is not particularly surprising.--JHunter 20:56, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Second most common. --Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:37, 1 December 2012 (EST)
While water is the second most common molecule in the universe (after molecular hydrogen), it is also the most common compound (molecule with atoms of more than one element). The second and third most abundant compounds in the universe are methane and ammonia, respectively.--JHunter 20:10, 1 December 2012 (EST)
Jupiter is much, much further from the sun than Mercury is. Even old universe advocates are struggling to explain why there is so much ice on Mercury. The Earth as the source seems more plausible than any other theory.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 1 December 2012 (EST)
The closest Mercury ever gets to Earth is 57 million miles, and it is a very small target at that distance. It seems plausible to you that water ejected from Earth would 1. not diffuse through the vastness of interplanetary space and 2. hit a small target that far away. MattyD 23:15, 1 December 2012 (EST)
It would take a massive deluge of epic proportions, and a fairly recently one at that. Perhaps water completely covering the Earth about 5000 years ago?--Andy Schlafly 23:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, perhaps it's also possible, (and in my mind, more likely), that the water was always there? It is highly plausible, as water is the most common compound in the entire universe, and should the old earth theory be true, also the oldest. here, a massive cloud of water, some 140 trillion earths in mass, has been detected in deep space. brenden 23:22, 1 December 2012 (EST)
If the water on Mercury could be explained that way, why not the water on Jupiter's moon? how is that any less plausible? It's just a few million miles more, after all? Why not the water that makes up comet ice? Why not the water on an extra solar planet? If a few million miles, why not a few billion miles? MattyD 23:23, 1 December 2012 (EST)

I don't like this explanation - it looks like an attempt to find evidence which fits a foregone conclusion. The water on Mercury could always have been there and there's no need to explain it any further. WilcoxD 20:14, 2 December 2012 (EST)

God putting ice on Mercury at the time of creation seems the best explanation as far as lining up with historical probabilities and Occam's razor. The creationist Walt Brown has had accomplishments and I don't want to diminish those accomplishments in any way and I like his website overall. However, there are a number of competing flood geology models and there is no certainty that Brown's model is correct.[66][67] Furthermore, even if Brown's hydroplate model for the biblical flood is correct, it seems unlikely that water would successfully reach Mercury. Conservative 16:23, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Big Bang rethought

Scientists have claimed that one event created our universe- the Big Bang. But in an infinite universe, the unknown exists. This science article presents a theory that should be explored further. Inside every black hole is another universe. The big bang would not be a singular event but could happen time after time. Not just one universe but many universes. [68] --Jpatt 21:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)

Doesn't square with Genesis. MattyD 22:20, 1 December 2012 (EST)
The current astronomy is a big mess when it comes to the past. It has big problems and no explanatory power about the distant past. That is because it relies on naturalism. Plus, it is impossible to do repeatable experiments about the universes distant past. Conservative 15:24, 2 December 2012 (EST)

““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.[184]

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 175

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the Milky Way galaxy:

". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. Conservative 18:28, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Conservative, you can quote mine all you like to accentuate the current gaps in scientific knowledge (although the processes of stellar formation and galactic formation are actually relatively well understood--true to form, your chosen quotes are wildly out of context) but the lack of a perfectly clear understanding of a process does not imply that said process requires supernatural influences.--JHunter 02:11, 3 December 2012 (EST)

JHunter, one of the reasons why agnostics/atheists have such a low stature and credibility in much of the world is due to arrogance and dishonesty. See: Atheism and deception and Views on atheists. For example, please show the Cristina Chiappini quote was taken out of context. Conservative 03:27, 3 December 2012 (EST)
I'll have my daughter pull the article for me. Let me ask you one question before I spend time reading it. Have YOU read it? If so, post a sentence from the article other than your quote. One that isn't in the abstract. Thanks. Nate 10:35, 3 December 2012 (EST)
Conservative, your quote of Chiappini is out of context because her rather prosaic introduction is intended to present and summarize new findings regarding the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. That she highlights the gaps in prior and current understanding before doing so is just stylistically logical. Good science writing should emphasize the unknowns over the knowns.
Science is all about finding holes in current paradigms and theories. There is nothing more exciting than an experimental result or observation that forces you to rework your entire hypothesis. To quote Richard Feynman, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."--JHunter 14:06, 3 December 2012 (EST)
JHunter, you didn't show that the quote was pulled out of context. I suggest you look up the word show in the dictionary. Conservative 17:28, 3 December 2012 (EST)
I don't have the time to play chess with a pigeon tonight. Here's the full text of the article to illustrate the meaning of my previous statement.--JHunter 21:35, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks for link. It more graphically shows the failure of naturalistic "explanations" of the Milky Way galaxy! I can see why you are reluctant to play this game of chess because you were checkmated so early! Conservative 23:31, 3 December 2012 (EST)

JHunter, by the way, my favorite places to play chess are Yahoo chess and with a local restaurant owner. These opponents are far more challenging than you! Conservative 04:04, 4 December 2012 (EST)

This time the excuse was a minor rib injury, but the reality is that the liberal media want to exclude the pro-life Tebow.

Any evidence that you have to support an accusation of mendacity against the Jets' coaching staff? MattyD 23:27, 2 December 2012 (EST)

There is no "accusation of mendacity." To what are you referring?--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 2 December 2012 (EST)
The Jets said that Tim Tebow couldn't play because of an injury. You said the "real reason" was otherwise. If the stated reason wasn't the real reason, somebody was lying. MattyD 23:51, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Making excuses is not always "lying".--Andy Schlafly 23:54, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Does Tebow have a rib injury that prevents him from playing? MattyD 23:55, 2 December 2012 (EST)
I am hoping Tebowmania will be much more exciting in 2013. This year was anti-climatic due to Tebow's rib injury. I know that 2013 is going to be a very exciting year for an important culture war battle. 2016 will probably have a more exciting presidential election than the Failed liberal President vs. Smug RINO election we had this year. 2020 is going to be fantastic! Conservative 00:24, 3 December 2012 (EST)

"...the liberal media want to exclude the pro-life Tebow."

Why would they want to do that? All I hear is Tim Tebow this, Tim Tebow that. If the media want to "exclude" Tebow, why do they talk about him so much? Skip Bayless and Steven A. Smith spend hours talking about Tebow. The media is in business to make money. Tebow is nothing if not a lightning rod and the media would love for him to play because it gives them something to talk about concerning the biggest market in America. I'm watching Sports Center right now and 15 minutes in, they haven't even mentioned the Jets. You can bet your bottom they would have been the lead story had he played.

On another note: Two cracked ribs are a "minor injury?" -chicagotony

They are to anyone who hasn't had to put up with it/them. It is obvious that Andy and Cons. have never had this sort of injury - cracked/ broken/bruised ribs, injured webbing etc., You actually have to do something for it to happen. As the doctor said the last time it happened to me: "Just try not to breath." AlanE 01:15, 3 December 2012 (EST)
AlanE, I don't get why you are saying that I said Tebow should have been played post rib injury. Where did I say that? Conservative 04:05, 3 December 2012 (EST)
Yes Cons; you're right. You didn't. My apologies. AlanE 15:57, 3 December 2012 (EST)
I will point out that the Jets won today without Tebow. JunoD 01:27, 3 December 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure I understand the point being made here. Not playing Tebow is not a decision that is made by the "liberal media," it's made by the Jets. JunoD 01:38, 3 December 2012 (EST)
There is no point. Mr. Schlafly is taking a gratuitous shot at ... liberals I guess ... based on this tortured analysis that Tebow isn't getting played enough because of some bias against conservatives. Mr. Schlafly seems to believe that "devoutly religious" means politically "conservative", which isn't necessarily true in my experience. Who really knows anything about Tebow's actual political views when he doesn't talk about them? All we know is that he's the son of Baptist missionaries, flouts NFL rules by painting Bible verses in his eye black, and was homeschooled. Nothing necessarily follows from that. Mr. Schlafly is flat out ignoring that there are very good reasons for not playing Tim Tebow now that he's in NYC, not that he was a stranger to the bench before Mr. Schlafly ever heard of him: he's not a good quarterback. Nobody thinks he's a good passer or leader. The only arguments you'll hear are that he might shape up at some point. He's a fair runner, but I'd take 10 guys over him. I'm sure the Broncos are super happy he sold a lot of jerseys but they and the Jets are finding that they both paid way too much for the guy. Surely there are better football players to celebrate for the right reasons. Nate 10:32, 3 December 2012 (EST)
Well there is a surprise, Schlafly taking a gratuitous shot at liberals. Is this an example of Conservative Deceit? Almost certainly. Now I wonder how long it takes Brian MacDonald to block me. It's funny, he blocks so many people for usernames that aren't "real names" and his is Karajou. Same with Conservative. I look forward to 2016 as well Ken, when the Democrats win again.
I'm sure if tebow had enough painkillers/willingness/ allowed to he could have played with the broken rib, MotoGP riders regularly ride with broken collar bones, feet, legs, arms, shins and various other dings and dongs. It all comes down to whether they are willing or not. If Playing with a multitude of injuries was and to a lesser extent still is common in League and Union. If I remember correctly Darren Lockyer played 15 minutes in a quarter final last year with a broken nose and chin. Dvergne 01:41, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Bert Trautmann played the 1956 English soccer FA Cup final with a broken neck. He didn't know it was broken though. Rafael 09:37, 4 December 2012 (EST)

Nate, you are wrong - again! Nate, wrote concerning Tim Tebow: "Nobody thinks he's a good passer or leader." I cite Yahoo sports concerning Tim Tebow: "Despite the fact that they're both known for their competitiveness and leadership, Tebow was built more like a linebacker, and wasn't quite sure how far the comparisons go between the two."[69] Once again, you sure your unwarranted prejudice against evangelicals! Conservative 00:48, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Cons. - I tried to parse "Once again, you sure your unwarranted prejudice against evangelicals!" and couldn't. C'mon mate...slow down and smell the roses. AlanE 01:06, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Don't bother Alan. He took me saying "nobody" to mean literally nobody. I'd be inclined to say he's not a careful reader or just not very smart if he didn't also use his blatant misconstruction to tell the despicable lie that I have an "unwarranted prejudice against evangelicals!" For the love of God we're talking about whether this guy is a good quarterback, "Conservative". What's wrong with you? How can you stand acting like this? Nate 10:22, 5 December 2012 (EST)
NateK, Tebow succeeded in Denver despite his current level of throwing ability. He definitely energized the team and the fans and had leadership ability. He helped his team win games in a significant way. Hence, there was Tebowmania.
Your allegation about Tebow's supposed inability as far as leadership was obviously not motivated by logic/reason, but by impure motives. You are a Catholic liberal who was upset by a flamboyant evangelical and conservative football player who was successful and had a lot of publicity concerning his success. It is obvious. No use in denying it. Just come clean and admit you are a petty Catholic liberal upset by the success of Tim Tebow in Denver. Conservative 12:15, 5 December 2012 (EST)

The fact that there's a player who might be good but isn't really getting a shot is totally normal for the NFL. I can name quite a number of players who had brief good runs and never got a chance again; that is the unfortunate life in the NFL. Guys who maybe would be great if they're given a shot aren't always given a shot. Just because one of these guys happens to be a very public evangelical doesn't mean it's discrimination. Now is there something to be said about a league that gives more shots to a dog abuser (full disclosure I think Michael Vick has done a lot of good work for animals since he was released from prison) or a guy who drunkenly kills a man while driving? (Donte Stallworth)? Sure. But this isn't the way to go about it. Why would Robert Griffin III - who we currently cite in MPR - be allowed to play if there was some overarching conspiracy against religious football players? Why would prayer circles be such a common thing if athletes should be afraid to express their religion? Or how about athletes thanking God every year at the ESPYs? These things wouldn't happen in a world where Tim Tebow is only kept on the bench because of his faith.--IDuan 12:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Driven down

"An evolutionist tries to grab the moral ground, but he quickly driven down the creation vs. evolution mountain". Even if one were to add the words 'high' and 'is' to this sentence, I don't think it would make any sense. You have a fairly egregious combination of mixed metaphor and bad grammar there. Since it's the lead item on the Main Page, it'd be smart to fix it.

"citing Proverbs 3:5-6 on his Tweeter account"

It's Twitter, not "Tweeter." GregG 21:52, 4 December 2012 (EST)

"Tweeter account" - an account that allows tweeting??? Good catch - I thought there something was wrong with it. It's corrected now.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Why aren't there as many atheist sports stars?

Because the liberal media controls the NFL. You said so just a couple of days ago, remember? MattyD 22:13, 4 December 2012 (EST)

Atheist Formula 1 driver Fernando Alonso was the best driver this season although he did not win the world championship, although he came pretty close only loosing to Sebastian Vettel by 3 points. However the Jesus Ute didn't do so well this year, shocking reliability and got caught up in too many shunts. Dvergne 23:42, 4 December 2012 (EST)
No, I don't recall saying that the liberal media "controls" the NFL. Do you have a quote? But the liberal media certainly does influence the NFL. After all, the liberal media is the NFL's biggest customer.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Influence, control, whatever. Either there's a lack of atheist sports stars, or guys like Tebow don't get a fair shake because of their faith. You can't have it both ways. MattyD 00:16, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Speaking of Tebow?

At least one Canadian team is interested in bringing him to the CFL. 110-yard field/three-down football makes it a passer's league. MattyD 10:05, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Too bad he can't throw a football. Nate 10:22, 5 December 2012 (EST)

President for life

Do you have any proof for the assertion that Obama wants to be president for life terryh, or are you just making stuff up? Jacopo 12:55, 5 December 2012 (EST)

The NFL and Notre Dame

What was that headline? I can't remember. Something about the atheistic NFL and #1 Notre Dame. If I recall correctly, it seemed to imply the NFL should be more like ND...


Featured on Conservapedia?

What am I missing? The main page is divided into 2 sections, the one on the left is called "Featured on Conservapedia". The title would lead one to think that it would contain items that were actually featured on Conservapedia. Yet, almost always the links lead to some offsite article. Am I wrong in assuming that the links should promote Conservapedia content? Or is this some sort of paid sponsorship section featuring content from other sites? If so, it would go a long way to explaining why the site always links to "" and that Darwin fansite blog. --DonnyC 21:42, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Evolutionists, like all liberals, excel at whining. I hope you don't think your whining will make a difference because it most certainly will not. See also: Liberal whining Conservative 04:36, 6 December 2012 (EST)
Not all those who believe in evolution are liberals. I, for one, am not. GregG 10:02, 6 December 2012 (EST)
"Conservative", your reply doesn't make any sense. See also:Non sequitur --DonnyC 14:04, 6 December 2012 (EST)
DonnyC, your hair splitting on the meaning of "Featured on Conservapedia" or the degree of on domain content vs. off domain content that will be featured on the main page is going nowhere. Just admit it.
There is a game plan in place in terms of main page left, but unfortunately for you, you are an evolutionist so you will never be privy to it!
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu Conservative 15:36, 6 December 2012 (EST)
"Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent." - Conrad, Heart of Darkness
--JohanZ 17:13, 6 December 2012 (EST)

JohanZ. Joseph Conrad's works were largely a precursor of modernist literature. He was also a coward who unsuccessfully attempted to kill himself with a gunshot to the chest. In short, he was a small-minded man and a writer whose works are vastly inferior to the works of writers such as John Bunyan, Homer, Anton Chekhov, Robert Louis Stevenson, Charles Dickens, Lewis Carroll, O. Henry, Herman Melville and many others. I am unimpressed by your Joseph Conrad Heart of Darkness quote and you quoting him reflects very badly on you.  :) Conservative 18:17, 6 December 2012 (EST)

"Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech—and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives—he called them enemies!—hidden out of sight somewhere."
Lots of love, --JohanZ 19:23, 6 December 2012 (EST)

"Human beings in the evolutionary scheme are reduced to the status of mere animals"

This is absolutely false. As a Catholic who believes in evolution, I can assure you that God gives humans a rational human soul at the time of human conception. Animals receive only an animal soul, which is only material, not spiritual. Humans can sin. Animals are incapable of sinning. [70] GregG 10:00, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Liberal theistic evolutionists work hand in hand with atheist/agnostic evolutionists. They are buddies. The atheist Eugenie Scott works hard to keep harmony between these camps and theistic evolutionists go along with this despite the fact that the evolutionism taught in American schools is atheistic and Charles Darwin and the biggest booster of evolutionism post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. See: Evolution. It is not surprising that the theistic evolutionist/atheist evolutionists feel so comfortable together as they are opposing biblical creation. Birds of feather, flock together!Conservative 15:23, 6 December 2012 (EST)
Theistic evolution is entirely consistent with what Genesis teaches: that God is the ultimate author of everything. GregG 21:34, 6 December 2012 (EST)
The false God of theistic evolutionism is a cruel God that purposefully created untold suffering through countless harmful mutations while the God of biblical creation is a masterful God who created a very good creation.[71] Theistic evolutionism is contrary to important biblical doctrines.[72]
By the way, GregG, how is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists?Conservative 22:33, 6 December 2012 (EST)
Why are you calling God "false"? We both believe in the same divine Being and recognize Him as Lord, regardless of our opinions of the history of the universe.
Whether or not evolution happened, it is undisputed that there are untold numbers of people today who do indeed suffer from certain genetic disorders (Klinefelter's, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, and Huntington's disease, to name just a few). My prayers are with those people and their caretakers, who suffer many burdens associated with these conditions but nevertheless have a unique perspective on the suffering that the Son of God suffered to take away our sins. I would recommend reading Colossians 1:24, [73], and [74]. GregG 23:25, 6 December 2012 (EST)
GregG, given your inability and Kenneth Miller's inability to answer the 15 questions for evolutionists which address fundamental and important issues, I think you can end the pretense "whether or not evolution happened".[75]. Second, biblical creationism gives a clear answer to genetic disorders and death in humans - they are both a result of the fall of man.[76] Theistic evolutionism fails on this issue and offers a false and cruel God who purposefully created untold suffering through countless harmful mutations. The God of the Bible is a just and kind God.
GregG, you wanted to live in a make believe world where a Pope Pius XII did not act inappropriately when it came to Nazi Germany (which practiced evolutionary racism) and where Kenneth Miller could effectively answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. We both know that this world does not exist. Please do not waste my time with your make believe world. The cocoon of that world has long been punctured. Conservative 01:13, 7 December 2012 (EST)

First of all, I used the phrase "whether or not evolution happened" to indicate that the theological problem of why God allows harmful genetic disorders to continue today does not depend on one's belief in young earth creation or theistic evolution. I do believe that there were two human beings with human souls who committed the first sin. Your explanation for why God allows genetic disorders in humans to occur (which is, incidentally, a theological question, and not a scientific question) is consistent with both our positions.

The 15 questions remind me of DA Trotter's question in this exchange from My Cousin Vinny:

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a [BS] question.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a [BS] question, it's impossible to answer.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!

Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!

D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?

Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.

Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

With regards to your continued attacks on my Catholic faith (Pius XII and his alleged support of Nazism), please see [77]. Thanks, GregG 09:03, 7 December 2012 (EST)

The problem with your poor analogy is that the "car" of macroevolution has no functioning parts and there are no traces of there being any factories. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?[78]
Re: Pope Pius XII - Hitler's Pope. [79]Conservative 13:42, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Pearl Harbor Day

Is today. Perhaps there should be a tribute on the main page to all of the brave men and women we lost on that fateful day.--LouieD 13:45, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Are you saying that remembering Pearl Harbor is more important than Conservative's/ShockOfGod's/Ken's creationism blog? For shame! --Jturner 20:10, 7 December 2012 (PST)

"Obama to take corporate cash for inauguration."

Andy, did you read all the way to the end of the article? "In some ways, Obama is returning to tradition. Previous presidents accepted large corporate contributions for their inaugurations. George W. Bush, for example, took a slew of $250,000 checks from companies that included Bank of America, Pfizer and Exxon Mobil." MattyD 20:41, 7 December 2012 (EST)

So George W. Bush is the standard for liberal presidents now??? It appears that Obama truly has "grown" after four years in office!--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 7 December 2012 (EST)
Perhaps Obama is actually more conservative than you give him credit for, what with him emulating one. MattyD 23:54, 7 December 2012 (EST)
Minus the campaign rhetoric and a couple token social policies (e.g. the repeal of DADT), Obama's record does look more like that of a moderate Republican than that of a liberal Democrat. That's the frustrating thing about him, if you ask me. He doesn't have the spine to play ball with the wingnuts.--JHunter 00:47, 8 December 2012 (EST)
Obama is saving his true agenda for his third term :). --DamianJohn 03:30, 8 December 2012 (EST)

"Whores" on the front page.

Conservative? Family-friendly? MattyD 13:22, 9 December 2012 (EST)

Is the Bible conservative? Is the Bible family friendly? Do the Old Testament and New Testament both use the word whore? Evidently, someone hasn't been regularly reading their Bible! Conservative 14:05, 9 December 2012 (EST)
What is new about this anyway. It's just a beat up. It's been happening forever. I remember reading a magazine article about girls doing this sort of thing to get through uni when I lived in Sydney. "Newsweek", "Time" , one of those. I left Sydney in 1965! AlanE 14:42, 9 December 2012 (EST)
"Is the Bible family friendly?" I certainly don't think Song of Solomon, for one, is age-appropriate for a minor child. What we mean by "family-friendly" is that there is no content that would be objectionable to minor children; hence, a "family friendly" work is one that families can enjoy together. GregG 14:55, 9 December 2012 (EST)
AlanE, I found this news story via Google news using the keyword search term "economic collapse". I suggest you talk to the Google software engineers if you have any further complaints. :) Conservative 15:33, 9 December 2012 (EST)
An interesting choice of artist. A Swedenborgian by faith, a utopian anarchist by politics.Rafael 15:52, 9 December 2012 (EST)
I just did a Google search at Google USA for the search term "evolutionist women".[80] Given that a university study links evolutionism with moral decline,[81] I was fully expecting it to pull up some brothel in Denmark or Sweden, but instead it brought up Charles Darwin's teaching of female inferiority for the first two Google search results! The #3 search result was the article "Atheist and evolutionist women are like drippy faucets! Long haired, creationist, wife sweethearts are fruitful and multiply. The righteous shall inherit the earth!".[82] :) Conservative 15:56, 9 December 2012 (EST)

Sigh... AlanE 16:01, 9 December 2012 (EST)

AlanE, evolutionists have some strange and perverted sexual predilections. See: Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality and Evolutionary belief and bestiality. Conservative 16:06, 9 December 2012 (EST)
I don't doubt some do. There are lots of wierd and lonely people in this world. But if you want to check into strange and perverted sexual predilections go for it. It's not my scene. AlanE 16:43, 9 December 2012 (EST)
There are certainly a lot of lonely Darwinists/atheists estranged from God which is not surprising since Charles Darwin was an atheist/agnostic. See: Atheism and suicide. A spiritual void is commonly filled with various sins/perversions. Conservative 17:02, 9 December 2012 (EST)
I was going to show my 10 year old son this website before you put this on the frontpage... MDougall 17:13, 9 December 2012 (EST)
Yes Cons. I think it would be in good taste if that piece of porn was removed. AlanE 17:31, 9 December 2012 (EST)17:19, 9 December 2012 (EST)
Liberals and evolutionists get upset when I air their dirty laundry in public. :) It is time they threw out their filthy rags of liberalism/evolutionism and put on radiant biblical creationism garments. Unlike the evolutionism infested UK, you don't see too many brothels, pole-dancers and lap-dancers in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania!
"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” - Jesus Conservative 17:38, 9 December 2012 (EST)

I am not a liberal or evolutionist, I would just like this site to be family friendly. MDougall 17:44, 9 December 2012 (EST)

Better late than never, I suppose. Thank you. AlanE 02:12, 10 December 2012 (EST)

The liberal media and football.

Schlafly, I'm confused. The liberal media keeps Tebow from playing because he's a conservative Christian. But the Heisman Trophy winner is selected in large part by sportscasters, who are media, so they must be liberal. But they gave the award to an outspoken Christian conservative. How can that be? MattyD 22:24, 9 December 2012 (EST)

The NFL is a lot higher in the sport and media food chain, the liberal biased and owned media can't completely shut out conservative sports stars as the general uninformed public would soon catch on. Dvergne 11:09, 10 December 2012 (EST)

"Can't completely shut out conservative sports stars..." So according to this website, the media has the power to decide who or who doesn't play for an NFL team and engineer a vast conspiracy to decide who wins the Heisman. There are 870 Heisman voters, from every region of the country, quite a few from the South and Fox. Dvergne, you're saying that 474 of them got together and decided they had to give it to Manziel because they had to allow a conservative star to win or the "general uniformed public" would catch on? Back to reality Mr. Rourke: Manziel won because he was the best offensive player and no purely defensive player has ever won the award. If Te'o had won, would there have been a mass outcry? I seriously doubt it. Once again, it has nothing to do with ideology. And by the way, how do you know Manziel is conservative? Because he thanked god? Owning a fake driver's license certainly doesn't sound like a very conservative quality.


Manziel was so far above the other contenders that the liberal media would have lost credibility if they denied him the Heisman Trophy. It's when there is a closer question, such as playing Tim Tebow, that the liberal media has a bigger effect.--Andy Schlafly 13:34, 10 December 2012 (EST)

You don't know who voted for whom. 321 voters gave Te'o first place votes. Have they lost credibility? No, because you don't know who they are. Your constant contention that there is a liberal conspiracy is laughable. Tell me, is Erin Andrews of Fox Sports a liberal? Robbie Andrew of the Gainesville Sun? How about Christine Brennan of USA Today? If they are, how did they vote? MattyD is right. One minute you say that the liberal media keeps Tebow from playing because he's conservative, (the so-called "effect" of the media you still haven't explained). Then you say the liberal media would lose credibility if they didn't give a conservative the Heisman. Which is it? Face it, the truth is sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. His ideology and the media have nothing to do with it. Manziel won because he's an exciting offensive player. That's it. - chicagotony

In college football news, let's make it official: change the name of the award to the Heisman Trophy for the Quarterback or Running Back Who Receives Most Publicity. Johnny Manziel :::had a fabulous season, but he might be a one-year wonder. Manti Te'o had four straight fabulous seasons and helped accomplish something widely viewed as impossible: putting a :::school with higher academic standards than the NCAA requires into the national title game.
The media panel that chooses the Heisman deserves the censure for endlessly picking quarterbacks or running backs. Is it because full-time professional sportswriters truly believe :::only these positions matter -- or because they never look at anyone other than quarterbacks and running backs? TMQ touted Te'o as the winner and Chance Warmack as runner-up. :::Some Heisman selectors may not even know who Warmack is. Many have never watched him, instead of watching the ball.
For Manziel, being the first frosh to win the Heisman may turn out to be a curse. The Good Book warns, "Woe unto you when all speak well of you." Expectations are now so high that if :::he's anything less than an ongoing star followed by a top NFL draft choice, people will say, "There goes the guy who won the Heisman as a freshman then never did anything else." :::Texas A&M is of course delighted, because the college keeps the status no matter what becomes of the young man. But Manziel may well come to rue the day.

Emphasis added.


Problems with Atheism in England & Wales

According to the preliminary results of the UK 2011 census released this morning: "The number of residents [in England and Wales] who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011." [83] Is there not some sort of internet campaign that can be run to stop this decline? NicosB 09:27, 11 December 2012 (EST)

It seems as if these 4 big things are happening: 1) More people are conservative Christians in much of the world and/or conservative religious immigrants are moving to developed countries. In France, the fastest growing religion is evangelicalism. Some of these conservative Christians are being labeled "no religion" because they are non-denominational and often prefer the label of spiritual rather than religious 2) Liberal Christianity is losing adherents to conservative Christianity, no religious affiliation but still theists, deists or agnostics/atheists. 3) The survey companies need to do a much better job in probing what "no religion" people are (non-denomination Christians, theists, deists or agnostics/atheists, etc.). I don't know what is happening in the UK, but in the United States the percentage of people who are agnostics/atheists does not seem to be changing dramatically right now and atheists have a very bad reputation. 4) Plus, the publicity associated with New Atheism has largely subsided in the United States. The web traffic for Richard Dawkins website and many other atheist websites is significantly down. See: Internet atheism.
Since many liberal Christians are not serious about Christianity losing them to another worldview like agnosticism/atheism/deism/paganism/belief in some ill-defined God is causing them to move to one "not saved" camp to another "not saved" camp. In either case, they are not true Christians. Consider this: "In 1984 things in the Anglican Church in England reached a new low when its liberal faction appointed Rev. David Jenkins as the new Bishop of Durham. David Jenkins was a liberal theologian of the worst kind: he believed that Jesus was born out of fornication, that Jesus isn’t God, and that he never rose up from the grave. Less than 3 days after Jenkins’ consecration in York Minster cathedral in Durham, a single 1 million volt bolt of lightning hit this largest Gothic cathedral in Northern Europe – and burnt the entire south transept down to the ground. Ever irreverent, and displaying a complete absence of any fear of God, the newly appointed bishop remarked, ‘If it was God, he missed.’ Here are the facts: The cathedral had just been renovated for millions. It was specially equipped with state of the art fire alarms and lightning conductors – which failed. It had been a cloudless day, except for reports of a small cloud that had circled the cathedral. Shortly after midnight, 1 million volts of lightning struck, silently - and the cathedral burst into flames. Everyone in the weather office believed it was an act of God. At the end of 1984 the religious ‘Photo of the Year’ in the secular press was a picture of the burnt-down cathedral, entitled ‘The Wrath of God’."[84]
In the longer term and for the foreseeable future, secularism will reverse itself soon in much of the West due to religious people having more kids, secularists having sub-replacement levels of births, the weaker theists being picked off and the more resistant ones to be left which will make it more difficult for secularism, immigration from religious immigrants and religious conservatives doing evangelism. See: Decline of atheism and Global atheism and Internet evangelism
Harder economic times often sees people get more serious. This is generally bad news for atheism, agnosticism, weak/frivolous religion. The Western nations are deeply in debt. Harder times will likely come. It is already happening in Greece and to a lessor extent in some European countries. The economic waters could get very rough. When the Soviet Union collapses basic care of people suffered. Some people could not get insulin for example. In Mexico things have gotten tough and many people are flocking to evangelicalism.
For sources of the above information and more information see: Religious and secular trends and Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline
I hope that helps. Conservative 11:19, 12 December 2012 (EST)
Except of course much of that report from South Africa is not accurate. It had in fact been a stormy night with much 'spectacular lightning storms' and it had not been recently renovated. Sorry, those are all urban myths. Davidspencer 11:51, 12 December 2012 (EST)
If memory serves, I seem to recall reading from a mainstream news source that the insurance company might not pay for the (liberal) churches claim because the lightning strike was "an act of God". Lightning seems to be the best explanation for the fire. Needless to say, they shouldn't have ordained him! :) Conservative 11:57, 12 December 2012 (EST)
Lightning is ALWAYS classed as an act of God in the UK and you will find it very hard to insure against damage caused by it under any circumstances. And no-one said the fire was not caused by lightning, however it had not been a cloudless day, it was a day on which there were 'spectacular lightning storms' lighting the sky above the city. Davidspencer 12:05, 12 December 2012 (EST)
As far as it being a lightning "strike from the blue" sky which sometimes happens to people [85], I did not this particular claim until just a few minutes ago, but I read other accounts where they did not claim this. I was up late last night and I was a little groggy. I should have fact checked the lightning "strike from the blue" sky account. Your source seems more credible. Conservative 12:17, 12 December 2012 (EST)

License plates

Your link for the unconstitutional license-plate story is wrong. Try something like this: --Esseph 09:40, 11 December 2012 (EST)

Great catch. Will correct now. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 10:14, 11 December 2012 (EST)

Re Failure to block ShalifM

In the middle of my flurry of reverts and blocks a bit before nine this morning my time, I was forced to leave the house in a hurry for an appointment of my wife's I had forgotten about. My apologies for allowing that ShalifM to continue his stupidity. AlanE 18:00, 12 December 2012 (EST)

No problem at all. Thanks for your reverts and blocks.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 12 December 2012 (EST)